> I did say that if I had to chose between "federal crime" or prank that I'd chose prank.
Sure, but that's a false dichotomy. The author was under no such constraint, so it was sensationalist and misleading for him to keep referring to it as a prank.
And when I say that, I'm not casting judgement here. The Boston Tea Party and the Rosa Parks protest weren't pranks either.
I don't think I said that! I did say that if I had to chose between "federal crime" or prank that I'd chose prank. But if you extended the list to include misdemeanour or somesuch I guess I could see that.