Former Michigan Army National Guard member charged with plotting mass shooting at Army base on behalf of ISIS
Ammar Abdulmajid-Mohamed Said, 19, was taken into custody Tuesday after he traveled to an area near the U.S. Army's Tank-Automotive & Armaments Command (TACOM) facility at the Detroit Arsenal in Warren, Michigan, and "launched his drone in support of the attack plan," officials said.
"I recommend everyone have about seven magazines because you don't want to be in there and run out of ammo," Said allegedly told an undercover FBI agent in the leadup to the foiled plot, according to a criminal complaint.
Said is now facing charges of attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization and distributing information related to a destructive device. He faces a maximum penalty of 20 years per count if convicted.
Abbey Gate Terror Suspect's Mugshot Revealed As He Makes First Federal Court Appearance
"This defendant is charged with planning a deadly attack on a U.S. military base here at home for ISIS," Sue J. Bai, head of the Justice Department's National Security Division, said in a statement. "Thanks to the tireless efforts of law enforcement, we foiled the attack before lives were lost. We will not hesitate to bring the full force of the Department to find and prosecute those who seek to harm our men and women in the military and to protect all Americans."
Read On The Fox News App
The Justice Department said that in April, "two undercover officers indicated they intended to carry out Said's plan at the direction of ISIS" and "in response, Said provided material assistance to the attack plan, including providing armor-piercing ammunition and magazines for the attack, flying his drone over TACOM to conduct operational reconnaissance, training the undercover employees on firearms and the construction of Molotov cocktails for use during the attack, and planning numerous details of the attack including how to enter TACOM and which building to target."
7 Times Isis Has Inspired Terror Attacks On Us Soil
The criminal complaint stated that around June 2024, Said started communicating with an undercover FBI agent whom he had thought was a fellow ISIS supporter.
"During the course of their interactions, which were audio- and/or video-recorded, Said described his longstanding desire to engage in violent jihad, either by traveling to ISIS-held territory abroad or by carrying out an attack in the United States," the complaint said.
"On July 18, 2024, FBI agents executed a search warrant for Said's iPhone by performing a covert search of that device... when SAID provided it to personnel with the Michigan Army National Guard prior to boarding a military aircraft. During that search, FBI agents identified a Facebook message exchange (in Arabic) that took place on or about October 5, 2023, between Said and another Facebook user located in the Palestinian territories," the complaint continued.
"In that Facebook message exchange, Said stated, 'I want to go for Jihad,' and the other Facebook user replied, 'Talk to me on Telegram.' Agents also determined during the search that Said was a member of multiple channels in the encrypted messaging application Telegram, one of which contained videos and images with ISIS flags," it also said.
The complaint noted that Said enlisted in the Michigan Army National Guard in September 2022 and attended basic training at Fort Moore in Georgia. He later reported to the Michigan Army National Guard Taylor Armory before being discharged around December 2024.
The FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force is leading the investigation into the case.Original article source: Former Michigan Army National Guard member charged with plotting mass shooting at Army base on behalf of ISIS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
DOJ to launch grand jury probe over Russia allegations against Obama officials
Attorney General Pam Bondi on Monday directed Justice Department officials to open a grand jury investigation over how Obama administration officials handled intelligence about Russian interference in the 2016 election. The grand jury probe marks another escalation of the Trump administration's focus on allegations of wrongdoing by Obama officials, including the former president. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has in recent weeks declassified various documents connected to Russia's election interference, claiming it showed 'treasonous conspiracy' by Obama administration officials. 'Following the compelling case outlined by DNI Tulsi Gabbard, which exposed clear and blatant weaponization by corrupt intelligence officials acting at the behest of the Democrat Party and likely former President Obama, the Administration remains committed to conducting a thorough investigation,' White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement. 'This effort aims to provide the American people with the truth about the extent to which former government officials worked to sabotage the Trump administration and undermine the will of the American people in a clear attempt to subvert our Constitutional Republic,' Fields added. Fox News first reported that Bondi had directed the start of a grand jury investigation. The documents Gabbard has released do little to suggest wrongdoing by the intelligence community in seeking to investigate Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 contest. Gabbard and other officials have pushed back on established findings from the intelligence community and a bipartisan Senate panel that Russia showed a preference for then-candidate Donald Trump in the 2016 election. Gabbard has alleged that Obama officials manipulated intelligence to harm Trump. Gabbard referred the documents to the Justice Department and FBI for potential criminal referrals, though the director repeatedly dodged when pressed on what crime former President Obama could be charged with. Obama's office issued a rare public statement calling the document drops a 'distraction' as Trump faced calls to release information about the prosecution of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence under Obama and has faced intense criticism from Trump officials, has called the allegations against him 'patently false and unfounded.'
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Pam Bondi orders grand jury probe of Obama admin review of 2016 election
Attorney General Pam Bondi has directed DOJ prosecutors to launch a grand jury investigation of whether Obama administration officials committed federal crimes when they assessed Russia's actions during the 2016 election, a senior Trump administration official said. The move comes after the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, claimed in a White House press conference last month that top Obama administration officials carried out a 'treasonous conspiracy' against former President Trump. Gabbard said she was sending criminal referrals to the Justice Department. A former senior DOJ official condemned the move as 'a dangerous political stunt.' And a former senior national security official pointed out that multiple past reviews, including ones conducted by Republicans, found no such crimes. "There's no logical, rational basis for this," said the official, who asked not to be named. The senior Trump Administration official said there is no exact timetable for when the grand jury will meet and that it could take months for the proceeding to begin. The news of Bondi's letter was first reported by FOX News. The official said a letter signed by Bondi instructs an unnamed federal prosecutor to begin presenting evidence to a grand jury to secure potential federal indictments. But the letter did not say what the charges would be, who the grand jury will investigate, or where the grand jury will meet. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment. Democratic lawmakers have accused the administration of seeking to distract attention from the Jeffrey Epstein case. Conservative media and influencers have criticized how the administration has handled the case and demand the release of more documents and information. President Trump, Attorney General Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel have all been criticized by conservative media and influencers over their handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation and material related to it. The idea that there was a conspiracy by the Obama administration officials against Trump was contradicted by a 2020 bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee review, which found significant evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Then Senator Marco Rubio, the acting chair of the committee at the time, signed off on the report. The plans for a grand jury investigation are the latest in a series of actions by the Trump administration designed to rewrite the history 2016 election and seek retribution against those the president accuses of trying to sabotage his first term in the White House. Democratic lawmakers and former senior officials say Trump and his deputies have used the tools of government authority to try to 'rewrite' the history of the 2016 election, seeking to reverse an eight-year-old assessment that Russia waged an information war to boost Trump's candidacy. Trump and his supporters have long claimed that intelligence and law enforcement officials sought to undermine his first term by allegedly overstating Russia's interference in the 2016 election and investigating Trump's aides over their possible contacts with Moscow. They have accused former FBI director James Comey and former CIA director John Brennan of using the probes as a way to undermine Trump. A lawyer for Comey did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Comey and Brennan, who is a paid contributor to NBC News and MSNBC, have both denied wrongdoing. The intelligence community's analysis of the 2016 election and subsequent government investigations failed to satisfy the far-right and far-left sides of the American political divide. A probe by special counsel Robert Mueller found that Russia intervened in 2016 to undercut Hillary Clinton. But it did not find evidence thay the Trump team colluded with the Kremlin, as some voices on the left had suggested. At the same time, the special counsel Trump appointed in his first term, John Durham, disappointed far-right activists with his three-year investigation. Durham found no criminal conspiracy among Obama administration officials to fabricate intelligence about Russia's actions in 2016. He also filed no charges against the intelligence officers who oversaw a 2017 assessment that found Russia had tried to skew the election outcome in Trump's favor.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
WILLIAM SHIPLEY: What the Durham Annex tells us about the Russiagate hoax
On July 31 and Aug. 1, The New York Times ran two stories pouring cold water on the release of the previously classified "Annex" to the Report of Special Counsel John Durham dated May 23, 2023. But the authors – Charlie Savage and Adam Goldman – misdirected their readers' attention from the start to a non-issue, with the help of a literally false headline claiming Durham found certain documents in the Annex to have been "faked" by Russian intelligence. That's the basis upon which the Times, Washington Post, Politico, network news, and other legacy media have myopically focused their reporting on the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation of President Trump – which we know was "faked" by the FBI, CIA, and Obama White House. Part of Durham's investigation looked into why the FBI did NOTHING – literally – after first receiving the Russian intelligence information in late July 2016, as contrasted with how the FBI reacted to information nearly 60 days old received from an Australian diplomat about a meeting in a London bar. The Annex includes previously classified information on the receipt of "Special Intelligence" throughout the first part of 2016 from a friendly foreign government, showing Russia's seemingly real-time knowledge of the inner machinations of Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. The Annex is a document authored by Durham's team. Since the source documents upon which the Russian memos were based were not provided – or at least not made public – the accuracy of Russian memos' paraphrasing/referencing to the source documents is unknown. All those qualifiers go to the work of "analysis" – what is this document, where does it originate, what does it say, what does it rely upon, can it be corroborated separately, what is our level of confidence in accepting the contents as accurate at face value, etc.? Two items that have attracted the most attention, and which the Times' stories focus on, are "emails" purportedly written by Leonard Bernardo, dated July 25 and July 27, 2016. Bernardo worked for a George Soros-related entity. His emails were hacked, and he had communications with senior Clinton campaign officials. The Annex does not have actual "emails" as you might find them on Bernardo's computer or a recipient's computer – they have none of the typical email formatting. What they appear to be are "retyped" versions of the text in the body of emails into a Russian language memo, the Russian memo was translated into English, with Durham "cutting & pasting" the English translation into his report. The July 25 "email" includes the allegation that Hillary Clinton approved a plan conceived by a "foreign policy adviser" to "vilify" then-candidate Donald Trump by falsely linking him to Russia Pres. Putin. As for the Russian language memo – we don't know the date -- Durham provides an English translation that includes the following: "According to data from the election campaign headquarters of Hillary Clinton, obtained via the U.S. Soros Foundation, on July 26, 2016, Clinton approved a plan by her policy advisor Juliana Smith … to smear Donald Trump by magnifying the scandal tied to the intrusion Russian special services in the pre-election process to benefit the Republican candidate." The Russian memo says next "As envisioned by Smith…." This suggests that maybe among the documents supporting the memo is a description of Smith's plan either by Smith herself or someone else familiar enough with the details to describe it. "As envisioned by Smith, raising the theme of 'Putin's support for Trump' to the level of the Olympic scandal would divert constituents' attention from the investigation of Clinton's compromised electronic correspondence." The Russian memo, which had to have been written after July 27 since it had contents from a July 27 email in it, describes precisely what followed over the next 100 days leading up to the election – establishing "Putin's support for Trump" was the goal of the supposed "plan." The Russian memo goes on: "…by subsequently steering public opinion towards the notion that it [the public] needs to equate 'Putin's efforts' to influence political processes in the United States via cyberspace to acts against critically important infrastructure (resembling a national power supply network) would force the White House [read "OBAMA"] to use more confrontational scenarios vis-à-vis Moscow…." The memo says the Clinton campaign will seek to blow up the significance of Russian election interference – which happens in every election – by equating it to an attack on vital national infrastructure, and link Putin and Trump together in the effort, i.e., any election interference by Putin is really a proxy for an attack on democracy by Trump. Either the Russian intelligence services are clairvoyant and should be playing the lottery every week, or they wandered into a trove of correspondence between people associated with the Clinton campaign describing precisely the game plan executed by the campaign, and White House, CIA, and FBI on its behalf. The July 27 email attributed to Bernardo is also relatively short in terms of what Durham sets forth as the verbatim text taken from the Russian memo, and it confirms that Clinton approved "Julia's idea." The Times' authors falsely reported that Durham called the two Bernardo emails "fake" – and said that they were "concocted" by Russian intelligence. Hence, according to the Times, all the controversy surrounding the release of Annex materials was made irrelevant by that finding. But Durham didn't conclude the emails were fake. What did he conclude? His team's "best assessment" was that they were "composites" – some portion of the text of each was taken from other sources and combined into the text that appeared under Bernardo's name as an "email." It is clear that Bernardo did not write them, i.e., they are not "authentic." But it is also clear that some amount of the content in each was accurate – and predicted events that would unfold over the next 100 days. Durham reached that conclusion only after a long and involved process designed to understand both what the emails were, and how much of the content of the Special Intelligence was accurate. Everything – and I mean everything -- Durham did to answer those questions were things the FBI chose to NOT DO in or after August 2016. Durham asked intelligence analysts – FBI and CIA presumably – if the emails appeared authentic. Most said that they did. Some noted that Bernardo was, in fact, a victim of hacking by the Russians, so it would not be surprising if his emails were in the Russians' hands. It was noted by some that the Russians could have fabricated or altered the original information taken from the source documents. Just the fact that some analysts believed the emails appeared to be authentic should have been enough to push the FBI into action. But it did nothing. Durham interviewed Bernardo and showed him the emails. The FBI never did that. Bernardo said he did not recognize them, and there was language in them that he would not have used -- specifically the sentence "Later the FBI will put more oil into the fire." Judging intelligence translated from a foreign language is tricky. Bernardo denied using that phrase, but how far off is that from a very similar phrase more commonly used by a native English speaker – "Pour gas onto the fire"? Bernardo's original document would have been in English – then translated to Russian – then the Russian version translated back to English. That's how "gas onto the fire" ends up as "oil into the fire." Bernardo also said he did not know who "Julie" was as referenced in the July 25 email. But he noted that the final sentence in the July 25 email – that "things are ghastly for US-Russian relations" was phrased as something that he would write. Durham gathered documents with grand jury subpoenas and search warrants. He looked for the documents obtained by Russian hackers. As for the July 25 and July 27 emails, Durham did not find those among the emails of the Soros Foundation. But he found other emails – either emails or attachments to emails sent by people other than Bernardo – with language identical to Bernardo. Specifically, a passage in the July 25 email was taken directly from an email written by Tim Mauer, who worked for the Carnegie Endowment as a cyber expert. Mauer had never seen the Bernardo emails but agreed that one passage was taken from an email he had sent to colleagues at Carnegie – also hacked by the Russians. Durham also interviewed Julianne Smith, who was a Clinton campaign foreign policy advisor, and who did involve herself in efforts to amplify the threat of the Putin-Trump relationship to U.S. national security. It is noteworthy that Durham begins this portion as follows: "Smith stated she did not specifically remember proposing a plan to Clinton or other Campaign leadership to try to tie Trump to Putin and Russia." That phrasing is never accidental – "did not specifically remember" leaves much room to extricate oneself if a document emerges later that says what it is you claim to not remember. Agents are trained to note such phrases exactly as stated by the person being interviewed. Smith did say "it was possible" she had proposed ideas to campaign leadership "who may have approved those ideas." Again – Durham is showing her emails about a "Clinton Plan" she supposedly hatched, and she cannot be confident what other documents he might have that he isn't showing her. While she didn't remember much of anything about anything, the one thing she was certain of is that she would never have made a proposal that had as part of its execution the involvement of the FBI in furtherance of the effort. Prior to Durham, the FBI did none of this – and has never offered an explanation for why. THAT was the point made by Durham's Annex.
