Let me ask you a very simple question. Do you think the Secret Service does simple background checks on anyone who plans to meet, or get near, a person in their protective detail?
And that means what, really? That they knew and refused to tell their bosses in the TREASURY DEPARTMENT?
/snicker
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
Working for the Treasury Department is only part of the Secret Service's job duties. And that arm of the SS does not work politician protection detail.
And at the time of the violation, there WAS no DoHS.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
Partha wrote:And at the time of the violation, there WAS no DoHS.
What? DHS was fully formed in March of 2003.
Federal Election Commission records show that Hsu has donated $260,000 to Democratic Party groups and federal candidates since 2004. Though a fundraiser for Clinton, he also donated to Sen. Barack Obama's Senate campaign in 2004 and to Obama's political action committee.
WTF are you talking about? Background checks are performed then......not in 91.
I doubt the SS has the time or resources to run a background check on anyone and everyone that is going to meet with an ex-first lady. Even if they do, they would hardly be allowed to disclose what they find out to the person they are protecting. They'd get far more value for their money by looking for guns.
Ddrak wrote:I doubt the SS has the time or resources to run a background check on anyone and everyone that is going to meet with an ex-first lady. Even if they do, they would hardly be allowed to disclose what they find out to the person they are protecting. They'd get far more value for their money by looking for guns.
Dd
You've got to be kidding. They absolutely run checks on EVERYONE that wants to meet with the first lady. And I mean EVERYONE. It's easier to control incidents through prevention than through a tactical intervention. And what leads you to believe they can't disclose information to the person in their protective detail? It's an absolute necessity, since the person in the protective detail may be making decisions affecting their safety, with the decisions based on incomplete information.
And its goddam Hillary for crissakes... she isn't known for a loose hand in the control department. Hell, even her after-coffee bowel movement has an itinerary.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Ddrak is correct that the SS does not have the time or resources to run a background check on anyone and everyone who is going to meet or get close to a ex-first lady. I was in handshaking distance from Barbara Bush when she came by our town's library in the mid 90s and I guarantee they didn't do background searches on the entire crowd.
However an ex-first lady is different from a ex-first lady senator or a ex-first lady presidential candidate and there will be tighter security especially in organized functions such a private meetings or functions. It might be cursory, but there will be attempts to find red flags in the attendee list.
Partha wrote:And at the time of the violation, there WAS no DoHS.
What? DHS was fully formed in March of 2003.
Federal Election Commission records show that Hsu has donated $260,000 to Democratic Party groups and federal candidates since 2004. Though a fundraiser for Clinton, he also donated to Sen. Barack Obama's Senate campaign in 2004 and to Obama's political action committee.
WTF are you talking about? Background checks are performed then......not in 91.
Fully formed, as Tom Ridge repeatedly told you, != in actual control, oh picker of nits in other threads. And his first campaign donation that they've traced was in 2003.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
You've got to be kidding. They absolutely run checks on EVERYONE that wants to meet with the first lady. And I mean EVERYONE. It's easier to control incidents through prevention than through a tactical intervention.
No - I'm not kidding. They simply don't have the time or funding. How many thousand people a year do you think she meets with? If you think the only alternative to doing a background check on everyone is "tactical intervention" then you really don't have much of an imagination - you practice prevention but in other ways. After all, the biggest threat is a lone gunman with no background.
And what leads you to believe they can't disclose information to the person in their protective detail? It's an absolute necessity, since the person in the protective detail may be making decisions affecting their safety, with the decisions based on incomplete information.
Privacy laws would be a good start - there's a reason you sign off on background checks.
I think you're assuming an awful lot of stuff that just doesn't make a whole lot of logical sense when you think about the time and energy requirements.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970, for starters.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
Embar Angylwrath wrote:Name me one privacy law that says I can't disclose public information discovered during a background check. Just one.
Obviously none - but you added the "public" caveat there. Background checks dead with significantly more than just "public" information - credit records and police/FBI/CIA files for a start. What you're suggesting is that the SS runs the checks, and then does further work to vet the results from those checks to figure out what they can and can't tell the target of their protection. It honestly makes no sense.
Embar Angylwrath wrote:So.. Hsu's warrant was public info. Right? Therefore there was no restriction on disclosure.
Right, but again you're making the assumption that this sort of check was done and that they have a policy of disclosing the result of such checks to the person they are guarding. If you are dealing with secret information that you cannot disclose then policies usually lean to not disclosing anything, primarily because you can often guess the source of a result if you eliminate all public information. The stupid part is, if such a background check were taken then why the hell didn't the SS notify the police directly that they knew where someone with an outstanding arrest warrant was?
Sorry - but common sense dictates that the SS didn't know about this warrant.
Ddrak wrote: The stupid part is, if such a background check were taken then why the hell didn't the SS notify the police directly that they knew where someone with an outstanding arrest warrant was?
Sorry - but common sense dictates that the SS didn't know about this warrant.
Dd
Here's the easy answer. Secret Service did the check. Found out Hsu had a warrant. Also determined he was lower on the threat level, but the warrant gave cause for concern, so they informed Hildabeast that Hsu was a wanted man. Hildabeast replied "You damn right he's a wanted man, he's wanted by me and I want him to keep the money spigot open. Keep your mouth shut and forget we had this conversation."
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Occam's razor. Given the job of the SS, the tools at their disposal and the ease of running a simple background check, they'd be remiss in their dutues if they didn't run the check.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
