Dear Government Employees: Asking Questions - Even Dumb Ones - Is Not A Criminal Offense

from the a-story-in-three-acts dept

What is it with federal government officials and their weird belief that being questioned by the public -- even with dumb questions -- is a criminal offense? Does it take three stories to make a trend? Perhaps. Let's do these one at a time.


Scene One: Guy faces criminal charges for asking Senator if his daughter was kidnapped

I'm sure that in some recesses of Simon Radecki's mind, the following stunt was a good idea. I'm sure, when he came up with it, it seemed like a clever way to create a feeling of panic within a Senator's mind that might -- just maybe -- make him reconsider the panic his policies might be causing millions of people. And yet, still... this seems like a really dumb stunt:

After thanking Mr. Toomey for appearing, Mr. Radecki said, “We’ve been here for a while. You probably haven’t seen the news. Can you confirm whether or not your daughter Bridget has been kidnapped?”

The ensuing four-second pause was punctuated by Mr. Toomey uttering “uhhhh,” before Mr. Radecki added, “The reason I ask is because that’s the reality of families that suffer deportation …”

See? You can totally see the thought process that would lead to such questioning, even if most of us would also quickly realize what a dumb line of questioning it was and would never let it out of our heads. But dumb questions aren't illegal. But... that hasn't stopped the police from going after Radecki and charging him with "disorderly conduct." Toomey's staffers didn't help matters by saying that the question was "inherently threatening." Except, that's not even remotely true under the law. And there's a fair bit of First Amendment law on what counts as a "true threat." And a hypothetical to make a point is not considered a true threat.

Scene 2: Charges dropped against reporter for asking Health Secretary questions too loudly

The questioning in this case happened back in May and got some attention. West Virginia reporter Dan Heyman, a reporter for the Public News Service, was arrested and charged with "willful disruption of governmental process" for the truly audacious act of yelling questions at Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. Of course, that's kind of his job as a reporter. For the past four months Heyman has been dealing with a set of completely bogus charges because he was doing his job, asking questions of public officials.

Thankfully, now, common sense has prevailed, as prosecutors have dropped all charges and admitted that Heyman was just doing "aggressive journalism" that "was not unlawful and did not violate the law with which he was charged." It's just unfortunate that he still had to be arrested and have criminal charges hanging over his head for four months.

Scene 3: White House lawyer promises to send the Secret Service after aggressive questioner

Sensing a pattern yet? The recently hired lawyer in the White House, Ty Cobb (note: not the dead baseball player) appeared to threaten a questioner with a Secret Service visit for asking pointed questions. Here's the exchange, as posted over at Business Insider:

"How are you sleeping at night? You’re a monster," Jetton wrote to Cobb's White House email account on Tuesday night.

"Like a baby ... " wrote Cobb, who was brought in to the White House to oversee Trump's legal and media response to the ongoing Russia investigation.

The conversation escalated quickly, with Jetton attacking "the havoc" Cobb and his "ilk are causing."

"I, like many others, lay awake, restless, my mind dissecting countless scenarios of how bad this could get, what new thing you have dreamt up to pull us down a pathway to hell," Jetton wrote. "You remind me less of a grumpy baseball player and more of that horrid clown from the Stephen King novel."

Cobb replied: "Enjoy talking to the Secret Service. Hope you are you less than nine years old as you seem to be ... "

As an aside: Cobb appears to have difficulty not responding to any random email that comes his way -- having also been completely and totally fooled by a guy who literally used the domain emailprankster.co.uk to send emails pretending to be other White House officials, eventually leading Cobb to threaten the prankster with possible felony charges.

Either way, absolutely nothing in the exchange above deserves (or is likely to get) a Secret Service visit.

Look, this isn't that hard. Being a government official -- whether elected or appointed -- is not a fun gig. You have lots of people questioning you and second guessing you all the time. And some of those people are mean. Possibly really mean. But, that's kinda part of the territory when you live and work in a mostly open democracy, rather than an authoritarian dictatorship. People get to ask questions -- even stupid, annoying or scary ones. And we don't arrest them and throw them in jail.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    TechDescartes (profile), 13 Sep 2017 @ 8:14am

    Is one of these things not like the other?

    Neither party looks good in Scene 3, but it doesn't seem to follow Scenes 1 and 2. Scene 3 would fit the pattern only if the Secret Service actually called Jetton and then later decided to drop the investigation.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Sep 2017 @ 8:48am

      Re: Is one of these things not like the other?

      The issue is still that a government official responds to aggressive questioning with the belief that law enforcement will go after the questioner.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2017 @ 10:49am

        Re: Re: Is one of these things not like the other?

        It's worth noting that he's also threatening to send the Secret Service after someone he believes to be "less than nine years old".

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        David, 13 Sep 2017 @ 12:38pm

        Re: Re: Is one of these things not like the other?

        The Secret Service is not law enforcement. They act on prospective threats to the country rather than crimes in actual planning or execution.

        A referral to the Secret Service would not be wrong if Cobb infers a mind disturbed enough to run amok or commit crimes.

        Threatening with a referral to the Secret Service, however, does not make sense in that context as it is not likely to reduce the likelihood of bad actions. The job of the Secret Service is not harrassing people.

        But then there is a whole lot of people in the administration engaging in activities where one would want to say "that's not your job".

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          JoeCool (profile), 13 Sep 2017 @ 3:17pm

          Re: Re: Re: Is one of these things not like the other?

          In short, threatening someone with SS for email arguments makes him look like a moron with no idea what his or their jobs actually entail.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Bergman (profile), 18 Sep 2017 @ 11:28pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Is one of these things not like the other?

            Actually it makes him look like a felon on top of looking like a moron. After all, he just created a record of him threatening to retaliate against someone for exercising first amendment rights using the power of his position as a government official.

            Granted, the FBI is mostly too busy these days making dreams come true for paranoid schizophrenics, but still...

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          orbitalinsertion (profile), 13 Sep 2017 @ 8:11pm

          Re: Re: Re: Is one of these things not like the other?

          No, their job is getting wasted, wrecking cars, and being customers of prostitutes, among other things. Lord no, the Secret Service never harasses anyone.

          The US Secret Service is most definitely a LEO, regardless under what department they now reside, although that is entirely irrelevant with regards to their name being used by a government dork in a threat, whether it sounds credible or not. Who said this Cobb bloke has to make sense with his unreasonable threats?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Teknogrot (profile), 14 Sep 2017 @ 2:02am

          Re: Re: Re: Is one of these things not like the other?

          They very much are law enforcement. They actually have an expanded remit with regard to fraud, counterfeiting and other financial crimes compared to when they were founded.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            btr1701 (profile), 14 Sep 2017 @ 11:36am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Is one of these things not like the other?

            > They very much are law enforcement. They actually have an
            > expanded remit with regard to fraud, counterfeiting and
            > other financial crimes compared to when they were founded.

            In point of fact, when the Secret Service was created by Lincoln in 1865 (ironically, his last official act as president before leaving for the theater where he was assassinated), it was for the purpose of law enforcement. Specifically, to combat counterfeit currency, which was rampant in the nation at the time. (Approximately 1/3 of all the money in circulation was fake.) There was no presidential protective mission until after the assassination of McKinley in 1901.

            The Secret Service got its name from the men from whom Lincoln drew the first agents. They were a loose-knit group of Civil War spies that the Union sent behind Confederate lines to obtain intel regarding troop movement and strength and report back. They called themselves the Secret Service and when they were recruited to become Lincoln's anti-counterfeiting cops, they brought their name along with them.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          btr1701 (profile), 14 Sep 2017 @ 11:28am

          Re: Re: Re: Is one of these things not like the other?

          > The Secret Service is not law enforcement.

          Wrong. USSS agents are federal law enforcement officers who have the same investigatory and arrest powers of FBI agents or any other federal agent.

          > They act on prospective threats to the country rather than crimes in actual planning or execution.

          Wrong. In addition to its protective mission, the USSS investigates and prosecutes a whole host of federal crimes (counterfeit currency, identity theft, credit card fraud, computer intrusion, sexual exploitation of minors, bank fraud, and access device fraud).

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Richard Wicks, 18 Sep 2017 @ 8:30pm

        Re: Re: Is one of these things not like the other?

        What do you mean the "belief that law enforcement will go after the questioner"?

        Of course they will. "Law enforcement" is nothing more than the muscle of the mafia that claims to be our government.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 13 Sep 2017 @ 8:18am

    "that hasn't stopped the police from going after Radecki and charging him with "disorderly conduct.""

    "was arrested and charged with "willful disruption of governmental process" for the truly audacious act"

    Gotta love those subjective things govt has at their disposal to charge people they don't like with.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Machin Shin, 13 Sep 2017 @ 10:32am

      Re:

      Really got to love how those in government seem immune from being arrested for "willful disruption of governmental process"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Bergman (profile), 18 Sep 2017 @ 11:32pm

        Re: Re:

        Especially since using the power of a government official to retaliate against someone for Constitutionally-protected actions is itself a felony.

        No need to twist laws intended for other purposes (such as disorderly conduct or obstruction of government) either. This one is EXACTLY for these situations. The Department of Justice even says so on their website.

        https://www.justice.gov/crt/conspiracy-against-rights

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 13 Sep 2017 @ 9:05am

    Like things flock together

    Isn't it axiomatic that tyrants have thin skins? Government seems to be collecting tyrants via various methodologies including elections (via the corrupt voting system that includes buying votes and political parties directing mindlessly loyal members) and appointments.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    AricTheRed, 13 Sep 2017 @ 10:28am

    FTFY

    "...when you live and work in a mostly open democracy, rather than an authoritarian dictatorship. People get to ask questions -- even stupid, annoying or scary ones. And we don't arrest them and throw them in jail..."

    Get over it!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2017 @ 10:29am

    Radecki's question might have been asked in the most poignant way possible, but he makes a significant point that can't be dismissed simply because it was uncouth. If the Senator was alarmed by the thought that the question conjured, then he should be alarmed by the experience of families who deal with deportation. ICE actually poses a threat to families. I doubt the prosecution will be able to prove that Radecki actually poses a threat to the Senator's family.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Machin Shin, 13 Sep 2017 @ 10:38am

      Re:

      While I guess it is true ICE deportation is a threat to families. It is about the same as saying DEA is a threat to families because they might come and throw a family member in prison.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Sok Puppette, 14 Sep 2017 @ 6:34am

        Re: Re:

        The DEA is a threat to families. It's a brutal jackbooted agency that exists only to enforce laws that aren't even within the government's legitimate scope of legislation in the first place. And, like the rest of the DOJ, it does that in a calculatedly inhuman way.

        Next time you might want to pick a better example.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Machin Shin, 14 Sep 2017 @ 8:07am

          Re: Re: Re:

          As you pointed out so well, I don't think I could have picked a better example. My point was that people are throwing a fit over ICE grabbing people for violating the law while ignoring other agencies that have been doing it for years.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bamboo Harvester (profile), 13 Sep 2017 @ 1:23pm

      Re:

      The question, and the manner in which he asked it, is no different than "Do your kids still go to Roosevelt High?" to a public official.

      If Roosevelt High is the topic of discussion, it's a pertinent question. If it's not, how could you NOT take it as a threat?

      And no, deportation is NOT kidnapping. Before you go hyperbolic about that, look up the legal definitions of the word. Deportation is legal, Kidnapping is illegal.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Jeff Green (profile), 13 Sep 2017 @ 2:09pm

        Re: Re:

        But too often deportation IS kidnapping. There may be a legal difference but forcibly removing someone from where they are, and where they are living a normal life, and imprisoning them, then taking them somewhere they don't want to be seems to fit the definition very well

        From oxforddictionaries.com

        kidnap
        verb
        [with object]

        Abduct (someone) and hold them captive, typically to obtain a ransom.
        ‘militants kidnapped the daughter of a minister’


        There is no ransom demanded, but there doesn't have to be to make a kidnap a kidnap.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          JEDIDIAH, 13 Sep 2017 @ 7:38pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          By this logic, putting a rapist or murderer in prison is also "kidnapping".

          So the identity thief that got all of the press an sympathy would have just gone to prison instead. As it was, if she gets deported she will just be back across the border in a few weeks.

          That's how that sort of situation tends to play out in real life.

          YOU will probably be more traumatized about it than her or even her kids.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Wendy Cockcroft, 14 Sep 2017 @ 5:33am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Not quite, Jeddidiah.

            I understand the desire to enforce immigration law but it's not okay to break up families just because one of the members is undocumented. There needs to be a mechanism to legalise illegal immigrants who haven't broken any other laws.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2017 @ 7:03am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I find it funny when people in our countries deem it appropriate how the US deals with Immigration.

              Ummm, didn't the UK vote to leave the EU in large part because of immigration?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Wendy Cockcroft, 15 Sep 2017 @ 2:41am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Immigrants have been used as a scapegoat for austerity. Here's the truth about immigration:

                It's hard to forget UKIP's 2014 scare-mongering posters of the white cliffs of Dover with an escalator on it with the words "No border. No control." written on it. Per crossbench peer Karan Bilimoria, Britain doesn’t need to ‘take back control’ of immigration. We already have it.

                But the biggest deception is this: we could easily have taken back control of our borders already under European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, which allows EU member states to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they have not found a job or do not have the means to support themselves. In this month’s debate on the House of Lords EU subcommittee report on EU migration, I challenged the government on why we were not availing ourselves of this directive – and I got no response. - Britain doesn’t need to ‘take back control’ of immigration. We already have it, by Karan Bilimoria for The Guardian.

                https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/31/britain-take-back-control-immigration -eu-directive-brexit

                As referenced here: http://on-t-internet.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/anti-brexit-talking-points.html

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Oblate (profile), 14 Sep 2017 @ 10:34am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Where this analogy fails is in the 'abduct' part:

          abduct
          verb
          1. take (someone) away illegally by force or deception;

          Kidnap is often used as a synonym, but this use fails the 'illegal' part. Using words incorrectly does not strengthen an argument.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      btr1701 (profile), 14 Sep 2017 @ 11:46am

      Re: ICE

      > then he should be alarmed by the experience of families
      > who deal with deportation

      Those people put *themselves* in that bad experience by going to a foreign country and breaking its laws. The government isn't responsible for their fear merely because it enforces its own laws.

      When a guy robs a bank, gets caught, and is sentenced to prison, we don't say the government is breaking up his family by sending him to prison. No, we say the guy broke up his own family by knowingly doing something illegal, the consequence of which is separation from his wife and kids.

      The same principle applies to illegal immigrants. If their families are being disrupted, it's not the government's fault. It's *their* fault for doing something illegal, the consequence of which is deportation.

      > ICE actually poses a threat to families.

      No, ICE is just enforcing validly passed, perfectly constitutional and rational laws that are necessary for any nation's security and existence.

      If anyone poses a threat to those families with regard to the possibility of deportation, it's the adults in those families that chose to travel to a foreign country and break its laws, knowing the consequence for doing so is deportation.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    McGyver (profile), 13 Sep 2017 @ 10:39am

    I like the 1700-1800s when the politicians may have been equally thin skinned, but they would at least actually grant you the courtesy of engaging them in fisticuffs to clear their dubious honor... This modern crop of fragile losers use law enforcement to rough up reporters and protesters, twist the law to quell the voice of dissent and hide behind the privileges of office to weasel away from any uncomfortable situation.
    The use of "willful disruption of government process" has of late become disgustingly twisted to appease officials trying to hide from questions they don't have the guts or answers to face.
    Disruption of what process? Was he made late for a bribe?
    Yeah, it may be a difficult job, but if they can't handle the stress they should do everyone a favor and pack up their cartoon loot bags with the dollar signs on them, and just get the hell out of politics.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Personanongrata, 13 Sep 2017 @ 11:13am

      Re:

      I like the 1700-1800s when the politicians may have been equally thin skinned, but they would at least actually grant you the courtesy of engaging them in fisticuffs to clear their dubious honor... This modern crop of fragile losers use law enforcement to rough up reporters and protesters, twist the law to quell the voice of dissent and hide behind the privileges of office to weasel away from any uncomfortable situation. The use of "willful disruption of government process" has of late become disgustingly twisted to appease officials trying to hide from questions they don't have the guts or answers to face. Disruption of what process? Was he made late for a bribe? Yeah, it may be a difficult job, but if they can't handle the stress they should do everyone a favor and pack up their cartoon loot bags with the dollar signs on them, and just get the hell out of politics.

      Bravo!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2017 @ 10:39am

    It isn't just government. How many progressive groups want Climate Deniers jailed?

    “Climate change denial should be a crime,” declared the Sept. 1 headline in the Outline.

    Mark Hertsgaard argued in a Sept. 7 article in the Nation, titled “Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us,” that “murder is murder” and “we should punish it as such.”

    The suggestion that those who run afoul of the climate change consensus, in particular government officials, should face charges comes with temperatures flaring over the link between hurricanes and greenhouse gas emissions.

    “In the wake of Harvey, it’s time to treat science denial as gross negligence — and hold those who do the denying accountable,” said the subhead in the Outline article, written by Brian Merchant.

    Brad Johnson, executive director of Climate Hawks Vote, posted last week on Twitter a set of “climate disaster response rules,” the third of which was to “put officials who reject science in jail.”

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2017 @ 10:54am

      Re:

      It's almost like one group has the power to jail people and the other group is some activists.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2017 @ 11:14am

      Re:

      Bad analogy is bad and you should feel bad for wasting everyone's time.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Sep 2017 @ 5:59pm

      Re:

      Committing "Whataboutism" should be a crime.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2017 @ 6:47am

        Re: Re:

        Yeah, comparing the behavior of one side to the other side is SOOOO bad. There will be elections in the future and in the future those advocating jailing people due to speech will be doing so for different reasons, yet still wrong.

        Pointing that out is NOT WRONG!!

        I know you are joking, but there are many clambering for power who honestly believe that people who don't agree with their political philosophy should be jailed.

        Thankfully they don't have the power to do that. But lacking that power there are some of them beating up people saying things they don't agree with....

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        btr1701 (profile), 14 Sep 2017 @ 11:50am

        Re: Re:

        > Committing "Whataboutism" should be a crime.

        So should making up silly nonsense words like "whataboutism" to magically discount an opposing viewpoint.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          The Wanderer (profile), 15 Sep 2017 @ 9:29am

          Re: Re: Re:

          ...do you even understand what "whataboutism" means? Because my understanding of it is that it specifically is about pointing out that what the other person has said does not actually oppose the argument which was brought up; instead, it attempts to distract from that argument, by pointing out something else.

          (Also, if Mike coined the word, that's news to me. I imagine the Wikipedia article on the word, which I've seen linked several times but never actually visited, might clear up that question.)

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            btr1701 (profile), 15 Sep 2017 @ 10:41am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            > do you even understand what "whataboutism" means?

            Yes, I understand what both what it supposedly means and how it's disingenuously used to shut down a valid point in a debate.

            > it attempts to distract from that argument, by pointing
            > out something else.

            And often, that "something else" is something entirely relevant to the debate, like an illuminating hypocrisy on the part of the original speaker, for example.

            > Also, if Mike coined the word, that's news to me.

            I never said he coined it.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              The Wanderer (profile), 16 Sep 2017 @ 4:41am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              While pointing out hypocrisy may be worthwhile, the existence of other things which the speaker is not (or at least not currently) condemning does not automatically constitute hypocrisy.

              In the instant case, the poster was not saying "The viewpoint presented here is wrong", but "X other, similar thing is also wrong". To consider that "an opposing viewpoint" seems like a stretch, to me.

              >> Also, if Mike coined the word, that's news to me.
              >
              >I never said he coined it.

              He responded to one person by saying "Doing X should be a crime." (albeit clearly in sarcasm mode), with the implication that the person being responded to had just done that.

              You responded to him by saying "So should doing Y", which - if only because of that juxtaposition - naturally carries the same implication.

              The "doing Y" in question was "making up silly nonsense words like "whataboutism"".

              Therefore, in the context, what you wrote you clearly implied that he had made up - or, in other words, coined - the word.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                btr1701 (profile), 17 Sep 2017 @ 11:57am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                > Therefore, in the context, what you wrote you clearly implied that he had
                > made up - or, in other words, coined - the word.

                No, you may have erroneously inferred it based on an inaccurate understanding of what was written but I made no such implication.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ryunosuke (profile), 13 Sep 2017 @ 10:42am

    it isn't the questions themselves that they think is illegal, it's the lack of absolute obedience. Submit, obey and consume citizen.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonmylous, 13 Sep 2017 @ 11:09am

    Secret Service visit

    So, what Cobb is saying is that Congress did approve a budget increase and more overtime for the Secret Service AND that Trump isn't going to blow it all on more golf weekends? That's great news!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2017 @ 11:26am

    So, what Cobb is saying is that Congress did approve a budget increase and more overtime for the Secret Service AND that Trump isn't going to blow it all on more golf weekends?

    Golfing was Obama's pasttime. Trump prefers to spend Secret Service budget on visits to Trump owned properties, rather than the government owned properties that the Secret Service is more comfortable declaring secure.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2017 @ 12:43pm

      Re:

      Trump owned properties...where he golfs.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      JEDIDIAH, 13 Sep 2017 @ 7:40pm

      The back 9 at Fort Bragg.

      So what are these government controlled golf courses that Obama liked to play at? Did he do tours of Army bases with golf courses? Probably not.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Wendy Cockcroft, 14 Sep 2017 @ 5:37am

        Re: The back 9 at Fort Bragg.

        Jeddidiah, none of the money from Obama's golf jaunts ended up in his pockets. Stop the whataboutism, please. You're embarrassing yourself.

        Please note I've got issues with Obama over surveillance and the persecution of whistleblowers but that's where they stay; he's not "my guy."

        Trump has continued the worst of Obama's neocon policies while lining his pockets with the nation's money. Is he your guy? Is that why you're shouting, "Look over there?"

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2017 @ 12:54pm

    adjust title

    You are right, Gov employees can ask questions without charged a crime.

    New title suggestion:

    "Dear Government Employees: Being Asked Questions - Even Dumb Ones - Is Not A Criminal Offense"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jeff Green (profile), 13 Sep 2017 @ 2:11pm

    Please can we make it a crime?

    Because I've listened to debates in our parliament and your house and senate and if asking dumb questions were a crime we could lock the whole damned lot of them up and throw away the keys!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    oliver, 14 Sep 2017 @ 1:37am

    Just about my $0.02:

    Have you stopped beating your wife...?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Wendy Cockcroft, 14 Sep 2017 @ 5:40am

      Re:

      False analogy. People are either facing criminal charges for merely asking questions (albeit rather crudely put from time to time) or they are not. That the charges are later dropped is orthogonal to the discussion; the threat of being dragged away in handcuffs if you offend an official should not exist in a Western democracy.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    btr1701 (profile), 14 Sep 2017 @ 11:24am

    Cobb

    > Either way, absolutely nothing in the exchange above
    > deserves (or is likely to get) a Secret Service visit.

    If for no other reason than the USSS doesn't take marching orders from White House lawyers with regard to whom to investigate.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Thanks To Our Sponsors

The Techdirt Free Speech Edition
is a partnership with

with sponsorship from:

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.