E.P.A. Assesses Threats on Twitter to Justify Pruitt’s Spending

The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to justify Scott Pruitt’s extraordinary and costly security measures.

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency has been examining posts on Twitter and other social media about Scott Pruitt, the agency’s administrator, to justify his extraordinary and costly security measures, which have included first-class travel and full-time protection even on personal trips to Disneyland, the Rose Bowl and college basketball games, according to interviews and agency and congressional documents.

The social media efforts have come under scrutiny by some Democratic lawmakers, as well as senior officials at the E.P.A., who said the review had uncovered individuals sounding off against Mr. Pruitt but had found no actionable threats against him. One top E.P.A. official said in an interview that he had objected to the efforts when they were first discussed last year, to no avail.

Suspicious posts are referred to the E.P.A. inspector general’s office, which is charged with investigating threats. Spokesmen for both the inspector general and the E.P.A. declined to comment on the nature of specific threats, citing security concerns. The E.P.A. spokesman, Jahan Wilcox, said in a statement, “Scott Pruitt has faced an unprecedented amount of death threats against him.”

But two Democratic senators said on Tuesday that an agency whistle-blower had provided them with an internal E.P.A. memo concluding that a threat assessment prepared by Mr. Pruitt’s security detail did not appear to justify the increased protection. The internal memo was prepared in February by the intelligence unit of the agency’s homeland security office, according to the senators, Tom Carper of Delaware and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

The security detail’s assessment “DOES NOT employ sound analysis or articulate relevant ‘threat specific’ information appropriate to draw any resource or level of threat conclusions regarding the protection posture for the Administrator,” the memo said, according to a letter written by the two senators that called on the Senate to investigate the matter.

An individual involved in writing the memo, Mario Caraballo, has been removed from his job as deputy associate administrator of the homeland security office, although an E.P.A. official said the dismissal was unrelated to the memo.

The senators also said the social media activity — described in their letter as “open-source review of social media” — had uncovered “no evidence of a direct threat” to Mr. Pruitt.

Mr. Pruitt is being protected round the clock by a team of about 20 people — three times as many as on his predecessor‘s security detail — at an estimated cost of $3 million a year, according to E.P.A. officials as first reported by The Associated Press. Mr. Pruitt’s calendar, recently made public, shows that the security detail accompanies him even on days when he has no scheduled work events. Mr. Whitehouse said his office had documents showing that members of Mr. Pruitt’s security detail were present during a trip to California when the administrator visited Disneyland and the Rose Bowl.

The review of social media postings turned up commentary related to the E.P.A. and its management under Mr. Pruitt, including one “social media post in which an individual ‘stated he is not happy with some of the Administrator’s policies and wanted to express his displeasure,’” according to the letter on Tuesday from the two Democratic senators.

Mr. Carper and Mr. Whitehouse declined to release copies of the materials quoted in the letter, saying they included sensitive details about security arrangements.

Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, who is chairman of the Senate committee that oversees the E.P.A., said that the Democrats had inappropriately released selected parts of an internal agency security memo.

“Any reasonable reading of these documents supports the Office of the Inspector General’s statements that Administrator Pruitt faces a ‘variety of direct death threats,’” Mr. Barrasso said in a statement. “This is exactly why members should not publicly disclose information that relates to the safety of a cabinet member. It is also why this committee will not hold a hearing on this issue.”

Briefings on threats to Mr. Pruitt, which included posts on social media, were delivered by E.P.A. security personnel to top agency officials, including Mr. Pruitt’s chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, according to an employee who participated in a briefing. The employee said the briefing highlighted mostly criticisms of Mr. Pruitt’s policies as having a deleterious effect on the environment, rather than instances of threats to his personal safety.

The employee said that the agency’s social media reviews had been the subject of a recent meeting that included representatives from the agency’s inspector general’s office and its homeland security office, which had produced the internal memo that was critical of the threat assessments.

Mr. Wilcox, the E.P.A. spokesman, said threat assessments were conducted within the agency’s office of compliance, using information collected from Mr. Pruitt’s security detail, the E.P.A.’s homeland security office and its inspector general’s office.

“Americans should all agree that members of the president’s cabinet should be kept safe from these violent threats,” Mr. Wilcox said.

Other government agencies and companies have used social media to monitor protesters or to look for information on emerging incidents. It is unclear whether the E.P.A. has looked to social media in the past to determine threats to an administrator.

The practice, as deployed by police departments, has brought criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union, and social media companies including Twitter have cut off access to certain software programs that authorities use to track postings.

Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy institute, said she had seen a rise in social media monitoring within law enforcement agencies, and cautioned that what people say in an Instagram post or a tweet can be open to interpretation.

“The fact that 10,000 people say, ‘I hate Scott Pruitt’ on Twitter doesn’t suggest to me there is a threat against Scott Pruitt,” said Ms. Patel, who is co-director of the center’s liberty and national security program. “It suggests there are a lot of people who dislike Scott Pruitt.”

If the E.P.A.’s review of social media was aggressively monitoring critics of Mr. Pruitt, Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington-based nonprofit group, said that it might violate federal law. He cited a 2011 case that successfully challenged the Department of Homeland Security when it moved from searching for potential terror threats to tracking individuals in the United States who had been critical of the agency and its senior officials.

“The collection of data on individuals, based solely on their criticism of public officials, raises both First Amendment and federal Privacy Act questions that need to be answered,” Mr. Rotenberg said.

Jeffrey A. Lagda, a spokesman for the E.P.A.’s office of the inspector general, said the office is not broadly searching social media, but instead focusing on individual statements considered potentially threatening. “The O.I.G. has examined social media posts in the course of investigating alleged threats made by individuals on social media sites directed against the EPA Administrator, and that have been referred to the O.I.G.,” he said.

Various documents released in response to open records requests filed over the last year by E&E News, a trade publication, and other organizations generally revealed threats that were deemed not worthy of prosecution by the authorities, or could not be substantiated.

The records show that the agency’s investigators reached out to the United States Postal Service, the Secret Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, after Mr. Pruitt received a postcard that included the phrases “Get out while you still can, Scott,” and “you are evil incarnite.” Another offending postcard sent to Mr. Pruitt, said: “CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL!!! We are watching you. For the sake of our planet, our children & our grandchildren, will you be a reasonable man? I repeat, we are watching you!”

The agency’s inspector general initiated a criminal investigation after protesters crashed a speech Mr. Pruitt was giving at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington last spring, but the Justice Department has repeatedly declined to prosecute cases, at times citing freedom of speech provisions of the United States Constitution, agency records show.

In one instance, the Justice Department declined to prosecute an Arkansas man who said on Twitter last April that he wanted to kill Mr. Pruitt. After being interviewed by investigators, the man revealed he had been drinking and had meant the tweet as a “flippant comment” in response a Rachel Maddow report on MSNBC, according to public records.

According to one internal agency memo, there have been at least 16 “threats” against Mr. Pruitt. The agency has said that amounted to a 400 percent increase from his predecessor, Gina McCarthy, who served at the end of the Obama administration, according to data provided by Senate Democrats.

Still, the lack of substantiated threats has led the E.P.A.’s homeland security division to second-guess the work by Mr. Pruitt’s security detail and the agency’s inspector general.

“The ‘threat’ to the Administrator was being inappropriately mischaracterized by the Protective Service Detail (PSD) and the OIG,” an internal E.P.A. memo obtained by Mr. Carper and Mr. Whitehouse said, referring to the Office of Inspector General by its initials.

The E.P.A.’s homeland security office, in the internal agency memo in February, also questioned Mr. Pruitt’s need to travel in business or first class. The memo said that the office had “not seen any analysis to indicate why the Administrator would be at any greater risk on a commercial airline than any other passenger, or why a trained EPA PSD member could not protect the Administrator in a different location on the aircraft.”

In Other News

fake money

Keywords clouds text link http://alonhatro.com

 máy sấy   thịt bò mỹ  thành lập doanh nghiệp
Visunhomegương trang trí  nội thất  cửa kính cường lực   lắp camera Song Phát thiết kế nhà 

Our PBN System:  thiết kế nhà xưởng thiết kế nội thất thiết kế nhà tem chống giả  https://thegioiapple.net/ https://24hstore.vn/

aviatorsgame.com ban nhạcconfirmationbiased.com 
mariankihogo.com  ốp lưngGiường ngủ triệu gia  Ku bet ku casino

https://maysayhaitan.com/  https://dovevn.com/ buy fake money https://sgnexpress.vn/ máy sấy buồn sấy lạnh

mặt nạ  mặt nạ ngủ  Mặt nạ môi mặt nạ bùn mặt nạ kem mặt nạ bột mặt nạ tẩy tế bào chết  mặt nạ đất sét mặt nạ giấy mặt nạ dưỡng mặt nạ đắp mặt  mặt nạ trị mụn
mặt nạ tế bào gốc mặt nạ trị nám tem chống giả

https://galaxymedia.vn/  công ty tổ chức sự kiện tổ chức sự kiện
Ku bet ku casino
Sâm tươi hàn quốc trần thạch cao trần thạch cao đẹp

suất ăn công nghiệpcung cấp suất ăn công nghiệp


© 2020 US News. All Rights Reserved.