>"In 1988, Rosenberg was charged with aiding and abetting a series of bombings which took place between 1983 and 1985, at the Capitol building, Fort McNair, the Washington Navy Yard Computer Center and the Washington Navy Yard Officers’ Club, all in Washington, D.C. Bombs were also planted, but did not detonate, at several sites in New York: the FBI’s office in Staten Island, the Israeli Aircraft Industries building, the South African consulate and the New York Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association.
>"However, prosecutors dropped those charges in 1990 as part of a plea deal involving other suspects in the bombings. As a result, Rosenberg was never tried or convicted on any charges relating to the 1983-1985 bombing campaign."
There we go, people are 100% factually incorrect on the claim that she was a convicted terrorist because of the 1983 bombing. Etch it into stone.
As far as actually evaluating the core message, though, the person on Twitter who wrote this is largely accurate and I am confident I know why that person on Twitter used the word "convicted". This is because she was actually convicted charges that any reasonable person would likely categorize under terrorism:
>"Rosenberg was tried and convicted on the following charges: “Conspiracy to possess unregistered firearms, receive firearms and explosives shipped in interstate commerce while a fugitive, and unlawfully use false identification documents …; possession of unregistered destructive devices, possession of unregistered firearm (two counts) …; carrying explosives during commission of a felony"
As for the specific claim that she was convicted for the Capitol bombing, yes, you're right she was never
actually convicted for the 1983 event. However prosecutors believed they had sufficient evidence to charge her for her involvement with it and those charges were ultimately dropped on a plea deal. I can see how an average person would use the words they did when trying to warn about this person. The majority of people making statements about anything are not subjecting their words to the kind of legalistic rigor required to satisfy a fact-checker.
>"How do you square a perceived innocent intent of the first sentence with this doozy of a lie in the second sentence, which obviously serves to bolster the claim of "convicted terrorist".
I really don't think it is that much of a doozy of a lie, to be absolutely honest. It is wrong - as has been proven, extensively at this point - but it is not the same kind of "categorically, undeniably wrong with absolutely 0 relation to the heart of the matter" kind of wrong that I sense is being thrown around.