Death threats would likely go to the FBI.Originally Posted by 57Brave
That’s how bureaucracy actually works.
Death threats would likely go to the FBI.
That’s how bureaucracy actually works.
Not the FOIA request but request from Sens. Carper and Whitehouse:
"The senators said they have reviewed documents that say the U.S. Secret Service found no "behaviors of interest" against Pruitt – indicating there was not a credible threat against him.
And, they wrote, an internal EPA report they reviewed indicates "EPA intelligence has not identified any specific credible direct threat to the EPA administrator." A separate memo from the EPA's homeland security office in February found that the security team's justification for increased security spending exaggerated threats against Pruitt to justify first class flights. That memo says the intelligence office at EPA repeatedly told EPA senior leadership and the inspector general's office that the threat to the administrator was being mischaracterized by his protective detail"
Working in Biological research please note the EPA takes threats seriously.
Eco-terrorism though seldom is a risk and safeguarded. Ad nauseum - more useless regulation
Having said that it stands to reason threats to the life of the Director would of course be , along with the FBI and Secret Service, on the radar .
Trump , Pruitt and their apologists / enablers are full of hoo-ey
Last edited by 57Brave; 04-11-2018 at 01:58 PM.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
What is this even in response to?
If you want a record of death threats against the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency you file a FOIA request with the FBI.
End of story.
Do you have any position here - aside from being wrong - and, once again, displaying that your comprehension of an issue doesn't extend very far past political leanings?
If you'd like to take a time out from spanking 57 you might notice that the internal review from EPA didn't justify the additional security measures.
My critique is related to the process and general BuzzFeed incompetency.
I haven't followed the Pruitt story and I don't care what happens to him or why.
forgive me quoting myself:
1) Buzzfeed as noted above did submit a FOIA request. And were told - read it for yourself
2) I am not wrong and have dealt with the EPA first hand regarding threats.
Threats ranging from graffiti on a fence to (I would imagine) threatening the life of the director are taken very seriously.
Or at least serious enough to be documented
3) Again not so sure your familiarity with bureaucracies
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Let me step you through this, because I feel like it's my civic duty at this point.
1. BuzzFeed filed a FOIA request with the EPA.
2. The request: "records of any death threat against Pruitt"
3. EPA: "no records"
4. We do a little homework on FOIA requests, find that they are most commonly denied for being overly broad
5. We also learn that government agencies love being uncooperative (see: bureaucracy)
6. Realize that Leopold might have produced some information (akin to what Democratic Senators did) if he asked for more specific information like "correspondence related to death threats out of the the IG's office"
7. Realize that Leopod is a clown. When asked for more information about his process says "my source is the ****ing EPA"
8. Yes, that's journalism in 2018 folks.
9. Also realize that Leopold could have simply ascertained the level of seriousness by contacting the FBI - where the EPA forwards all threats deemed legitimate.
10. Official record
11. Finito. Real story. Not ****ty tweet.
Last edited by Hawk; 04-11-2018 at 03:09 PM.
The EPA keeps a record of everything.
Is this what the next year and a half is going to be around you ?
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Try sending a FOIA request to the EPA and let me know how that works out for you.
For a guy that hasn't followed ...
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
I'm younger than you.
I know how to use the Internet.
It took me less than 5 minutes to cook that up.
You like?
Stick around, 57. You might learn a thing or two outside of that Russian twitterbot bukkake you are drenched from.
Muddle all you like but
end of the day, there were no death threats.
which I believe was the contention
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Was it a contention?
Was it your contention?
I responded to a poorly copied and pasted tweet.
I dunno.
The amount of beatings 57 has suffered lately makes me question why he still shows up... or at least, why he doesn't do a little more research before posting his "takes" (i.e. stolen tweets from liberal idiots)
There were no death threats
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
I'd refer you to Julio's post ... #542
... and sturg was saying something about research ...
A wise lady once said " if they can't win on policy they argue the procedure. If they can't win on procedure they argue the personal"
Not so sure your gripes with Buzzfeed, they seem to get most everything right.
Oh yeah, the ads ...
your complaint seems not so much the content presented but the source of the content
geez, no wonder ...
yeah, we have google where I live.
https://www.google.com/search?q=trum...nt=firefox-b-1
Last edited by 57Brave; 04-11-2018 at 04:16 PM.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Were there threats? Simple answer. Yes or no?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote