Report: Secret Service Investigating "Kill Him" Shriek At Palin Rally
Scranton's Times-Tribune, which reported yesterday that a man yelled "kill him" about Barack Obama at a Sarah Palin rally, now says the Secret Service is getting involved:
The U.S. Secret Service is investigating a threatening remark directed at Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama during a political event in Scranton.The agency followed up on a report in The Times-Tribune that a member of the crowd shouted, "Kill him!" after one mention of Mr. Obama's name during a rally Tuesday for Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin...
Times-Tribune employees who covered the rally were interviewed today by the Secret Service.
Spokesman Darrin Blackford said the agency takes the threat seriously and will make an arrest if it can determine who shouted the remark.
Yesterday here at TPM we'd been wondering what exactly the responsibility of Palin's Secret Service detail is in such situations, and I guess this is our answer.
O thank the gods and goddesses and thank the USSS for not making my faith in them look stupid.
October 15, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a way it's too bad this shout-out happened before Airhead Bimbo took the stage.
I'm sure if the SS interviewed her as a material witness in this case, it'd shake her up quite a bit.
October 15, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least they are not keeping it a secret . . .
October 15, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's far better that they don't because hopefully it sends a message.
October 15, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
My guess is that is exactly what they are trying to do. This has got to be a nightmare of epic proportions for the secret service.
October 15, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope it does discourage any and all in a big way. Any word if the MSM has picked this up. They should be shouting it from the rooftops.
October 15, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure Secret Service agents showing up at their door will put their fear of God into them and any people at future rallies.
October 15, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell you what - it would me. I spent about 2 months terrified they were going to show up at my door cause I sent an invitation to a dinner for Alberto 'Gonzales back and wrote on it that I wanted to see him impeached and impaled and the minute I dropped it in the mail I thought - o shit.
Luckily, it was an invite from the law school alum society and I don't think they turn in their members cause they want our money.
;)
October 15, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sure hope so. This sort of thing has to stop right now!
October 15, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Send him to gitmo!
October 15, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Senator Obama's detail should have someone at all McCain Palin rallies for just such issues... AND they should make it public. The secret service definitely needs to let it be known that no threats against Senator Obama will be taken lightly.
October 15, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't matter which detail they're on - their duties go beyond just the individual candidate. They obviously didn't hear the remark as it was made - no real surprise in a large room.
One of these McPain whack-jobs will slip up within earshot of the USSS guys, though, and hopefully on camera. It'll be fun to watch the whup-ass.
October 15, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was odd that the USSS wasn't all over this scary shit like white on rice. That is a serious agency full of serious people.
October 15, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having to accompany the Bush twins on their drinking binges may have blunted their skills somewhat.
October 15, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that was my argument yesterday against someone who was doing everything he could to convince me that Bush turned the USSS into an incompetent partisan agency. I didn't buy it yesterday, I don't buy it now. Bush isn't that crazy - he needed them to protect him and he wasn't about to destroy the agency guarding his damn precious little spoiled life.
October 15, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
But according to that commenter, you and I haven't been paying attention.
Bush and Cheney are supremely self-interested. They weren't going to fill the agency charged with protecting them with incompetents.
October 15, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Bush I think expanded the agency because he had the single largest security detail of all time - he really did. He dragged 5000 of them over to England, IIRC.
October 15, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. See directly below.
October 15, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think again. Since Cheney hand picks his SS people he would probably pick Bush's also. His fourth branch shadow government has a whole new set of rules. He might search for someone threatening "kill him" for a completely different reason than protecting a candidate. How it all changes with the realization that it is actually protecting a "crime family" and McCain is already a "made" guy but not Obama. Palin is a wanna be parrot of little significance who is on the same level as the fanatic racists that support her. Makes one feel sorry for Alaskans. Since Palin will not stop inciting supporters to commit violence because she's too shallow to admit that she's doing that, it makes the SS result to investigating her supporters.
For those who can't see through the Palin pretense and know that she's acting for the audience...who choose to ignore the Couric interview...you have chosen to not want to know so you can keep your already formed opinions and never change or grow. Keep spouting violence and you will be violently dealt with.
October 15, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah.. the secret service have been dragging their heels on this. Didn't hear the first one and just taking names on the second. On e would assume that in light of the first instance, they would have been on their toes for a second occurrence. I guess the Brownie System of Inept Management is well entrenched within the federal government now.
October 15, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah.. the secret service have been dragging their heels on this. Didn't hear the first one and just taking names on the second. On e would assume that in light of the first instance, they would have been on their toes for a second occurrence. I guess the Brownie System of Inept Management is well entrenched within the federal government now.
October 15, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hark ! I hear an echo !
October 15, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really hope McShame gets asked tonight about his campaign's mudslinging and smearing and how it is whipping up hate.
October 15, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That man did it first so nener nener nender.
We are not talking trash, we are concerned that he is a terrorist and letting the voters decide we're right.
October 15, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure I understand your comment.
October 15, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain argues that people say awful things about him during Obama rallies. Things about his age. McCain seems to think that ageist comments are equivalent to threats of violence.
Yet another example of McCain being in touch with reality.
October 15, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure either - but the handle indicates it's a troll who doesn't know how to post, or it's a joke.
Take your pick - I can't figure it out -
October 15, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That might be a good follow-up if McCain even mentions Wright's hate statements. But all signs are that he won't.
October 15, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good on them for doing this. Any threats should be taken seriously. Political crowds should know better than to shout death threats given the sad history of this country. I don't care how much you don't like the other guy- it's stupid, careless, and flies in the face of our tragic history.
October 15, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's truly tragic is that this is not history -- it's happening right now.
I've got a reason to believe
We all won't be received at Graceland
--Vernon Reid
October 15, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you, 100%. The USSS should have a talk with McCain and Palin, and they should stop acting like morons.
October 15, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's like asking sunflowers to stop being heliotropic.
October 15, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have, I assume, applied to join Garrison Kielor's Society of English Majors. Very good wisecrack with an unfortunately limited audience.
October 15, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if it's a "they" issue. Signs are that Palin and McCain have a difference of opinion about the crazies. Palin likes 'em, McCain not so much. (and no, I'm not trolling here, it's what I believe I am seeing)
October 15, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I made blog post to that effect this morning. I think as the McCain campaign continues to go south, Palin will continue to assert her will on the McCain campaign, with little or no fear of repercussions. Assuming McCain really wants her to tone the rhetoric down (because it seems to hurt more than help at this point), what can he do if she doesn't want to stop?
October 15, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
HOT DAMN!
(and you know I'm not prone to such language)
October 15, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
McLame's spokesperson Nicole Wallace admitted on "Morning Joe" this morning that the McLame campaign has lost the spin war against Obama.
"The truth is they play dirty politics, and maybe we haven't been quick enough. Maybe we don't have enough friends in the media to carry the message. We certainly lost the spin war about his fighting a more negative campaign. The truth is that Barack Obama has spent more money on negative attack ads against John McCain than any politician, Democrat or Republican, in history."
True except the last sentence.
October 15, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I disagree: Obama does NOT "play dirty politics." His campaign has been tough, but positive and truthful.
October 15, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think technically it may be true because Barack has spent more money on advertising than any candidate in history. The exact dollar amount is not what matters, though, because Barack's ads are about 30% negative while McLoser's are 100% negative.
Not that I believe everything Nicole Wallace says, but I think it MAY be possible.
October 15, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's possible Obama pays better than McSlimer, so Obama has technically spent more on negative ads than has McSlimer.
Which is moot, of course, because McNasty ONLY uses negative ads. And dishonest, because they don't accuse Obama of insulting McWhiner's entitlement to be president. Worse, don't admit that McWimpmer doesn't tolerate being treated as second fiddle by We the people.
October 16, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wallace is also gliding over the distinction between ads about policy positions and ads that are character smears. So in her world, ads that criticize McCain for wanting to cut taxes on the wealthy are just as negative as the "Who is Barack Obama?" and celebrity ads.
October 15, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
October 15, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's be candid, here; this is not the first, second or third time an implicit/explicit threat has been reported againt Barack Obama from a McCain/Palin rally.
Now missing an opportunity to grab the offender the first time it happened is understandable; but with these repeated incidents I don’t see how it as anything other than incompetence by the Secret Service in their failure to anticipate this behavior and therefore have measures in place to identify and detain the culprit.
These after-the-fact investigations are BS and little more than CYA measures; because in my view they are clearly all but deliberately relinquishing the opportunity to make an arrest at the time.
.
October 15, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd make sure every one of the Secret Service people on Palin's detail got their walking papers on Jan 21st.
October 15, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't former Presidents get some SS detail?
Just put them with Dubya
October 15, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, again, you are as wrong as you can be. You can't having a protectee's detail uncovering the protectee to go bust people out in the crowd who are threatening someone else.
Let me put it in terms you'll understand: I do not want Obama's detail uncovering him to go bust some idiot who threatens Palin at one of his rallies. Ever. And since I don't want that, I can't want Palin's detail to uncover her to go bust idiots who threaten Obama at her rally.
October 15, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the input, Steve; but I disagree with your opinion.
The executive protection professionals I happen know deal with head of state level figures and the advance team always makes contact with the local law enforcement protection team who provide 'warm zone' or outer perimeter security for the visiting person (this is different from uniformed officers at the event). The traveling protection team always has one of their representatives coordinating with their local counterparts to respond to different threat levels.
Now in both cases these are law enforcement professionals with specific executive protection training; you're correct that the protection team will not leave their pricipal; but the local executive protection group would and should have responded.
October 15, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell me something, guys, what is it you want them to do? Abandon their posts and go crowd-surfing after anyone who makes a threat against a candidate other than the one they're supposed to protect? Is that how you want it to work? Well that's great! Now, all your average group of Fourth Reich crazies has to do if they want to get Obama's detail to uncover him is go to one of his rallies and have one member of the conspiracy scream out a threat against Palin.
October 15, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, OT, but I was already testy enough today before I found out the hard way that there are server issues today.
October 15, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve,
You might try searching the web for 'political executive protection' to get a better understanding of how they work.
The Secret Service has many resources at its' disposal in a situation like this- their inability or unwillingness to exercise greater engagement I personally find unacceptable.
I hope it's just that they're keeping their best cards to themselves; but in my view they need to make a very public example of why shouting out these kinds of threats are a really bad idea.
October 15, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve,
You might try searching the web for 'political executive protection' to get a better understanding of how they work.
The Secret Service has many resources at its' disposal in a situation like this- their inability or unwillingness to exercise greater engagement I personally find unacceptable.
I hope it's just that they're keeping their best cards to themselves; but in my view they need to make a very public example of why shouting out these kinds of threats are a really bad idea.
October 15, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is something that should have been addressed at rallies a couple of weeks ago, but better late than never. Remember the people who could not get into a Cheney or Bush speaking event for the last eight years if they had the wrong tee shirt or sign? I am disappointed in the SS for their slow moving on this issue.
October 15, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mlle Poulain: X-NAY on the SS-AY . . .
:-P
October 15, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
They should be investigating her since she provokes this kind of response and has never rebuked anybody in the audience for those kind of outbursts.
She has dialed her rhetoric back lately but today she repeated her line about folks being angry about voter fraud. I think that is a way of focusing the rage on the right on the idea that Obama is stealing the election. It is still pitchforks and torches time for them and the grounds for the impeachment of President Obama are being laid in these rallys.
October 15, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, she conflates registration fraud with voting fraud. There is no voting fraud.
While they're at it, maybe they could start whining about all the "polling fraud" going on now that shows Obama ahead amongst registered voters across this nation.
October 15, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think she knows the difference between voter fraud and voter registration fraud. Don't try and explain it to her either, her little head might explode from trying to process the difference.
October 15, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are no grounds for impeachment being laid. It's bogus accusations based on bogus info none of which can sustain scrutiny.
They might as well be screaming "the sky is falling" which is not "laying the grounds for impeachment".
October 15, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I’m on the case, checking to see if Todd Palin’s name appears on any ventriloquist class registration records.
October 15, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine being him. House building investigation, tax return 25k short, Alaskans starting to loathe his wife, etc. What goes around comes around.
October 15, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt Todd is all that happy with any aspect of this situation, frankly.
I am betting he'd just as soon go back to being more or less unknown. The bright light of publicity starts shining on your life and it's not comfortable.
October 15, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Especially when you've got roaches behind the fridge.
October 15, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yea, as they say in Alaska, a Moose on the ice is worth....Well, yea, what you said!
October 15, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There is always the fringe element that's in politics in America. The overwhelming majority of the people that come to my rallies are good and decent and patriotic Americans. For the Secret Service to intimate that the overwhelming, 99 percent is anything but patriotic and good Americans is frankly unacceptable, and I won't stand for it."
- John McCain, redux. He's outraged, I tell you. Outraged.
October 15, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goody - he's bitten off the hand of the press that fed him for years and years - now he's biting off the hand of the USSS.
Good work, McLame!
October 15, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's a "redux" of actual quote from here: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/mccain.interview/index.html
October 15, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
He actually mentioned the Secret Service?
I saw one interview where he was criticizing Obama for "intimating" something about his supporters, but I didn't realize he mentioned the Secret SErvice.
If he did, he as well and truly jumped the shark.
October 15, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just read the quote in context (link's above) and it doesn't look like he was mentioning the USSS at all. I'd give even odds that Palin may, however.
October 15, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain takes on the Secret Service in defense of the Patriotic American People. Wow, McCain REALLY is a fighter isn't he? With his bullydog by his side he'll take on anyone/thing.
October 15, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain said that? What a moron.
October 15, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I read it in context. He wasn't, it seems, a direct USSS attack.
October 15, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, now USSS is unpatriotic ? This is pathetic shrillery he has learned from Emabarracuda.
October 15, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
So glad to hear this. I am waiting for Talk of the Nation to come on so I can hear if Neal is able to claw his way out of the onslaught of emails he got about his show yesterday. I hope he reports this.
OT - Where are my comments? The only thing on my dashboard is the recommends. Do you all know anything about this? Thanks for the help. Where is the submit button?
October 15, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I found the submit button. I got a message that I had timed out and had to sign back in. Is anyone else getting this? Thanks
October 15, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. It's clunkier than it used to be.
October 15, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
But we have PREVIEW.
October 15, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we had edit capability, then even that wouldn't be worth the new headaches. But, like you say, we can preview! Woo hoo!
October 15, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Preview AND a link to the parent message, which is a very nice bonus!
October 15, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
65 people with torches and pitchforks don't make that much of an impression.
October 15, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno. Sixty five wackos with keyboards and internet access seems to spook Tapper at ABC into looking at bogus website stories. Maybe he should hear about Timmons.
October 15, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Test post. (Sorry, but I've been having problems w/ the new system.)
October 15, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Secret Service interviews Palin, do you think they'll let her get away with answering the questions in her own folksy, hockey-mom way?
October 15, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You betcha!
(Sorry, but the question just begged for this answer)
October 15, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The USSS probably don't respond well to be winked by the interviewees.
October 15, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Sharon Stone "gesture," on the other hand . . . well, that might be different.
October 15, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
They also don't put up with crap like:
"I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also." --Sarah Palin, on not answering the questions in the vice presidential debate, St. Louis, Missouri, Oct. 2, 2008
Shut up and answer the f*cking question we asked governor.
October 15, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for doing your job, USSS!!
October 15, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans are fear-mongering from coast to coast.
For another example of their filthy Rovian tactics, read this article in the Sacramento Bee:
"Material linking Obama to Bin Laden removed from Sacramento GOP Web site"
http://www.sacbee.com/812/story/1314854.html
October 15, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that was pretty loathsome--including the "Waterboard Obama" headline.
October 15, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
As one who lived in South East D.C. in April 1968, I can assure you that many folk have feared for Obama's safety since the day he announced his candidacy for president. While some may say these folks are paranoid, those who possess this fear are driven by history and the unspoken hatred that still exists today.
October 15, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was 12 years old in 1968 and remember it very well. It is clear to me that the outcome of this election, and by extension the fate of the country, now rests on the ability of the Secret Service to protect Sen. Obama. And while I appreciate the "shot across the bow" nature of the investigation in Scranton, I do hope the Service is not seriously wasting resources on anonymous blowhards in a crowd. That's not where the real danger lies. The arrest in August of a couple of white-supremacists with an arsenal and maps -- and the Republican U.S. Attorney's refusal to prosecute them on conspiracy charges -- is a much more chilling incident. The nightmare scenario is a carefully planned assassination attempt aided by rogue elements of local or national security agencies.
October 15, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll step into my criminal defense lawyer outfit for a second and try to explain why it's a bigger nightmare if the USSS starts arresting people for conspiracy without more evidence than guns and literature.
Dude = this is still America. That's not enough to arrest someone on.
Despite that unconstitutional piece of shit legislation RICO, which I hate bitterly.
October 15, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if RICO is the only way to send Smirky/Darth to prison?
(IANAL - just curious.)
October 15, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about expressed intent?
October 15, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about expressed intent?
October 15, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
To see real videos of real women discussing their reactions to Sarah Palin & the misuse of gender issues in this year's presidential race, please take a look at the following blog:
www.speakoutonpalin.blogspot.com
October 15, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was odd that the USSS wasn't all over this scary shit like white on rice. That is a serious agency full of serious people.
October 15, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Militant One, I agree with you. The Secret Service needs to keep him and his family safe.
October 15, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama spent almost two days in Butte, MT over the 4th of July and I got a chance to visit with Secret Service at two of the venues. I was quite impressed with their seriousness and thoroughness. Remember, their lives are on the line for these guys. They are not only protecting the candidates but each other and themselves.
October 15, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I went to the Michelle Obama rally in St. Paul on Monday. Great event, but was disturbed not to have been frisked or forced to go through a metal detector on the way in... :-|
October 15, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No metal detector - are you fucking kidding me?
I wish you hadn't told me that -
October 15, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if I passed through a detector on the way up the stairs, I wasn't aware of it (I was too focused on the fact that I was shaking hands with Al Franken as he greeted folks on the way in).
I sure know I was frisked at the Obama "accepting the nomination" / fistbump rally in St. Paul last June...
October 15, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Secret Service needs to keep him and his family safe.
October 15, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll believe it when I see it. The Secret Service has shown no actual evidence of investigating or arresting anyone.
Perhaps the Secret Service has become politicized much like the DOJ?
I wish TPM and others would look into it a little more.
October 15, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Secret Service has shown no actual evidence of investigating or arresting anyone.
Rest assured, Secret Service personnel are performing their jobs. Like most law enforcement agencies, they do not telegraph their moves, as to do so would alert potential attackers and place them and their protectees at a decided disadvantage. Just because you do not happen to 'hear about' actions take to deal with this issue, does not mean that actions are not being taken.
One virtually unknown fact about the reach of the Secret Service is the manner in which those individuals identified by them as significant threats are placed in the computerized National Crime Information Center as 'lookout' records. When non-Secret Service personnel come in contact with such an individual and the NCIC is queried—such as when a traffic violation occurs in front of a local law enforcement officer—a record is returned to that agency identifying that individual as a threat, and the Secret Service is simultaneously notified of the record 'hit.'
I can guarantee you, that consistent with Constitutional, statutory and case law, that the individual in question and his associated vehicle or premise are 'tossed' at the time of the contact, and he receives a near immediate followup visit and an intensive subsequent interview with Secret Service agents. Such persons are only identified when they are deemed credible threats, and it takes a substantial body of evidence—often including one or more contemporaneous or significant historic overt acts—to tag them in this manner. A threat alone does not arise to this level of scrutiny, nor should it.
Twice in my law enforcement career I was party to such contacts, and was well acquainted with both the agency and its local agents, as well as such procedures. In neither case in which I was involved, were the incidents related to the press or public as representative of a threat to the President.
Such processes have been in place for more than 25 years, and are not a result of the clearly inappropriate intrusive conduct of other Federal agencies and agents under the Bush administration.
October 15, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
But how is the Secret Service insulated fom political interference, where as the DOJ was not? We had US attorneys being fired and pressured to pursue Democrats. Why would Bush and Rove want the SS to be aggressive against people threatening or menacing their opponents? On the contrary, I'd expect the SS to be very aggressive in harassing anti-war protestors, but turn a blind eye to people makign loud threats at McCain rallies.
Please explain to me why what happened at DOJ can't happen at the SS?
October 15, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Based upon my personal experience and familiarity with the responsibilities of Secret Service security details, I am confident that agents are not influenced in any meaningful way by President Bush, Vice President Cheney or any political appointees they might report to. I am not now and never have been a Secret Service agent, but worked closely with the agency in the past as a Honolulu police officer.
Members of a protective detail are responsible for the security of their protectee, and are not expected to lessen the level of protection accorded this individual to deal with some moron in the crowd who does not present an immediate and proximate danger. It is ludicrous to suggest that some idiot at a political rally for Senator McCain or Governor Palin who yells, "…kill him"—in an apparent reference to Senator Obama, Professor Ayers or any party other than the protectee—is a reasonable threat to the safety and security of the party those agents are charged with protecting.
While such actions may cause agents to tighten their cordon or take other steps to enhance protectee safety, it is not their job to deal with hooligans in the crowd. That responsibility falls to local law enforcement officers working in cooperation with the Secret Service. If there is a discernible threat perceived by the agents, they will report the incident and other agents not assigned to the detail will investigate the matter.
Beyond that, I am not willing to detail the roles and responsibilities that agents have, as it does nothing to enhance protectee safety. I just think you'll have to accept that the individuals who are charged with these responsibilities are essentially incorruptible, and any attempt to influence their personal conduct by politicians would fail miserably.
Many members of the Bush administration have acted badly, and apparently in many cases, criminally. But, this conduct appears limited largely to political appointees, and not to career employees. It strikes me that to presume that agents are subject to the political whims of this administration is unreasonable on its face.
October 15, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad you are proven wrong:
SCRANTON – The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.
http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/Secret_Service_says_Kill_him_allegation_unfounded_.html
October 16, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad you are proven wrong:
SCRANTON – The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.
http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/Secret_Service_says_Kill_him_allegation_unfounded_.html
October 16, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
But how is the Secret Service insulated fom political interference, where as the DOJ was not? We had US attorneys being fired and pressured to pursue Democrats. Why would Bush and Rove want the SS to be aggressive against people threatening or menacing their opponents? On the contrary, I'd expect the SS to be very aggressive in harassing anti-war protestors, but turn a blind eye to people makign loud threats at McCain rallies.
Please explain to me why what happened at DOJ can't happen at the SS?
October 15, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Secret Service isn't part of the DOJ. They are part of the Treasury Department.
October 15, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also controlled by Bush and Rove.
October 15, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's about time! I've been so worried over this. i was watching Palin's rally in New Hampshire this morning, waiting to see if anything would happen today. NO WAY. She gave a very quiet, subdued speech. no hate-mongering, no whipping up the crowd. Of course, maybe New Hampshire folks are more reserved, but I think the Secret Service had a little chat with her. And gave her a warning.
October 15, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh huh - I think you're right about that.
October 15, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would hope the Secret service talked to her but I imagine the poll numbers are what prompted the butt whipping more than anything. It had to be a good one because she loves talking that trash more than moose hunting and IMHO McCain got quite a thrill hearing it.
October 15, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't they arrest the person who inciting violence with her remarks. If she was on a box in the park talking this trash she would be arrested. Is she above the law????
October 15, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sickening isn't it, cause that seems to be all they have, the Republicans see they are losing and they threaten a presidential candidate. This is what the Repub's have brought us. Every four years it gets worse, you are a decorated Veteran, but not a republican so you are traitor. You don't show up for drill and are a republican you are a hero. It is too much. They seem to have no shame what-so-ever. That is why Republicans have lost people like my father who voted for Barack this year in early voting in Montana. He is 70 years old and said, enough. Enough republicans they are wrecking our country.
October 15, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but at least the voters see through it now, for the most part - they've run that dog one too many times - it doesn't hunt any more.
October 15, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Oh, Secret Service!"
"You're my heroes!"
(random snippets from Authority Figure Supplicants)
After all, you report to Michael Chertoff, who couldn't find his own ass with a compass and a chronometer of exacting precision.
If I were Obama, I'd spend some of my stash on my own goddam security (if he already hasn't).
October 15, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a word to the wise. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was under 24-hour surveillance by the FBI on April 4, 1968. Here's a February 2008 article about Obama and the Secret Service in Dallas:
Wednesday, Oct 15, 2008
Posted on Thu, Feb. 21, 2008
Police concerned about order to stop weapons screening at Obama rally
By JACK DOUGLAS Jr.
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
DALLAS -- Security details at Barack Obama's rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena.
The order to put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and laptop bags came as a surprise to several Dallas police officers who said they believed it was a lapse in security.
Dallas Deputy Police Chief T.W. Lawrence, head of the Police Department's homeland security and special operations divisions, said the order -- apparently made by the U.S. Secret Service -- was meant to speed up the long lines outside and fill the arena's vacant seats before Obama came on.
"Sure," said Lawrence, when asked if he was concerned by the great number of people who had gotten into the building without being checked. But, he added, the turnout of more than 17,000 people seemed to be a "friendly crowd."
The Secret Service did not return a call from the Star-Telegram seeking comment.
Doors opened to the public at 10 a.m., and for the first hour security officers scanned each person who came in and checked their belongings in a process that kept movement of the long lines at a crawl. Then, about 11 a.m., an order came down to allow the people in without being checked.
Several Dallas police officers said it worried them that the arena was packed with people who got in without even a cursory inspection.
They spoke on condition of anonymity because, they said, the order was made by federal officials who were in charge of security at the event.
"How can you not be concerned in this day and age," said one policeman.
October 15, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, you convinced me. I'm spending the rest of my life with earplugs in and under my bed so I don't have to know what happens.
So why are you doing your best to make us nervous?
Why?
October 15, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Militant, this is not the 60s. And Obama does not stir up the hate that MLK did.
October 15, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Truth is not to be equated with fear. Fear of the truth is something altogether different.
October 15, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh wise one: please advise us how to live our lives, o learned one.
BTW, you got any newer material than stuff from last February?
Is McCain a "made man", and Obama not?
Did Dick Cheney personally handpick the Secret Service agents guarding Obama?
If Michael Chertoff were so incompetent, then why did he order extra Secret Service protection in May 2007?
Please, please, please: oh wise one, teach me to not have "fear of the truth", obiwan.
October 15, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is not an answer.
You are scaring people - because you aren't telling the whole truth - just your little slice of it for the sole purpose of sowing doubt about the USSS and Obama's safety.
Now just exactly what is this supposed to do for us?
October 15, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's enough fear in the world. We don't need any more.
Obama fights fear with common sense, trust and knowing that people are basically good.
Fear is what has driven us for too long. That's why it is time for Obama.
October 15, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not trying to sway anyone's opinion one way or another. I'm just stating facts. If the facts upset you then I am not sure what your point is. If you are really concerned for Obama's safety, then I believe it is important that you understand the nature of the situation as it exists.
October 15, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're stating your impressions (about those who live in D.C., and their fear for Obama's safety) and then you reprint an article about an incident that happened in February.
Do you agree with the claim that Cheney handpicked his own Secret Service protection, handpicked Obama's, and that there's a conspiracy to let Obama die, because McCain is a "made man", and Obama isn't?
Do you?
October 15, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Secret Service should drop a house on the Wicked Witch of Wasilla. I can't wait until she loses, hops on her broom, and flies back to Alaska just in time for a nice long Winter. If you think she's crazy now, just wait until Spring.
October 15, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Secret Service should drop a house on the Wicked Witch of Wasilla. I can't wait until she loses, hops on her broom, and flies back to Alaska just in time for a nice long Winter. If you think she's crazy now, just wait until Spring.
October 15, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want a more tangible response then I would suggest that you do what I did and contact your senators and congresperson and ask them how they are responding to the situation to ensure that appropriate efforts are being made to ensure Obama's safety to the extent possible.
October 15, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why won't you actually respond to the people who are asking you questions?
You seem pretty evasive. Like you want to toss stuff out there, but don't really want to defend it.
October 15, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a tell.'
IMO.
;)
October 15, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
To state the obvious - for Militant One to actually respond to those who are discussing what he says would require (1) that he take responsibility for what he wrote previously, (2) for him to be capable of reactive discussion on a given topic (especially difficult for conservatives and similar Authoritarians) and (3) for him to be sufficiently technically competent to actually know how to respond directly to someone's comment here.
None of the reasons exclude the others, of course. However, his innate limitations are more likely to lie in items (1) and (2). They are the result of incompetence and insufficient education to permit real though. Item (3) would probably be a result of pure laziness and lack of motivation. That is symptomatic of "troll" character.
October 15, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, it's the difference between SFC and a troll. One actually participates. The other is a freaking clanging gong.
October 15, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see how it works now, and I will have to back track on my appeal for a higher level discussion. First of all Richardxx you don't know me and that is probably a good thing. You speak of a lack of intelligence in others while exposing your own ignorance. I rarely post on blogs primarily due to people like you who are masters at this of forum, safe and secure in their parents basements and able to rant at the world. I spent time in the West Point, the Army, the RNC, and FDIC, and I have dealt with individuals like you my entire life, unfortunately, they like you have all their courage in their words and keyboards. So I will leave it to you to continue to spout your views from the safety of your parent's basement.
October 15, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure if the "evasive" comment is directed at me, but what I have previously stated is crystal clear and unambiguous.
October 15, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it's directed at you: it was in reply directly to you. You're hilarious.
Or, you've overdosed on too many Robert Ludlum novels.
October 15, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You all will have to excuse me, but Ihave no idea what IMO means.
October 15, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
in my opinion. OMHO: in my humble opinion. ROFLMAO: Roll on floor laughing my ass off. ROFLMFAO: figure it out yourself.
Just some advice, read these awhile before you chime in. You learn the format, who is who, and that a lot of us have read a lot (what we read may be biased, but, hey, that's America).
October 15, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
sigh. sorry. IMHO.
October 15, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the break down. Now if I was in the 'hood I would know what was being said. So much for being "down."
October 15, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only problem is the comment was directed at Ayers...not Obama.
October 15, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The next time some pundit tries to find "journalistic balance" by claiming that the things being said by Democrats are just as bad as those said by Republicans, just ask them how many Democratic rallies are being investigated by the Secret Service for death threats against a Presidential candidate.
As we know, the death threats are a staple of Republican Presidential rallies.
That should end the false equivalency the MSM is peddling. (But it won't.)
October 15, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT Voter, I don't read Ludlum and your defensiveness is hard to comprehend.
October 15, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah...but I bet you saw the movies.
October 15, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you know how to reply directly to someone?
It doesn't appear that you do. Click the "reply" underneath the comment, and you can reply directly to that person.
"Defensiveness"? You are inadvertently quite funny, you know?
October 15, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
How long will it be before they plant someone to scream out BS in the Obama crowds. Of course, if he hears it, he'll do something about it.
October 15, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Militant, this is not the 60s. And Obama does not stir up the hate that MLK did.
Really? You must be watching different rallies than I'm watching. Or reading about. It only takes one nut.
October 15, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
So are you trying to prep us for that "one nut?"
Trying to tell us something, dude?
October 15, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
or some twisted 'don't vote for Obama or you risk a national tragedy' meme.
October 15, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
So is this on the tee-vee? I'm really curious if CNN, MSNBC, et al are covering this...
October 15, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see where you are coming from CT Voter. I do not know who picked Obama's secret service detail and that is besides the point. I would hope that all members of his detail hold to their oaths and perform their duties as required. Also, this doesn't have to be the 1960s. Folks still have weapons at their disposal and the country is full of people who have warped perspectives. I remember standing in front of the Twin towers in June 2001 and telling a friend that the buildings were too big to be knocked down, so at this point I don't make those kinds of judgments anymore.
October 15, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since the Sercret Service is now engaging in testing the veracity of "shrieks" at rallys it is incumbent upon them to reveal their results.
My guess is they will not be able to confirm that it happened based on one intrepid but anonymous reporter's claim.
In other word, it never happened.
Perhaps Obama can find a cabinet position for Tawana Brawley.
October 15, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait. It probably did happen. The reporter is probably the one who shrieked it.
October 15, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're an offensive little bigot, you know?
People keep comparing you to fogu. You make fogu look reasoned and articulate.
October 15, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's only offensive if you find the truth offensive.
I'm guessing in your mind there is no such thing as the truth, it's all relative.
October 15, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." --Einstein
October 15, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have verifiable documentation of a legal name change?
Well, Obama doesn't so why should you.
October 15, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
thank you for proving my point.
October 15, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have verifiable documentation of a legal name change?
Well, Obama doesn't so why should you.
October 15, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And your speculation achieves the status of "The Truth" how, tellmemore?
Just a suggested exercise in logical thought and its presentation.
October 15, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell would you know about truth?
You monomaniacally insist on something that everyone else on earth knows isn't true. It's not relative. It's not based on your own perceptions.
You are a straight up liar and bigot - what would you know about objective truth?
October 15, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop shrieking and be specific.
October 15, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop shrieking and be specific.
October 15, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Each and every time you mention Tawana Brawley you reveal yourself as an offensive little bigot.
Is that truth?
In your mind, it's relative, I'm sure.
October 15, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
So are you trying to prep us for that "one nut?"
Trying to tell us something, dude?
No, I'm genuinely confused, though, at the hostility to an expression of concern, that's all. I do worry about his safety; I grew up in the '60s and so am somewhat shaped by that. It isn't what Obama's message is that matters where his safety is concerned; it's what the reaction is from the race-hatred crowd. I don't know the history of others who have posted on this issue, so perhaps I'm missing something. But concern doesn't equal trolling.
October 15, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of us have started going after each other which makes the discussion unproductive. The only point that I was trying to make was that Obama's situation is more complicated than it appears and that the powers that be need to be more vigilant in protecting him. We can help by holding these folks accountable now.
October 15, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has got to be one of the most messed up threads I've seen in awhile, meaning this discussion has no thread.
October 15, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no problem with this argument.
October 15, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: "the agency takes the threat seriously and will make an arrest if it can determine who shouted the remark."
As they should.
If someone were to tell their shrink that they wanted to kill George Bush, (or presumably, McCain or Obama) they would be required to report them to the Secret Service.
It's about time that the Secret Service started taking these threats seriously.
October 15, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If someone were to tell their shrink that they wanted to kill George Bush . . . .
(they'd be told they're quite well adjusted and no longer require psychoanalysis)
October 15, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've personally met two different folks who were imprisoned for five years each after threatening a President in a similarly casual way.Both were pretty hapless and probably harmless. But since JFK got killed, judges treat verbal threats, no matter how flimsy, the same as yelling "fire"
in a theater.
October 15, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Militant One,
Ignore the snark; your concerns are valid. No less than four United States presidents have been killed in office and I've lost track of the attempts made over the years to murder sitting presidents and candidates. Things happen. Most of your critics probably weren't born when John F. and Bobby Kennedy were killed (or even Martin Luther King, Jr.) so they lack the historical perspective to recognize that assassinations CAN and DO happen. Some of our fellow TPMers seem to have forgotten WHY Senator Obama and his family received Secret Service protection WHEN they did. Even though I posted this previously, here's why some of us who pay attention are still deeply concerned for his safety:
http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3996
October 15, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you go through the comments and determine the ages of the commenters?
If not, this comment is remarkably condescending: the reason you young people don't agree is that you're just not old enough to understand.
I don't think there's a commenter here who is underestimating the danger to Obama.
October 15, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Age does play a roll in one's perspective. I have discussed Dr. King's and Bobby Kennedy's assassinations with my children and they see these events as historical whereas I can remember them vividly as if they happened yesterday. That said, my children don't have the same level of awareness that I have because these events happened some 20 years before they were born. It's not much different from my grandmother talking about the Great Depression. While I have read about it, my perspective is different because I did not actually experience the event. It's hard for me to imagine what folks went through during those times other than reading historical accounts or listening to rememberances.
October 15, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not disputing that age plays a role in one's perspective, Militant One.
I object to the notion that the reason people disagree (and I'm not sure people were actually disagreeing) is because we're too young to know any better. That's the underlying theme: you're too young to understand, and if you did understand, you'd agree with me.
I remember the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. The attempts on Ford and Reagan. If someone wants to dimiss my arguments on substantive grounds, fine by me, but expect an argument in return. To simply dismiss an argument because you suspect the person is "too young" is about as fair as dismissing an argument because the author is "too old" to get it.
PS: thanks for replying directly. : )
October 15, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
While one's response shouldn't be dismissed due to age, some younger folks may have a tendency to dismiss an older person's sense of urgency with a belief of "that couldn't possibly happen today." To be quite honest most folks would like to think that we as a society have progressed beyond such actions until they unfortunately happen during one's lifetime. I'll go back to the 9/11 example. Up until that time, I was convinced that the worst was not possible.
October 15, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I think we are very much influenced by events from younger days. I was in sixth-grade when JFK was killed; 10th grade when Dr King and Bobby Kennedy were murdered. And all of this was set against the Vietnam War, troubles in the street and the murders of protesters at Kent State and Jackson State.
I am really struck, though, by the urge to automatically question the motivations of posters, like this comment on my posting:
or some twisted 'don't vote for Obama or you risk a national tragedy' meme.
That takes a lot of layering and accusation.
My comment was entirely based on my own fears about Obama's safety. Do I predict he will be harmed? No. Doesn't mean I don't fear it with all my being.
By the way, I made my first political donation in my entire life this year, to Obama's campaign. (The work I've done since teenage years has precluded political donations but since I'm now unemployed, I feel liberated.)
October 15, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I think we are very much influenced by events from younger days. I was in sixth-grade when JFK was killed; 10th grade when Dr King and Bobby Kennedy were murdered. And all of this was set against the Vietnam War, troubles in the street and the murders of protesters at Kent State and Jackson State.
I am really struck, though, by the urge to automatically question the motivations of posters, like this comment on my posting:
or some twisted 'don't vote for Obama or you risk a national tragedy' meme.
That takes a lot of layering and accusation.
My comment was entirely based on my own fears about Obama's safety. Do I predict he will be harmed? No. Doesn't mean I don't fear it with all my being.
By the way, I made my first political donation in my entire life this year, to Obama's campaign. (The work I've done since teenage years has precluded political donations but since I'm now unemployed, I feel liberated.)
October 15, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stand by my earlier statement. If you were truly old enough to remember and understand the significance of COINTELPRO, Kent State or Watergate, your comments would have a certain measure of authenticity...and perspective. They lack both.
October 16, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I stand by my earlier statement. If you were truly old enough to remember and understand the significance of COINTELPRO, Kent State or Watergate, your comments would have a certain measure of authenticity...and perspective. They lack both.
October 16, 2008 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
i doubt the SS would waste too much time on it. i doubt they believe some obsessive at a rally playing their part in the pantomime constitutes a credible threat.
however, it iS important to demonstrate that making death threats isn't the thing to do.
October 15, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's funny -- I don't see such a cavalier attitude if these were threats against Bush/McCain. I'd expect even anti-war protestors to be harassed and placed on "watch lists", etc.
But make DEATH THREATS in public against a Democrat, no biggie.
October 16, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink