Jesting DJs find that the Secret Service has NO Sense of Humor....
David E. Powell
http://www.msnbc.com/news/224794.asp
-- Begin quoted story
December 17 — The Secret Service interviewed two Trenton, N.J., radio disc
jockeys Thursday after one of them suggested as a compromise in the
impeachment debate that President Clinton be denied protection once he
leaves office.
“YOU KNOW how all the former presidents have Secret Service
protection for life? You don’t give him that. ... You just let anybody take
a shot at the fat boy that wants to,” disc jockey Jeff Deminski told his
audience on Wednesday afternoon. He and partner Tom Doyle apologized on
Thursday afternoon, after the Secret Service called.
The Secret Service was neither amused by Wednesday’s comments nor
mollified by the apology and dispatched agents to visit the two, who bill
themselves as Deminski and Doyle.
The agency regularly interviews people who are believed to have made
threats against the president and has in the past interviewed other disc
jockeys who have made such comments. It is against federal law to threaten
the president.
The station on which Deminski and Doyle’s show is broadcast is one of
the most popular in the Northeast and is often described as irreverent and
outrageous.
Lee Jacobs, station manager at New Jersey 101.5 FM, confirmed the
Secret Service agents had interviewed Deminski and his partner. He said the
station would “never seriously advocate any action against the law,” and
that Deminski and Doyle “clearly were not serious and wanted to apologize if
anyone thought they were suggesting someone do anything physically harmful
to the president or anyone else.”
Jacobs said the station is considering disciplinary action against
Deminski and that it would “likely be some sort of suspension.”
--End Quote of text
Ooops....
Dave Powell
Ogden Johnson III
: From the MSNBC Website at www.msnbc.com at
: http://www.msnbc.com/news/224794.asp
:
: -- Begin quoted story
:
: December 17 — The Secret Service interviewed two Trenton, N.J., radio disc
: jockeys Thursday after one of them suggested as a compromise in the
: impeachment debate that President Clinton be denied protection once he
: leaves office.
[Snip rest]
Total stupidity on the part of the DJ's. By law, the PPD *has* to examine
all such cases, no matter how humorously intended.
Many people have found themselves in similar situations after making jokes
about bombs while waiting for their flight at the airport, ending up in an
airport security office explaining themselves while the airplane left
without them. Nope. Not very smart at all.
OJ III
Ash Wyllie
>From the MSNBC Website at www.msnbc.com at
>http://www.msnbc.com/news/224794.asp
>-- Begin quoted story
>December 17 — The Secret Service interviewed two Trenton, N.J., radio disc
>jockeys Thursday after one of them suggested as a compromise in the
>impeachment debate that President Clinton be denied protection once he
>leaves office.
> “YOU KNOW how all the former presidents have Secret Service
>protection for life? You don’t give him that. ... You just let anybody take
>a shot at the fat boy that wants to,” disc jockey Jeff Deminski told his
>audience on Wednesday afternoon. He and partner Tom Doyle apologized on
>Thursday afternoon, after the Secret Service called.
> The Secret Service was neither amused by Wednesday’s comments nor
>mollified by the apology and dispatched agents to visit the two, who bill
>themselves as Deminski and Doyle.
> The agency regularly interviews people who are believed to have made
>threats against the president and has in the past interviewed other disc
>jockeys who have made such comments. It is against federal law to threaten
>the president.
Sometime I wonder if the Federal Government has heard of the First Admendment.
> The station on which Deminski and Doyle’s show is broadcast is one of
>the most popular in the Northeast and is often described as irreverent and
>outrageous.
> Lee Jacobs, station manager at New Jersey 101.5 FM, confirmed the
>Secret Service agents had interviewed Deminski and his partner. He said the
>station would “never seriously advocate any action against the law,” and
>that Deminski and Doyle “clearly were not serious and wanted to apologize if
>anyone thought they were suggesting someone do anything physically harmful
>to the president or anyone else.”
> Jacobs said the station is considering disciplinary action against
>Deminski and that it would “likely be some sort of suspension.”
>--End Quote of text
>Ooops....
>Dave Powell
-ash
(Paging Peter LaNague)
JohnMcCandless
Though I suppose down here it would be ASIO or ASIS paying you a call.
Maybe they have a reciprocal arrangement with the USSS/CIA/FBI ?
David E. Powell <David_Po...@email.msn.com> wrote in article
<uyR$C39K#GA.242@upnetnews05>...
> From the MSNBC Website at www.msnbc.com at
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/224794.asp
>
> -- Begin quoted story
>
> December 17 — The Secret Service interviewed two Trenton, N.J., radio
disc
> jockeys Thursday after one of them suggested as a compromise in the
> impeachment debate that President Clinton be denied protection once he
> leaves office.
>
snip
geobeck
head of state are:
Several years ago, some disgruntled so-and-so started harassing Prime
Minister Jean Chretien. At the time, Chretien was leaving the House of
Commons, surrounded by reporters (surrounded at less than arms' length).
The antagonist got within a couple of feet of Chretien, shouting his protest
in the Prime Minister's face. With no security detail around him, and
certainly no help from the reporters, Chretien grabbed his antagonist by the
face and pushed him away.
Now, exactly how close would such a person get to an American President
before being wrestled to the ground by the Secret Service?
Incidentally, Chretien's approval rating soared after the incident.
David E. Powell wrote in message ...
>From the MSNBC Website at www.msnbc.com at
>http://www.msnbc.com/news/224794.asp
>
>-- Begin quoted story
>
>December 17 — The Secret Service interviewed two Trenton, N.J., radio disc
>jockeys Thursday after one of them suggested as a compromise in the
>impeachment debate that President Clinton be denied protection once he
>leaves office.
>
> “YOU KNOW how all the former presidents have Secret Service
>protection for life? You don’t give him that. ... You just let anybody take
>a shot at the fat boy that wants to,” disc jockey Jeff Deminski told his
>audience on Wednesday afternoon. He and partner Tom Doyle apologized on
>Thursday afternoon, after the Secret Service called.
> The Secret Service was neither amused by Wednesday’s comments nor
>mollified by the apology and dispatched agents to visit the two, who bill
>themselves as Deminski and Doyle.
> The agency regularly interviews people who are believed to have made
>threats against the president and has in the past interviewed other disc
>jockeys who have made such comments. It is against federal law to threaten
>the president.
> The station on which Deminski and Doyle’s show is broadcast is one
of
>the most popular in the Northeast and is often described as irreverent and
>outrageous.
> Lee Jacobs, station manager at New Jersey 101.5 FM, confirmed the
>Secret Service agents had interviewed Deminski and his partner. He said the
>station would “never seriously advocate any action against the law,” and
>that Deminski and Doyle “clearly were not serious and wanted to apologize
if
>anyone thought they were suggesting someone do anything physically harmful
>to the president or anyone else.”
> Jacobs said the station is considering disciplinary action against
>Deminski and that it would “likely be some sort of suspension.”
>
>
>
Mike Chapman
The Brazen...
There is no restriction (other than the usual slander/libel/defamation laws,
of course) on anyone down here opening their mouth about terminating anyone
on this planet. If ASIO (not ASIS, not their job) or the AFP (more likely)
heard or read Mr Tolstrup's rantings on burning anything from the American
Flag or the American President downwards, including our own PM, the Queen or
anyone else, there's not a damn thing the Men In Black <tm acknowledged> can
do about it.
So Mr Tolstrup is perfectly safe unless he either conspires to do something
about it or actually does something about it.
And a conspiracy charge is actually easy to beat: all you have to do is
write a letter (and have it receipted delivery) to your local newspaper,
stating that you believe it would be a Good Thing (TM) if someone took a
potshot at the <insert name of high-ranking official> and this, in general,
is how to go about doing the job <insert method>, and here is a list of
people <insert list of self, *both* crackpot friends and a few known serial
killers currently in jail> I think might like to help me out because they
think the way I do. That way, it's public knowledge, even if the article
isn't published (believe me, even Mr Tolstrup's rantings wouldn't be!), and
therefore is not a conspiracy. At best, it's accessory before the fact, but
only if the fact happens....
Reciprocal arrangements? You bet. You say jump, we say "how high"?
(The reciprocating motion is easily perceived when three requests are
received in a row....[:<)...)
--
-Mike Chapman.
"Once a king, always a king. Once a night is enough."
JohnMcCandless wrote in message
<01be2c9a$7b536040$3c00...@johnmc.topend.com.au>...
>Mr Tolstrup, take note.
>
>Though I suppose down here it would be ASIO or ASIS paying you a call.
>Maybe they have a reciprocal arrangement with the USSS/CIA/FBI ?
>
>John
>joh...@topend.com.au
>
>
>David E. Powell <David_Po...@email.msn.com> wrote in article
><uyR$C39K#GA.242@upnetnews05>...
>> From the MSNBC Website at www.msnbc.com at
>> http://www.msnbc.com/news/224794.asp
>>
>> -- Begin quoted story
>>
>> December 17 — The Secret Service interviewed two Trenton, N.J., radio
>disc
>> jockeys Thursday after one of them suggested as a compromise in the
>> impeachment debate that President Clinton be denied protection once he
>> leaves office.
>>
>snip
Penn Hackney
>
[snip]
>
> And a conspiracy charge is actually easy to beat: all you have to do is
> write a letter (and have it receipted delivery) to your local newspaper,
> stating that you believe it would be a Good Thing (TM) if someone took a
> potshot at the <insert name of high-ranking official> and this, in general,
> is how to go about doing the job <insert method>, and here is a list of
> people <insert list of self, *both* crackpot friends and a few known serial
> killers currently in jail> I think might like to help me out because they
> think the way I do. That way, it's public knowledge, even if the article
> isn't published (believe me, even Mr Tolstrup's rantings wouldn't be!), and
> therefore is not a conspiracy. At best, it's accessory before the fact, but
> only if the fact happens....
>
Interesting, but in America a conspiracy is defined as an *agreement* to
commit an unlawful act and the commission of one overt act in
furtherance of the agreement. Whether the agreement is "public" or not
would be completely irrelevant.
[snip]
--
pe...@betatesters.com, http://home.att.net/~penn/
"Who lives without folly is not so wise as he thinks."
- Francois, Duc de La Rochefoucauld
Mike Chapman
Penn Hackney wrote in message <36820A...@att.net>...
>Mike Chapman wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> And a conspiracy charge is actually easy to beat: all you have to do is
<snip>
>>
>
>Interesting, but in America a conspiracy is defined as an *agreement* to
>commit an unlawful act and the commission of one overt act in
>furtherance of the agreement. Whether the agreement is "public" or not
>would be completely irrelevant.
>[snip]
Difference in laws, I suppose. "Conspiracy" here implies secrecy from
others. If it's publicised, it's not a secret, because you're not hiding any
intent from others. Not a terribly important distinction until an unlawful
act is committed - up 'til that point, it's just an expression of opinion
rather than a chargeable offence. Once an illegal act has taken place, the
expressions of intent prior to the act are then premeditation, which
increase the severity of the offence, and the perpetrators become liable to
charges of "intent to commit <insert illegal act>" rather than conspiracy,
which requires proof of secret association for the purpose of defining ways
and means to carry out the act. It's a distinction which means little in
this context; I guess the outcome - in time served - would be about the
same.......
>--
> pe...@betatesters.com, http://home.att.net/~penn/
>"Who lives without folly is not so wise as he thinks."
> - Francois, Duc de La Rochefoucauld
-Mike Chapman
Ho- Ho- Ho-ping you all have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
David S
"Mike Chapman" <reds...@ozemail.com.au>. Why: who knows? What:
>There is no restriction (other than the usual slander/libel/defamation laws,
>of course) on anyone down here opening their mouth about terminating anyone
>on this planet. If ASIO (not ASIS, not their job) or the AFP (more likely)
>heard or read Mr Tolstrup's rantings on burning anything from the American
>Flag or the American President downwards, including our own PM, the Queen or
>anyone else, there's not a damn thing the Men In Black <tm acknowledged> can
>do about it.
>
>So Mr Tolstrup is perfectly safe unless he either conspires to do something
>about it or actually does something about it.
Or if he ever decides to visit the US, in which case it might be very
difficult for him to get permission to enter the country.
David Streeter
--
If replying by both newsgroup post and email, please say so
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/8114
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in
our air and water that are doing it." - Dan Quayle
Scott P
David S wrote:
I could be mistaken but isn't it a federal offense to threaten to kill the
president? Possibly a few other high ranking government officials enjoy similar
status.
--
Scott P
+----------------------------------------------------+
| Please Note I have had a change of Email address. |
+----------------------------------------------------+
To Reply please Replace GOV with NET
Thanks to Judge Greene AT&T is not quite that big anymore, yet.
Mike Chapman
--
-Mike Chapman.
"Once a king, always a king. Once a night is enough."
Scott P wrote in message <36884C01...@worldnet.att.gov>...
Glenn Brensinger
<David_Po...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> Jacobs said the station is considering disciplinary action against
>Deminski and that it would “likely be some sort of suspension.”
If they can fire Opie and Anthony for claiming the Mayor was dead as
an April Fool's prank, imagine what could happen to these two :o
Sometimes, the people in charge need to sit back, take the cork out,
and say, "What the f..."
Glenn
loki
> If they can fire Opie and Anthony for claiming the Mayor was dead as
> an April Fool's prank, imagine what could happen to these two :o
>
> Sometimes, the people in charge need to sit back, take the cork out,
> and say, "What the f..."
Or better yet, do away with all those juvenile morning shows. I just don't
listen anymore - they're not as imaginative as my 16 yr old step-son.
Loki
David S
<sco...@worldnet.att.gov>. Why: who knows? What:
>David S wrote:
>
>> When: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 14:02:30 +1100. Where: alt.books.tom-clancy. Who:
>> "Mike Chapman" <reds...@ozemail.com.au>. Why: who knows? What:
>>
>> >There is no restriction (other than the usual slander/libel/defamation laws,
>> >of course) on anyone down here opening their mouth about terminating anyone
>> >on this planet. If ASIO (not ASIS, not their job) or the AFP (more likely)
>> >heard or read Mr Tolstrup's rantings on burning anything from the American
>> >Flag or the American President downwards, including our own PM, the Queen or
>> >anyone else, there's not a damn thing the Men In Black <tm acknowledged> can
>> >do about it.
>> >
>> >So Mr Tolstrup is perfectly safe unless he either conspires to do something
>> >about it or actually does something about it.
>>
>> Or if he ever decides to visit the US, in which case it might be very
>> difficult for him to get permission to enter the country.
>
>I could be mistaken but isn't it a federal offense to threaten to kill the
>president? Possibly a few other high ranking government officials enjoy similar
>status.
Yes, it's a United States federal offense, but Mr. Tolstrup is Australian.
The US law enforcement agencies aren't likely to do much about it as long
as he stays at home. I highly doubt that it's illegal in Australia to
threaten to kill the President of the United States, unless the plan is to
do it on Australian soil.
David Streeter
--
If replying by both newsgroup post and email, please say so
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/8114
"Always leave an inch of snow so it looks nice and white. Esthetics are
very important in snow removal." - Martha Stewart
Scott P
David S wrote:
To get back on topic somewhat we could send Chavez & Noonan after him ;)
Scott P
Tolstrup wrote:
> >
> > To get back on topic somewhat we could send Chavez & Noonan after him ;)
>
> well, firstly discussing the assassination of the person holding the
> office of President of the United States of America, specifically
> Clinton as his personal quirks and weaknesses are relevant to the
> subject matter, is by no means illegal
If your in the US of A and the government feels you are serious enough it is
illegal.
> - Clancy's done it numerous
> times, as well as dozens of movies.
Fiction and fact are 2 entirely different things. An author writes a
fictional plot to kill an imaginary president or even, with less latitude, a
real one is entertainment. An author who hatches an honest to goodness plot
to kill the real president is a different matter, he will be investigated and
a threat assessment done. What happens next is how seriously he is taken, but
he gets a file somewhere with his name on it.
> Secondly, even if such a law existed, are they really going to send
> their Gestapo after lil ol' *me*?
Doubt anyone really cares unless either you come over here and head for a
location were the president is or if the president goes over there and you
head toward were he is visiting.
> Not that my spineless
> govt would do anything, but there are believe it or not a few countries
> out there with fairly good reasons for disliking the USA
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if we don't all like it.
>
>
> Rohan Tolstrup
> any idea what the hell I can do with a metre-long inflatable spider?
Depends on how many inflatable flies you have?
Tolstrup
> To get back on topic somewhat we could send Chavez & Noonan after him ;)
well, firstly discussing the assassination of the person holding the
office of President of the United States of America, specifically
Clinton as his personal quirks and weaknesses are relevant to the
subject matter, is by no means illegal - Clancy's done it numerous
times, as well as dozens of movies. Highly illegal acts routinely
appear in books and movies. Hell, 'bugger' (includes bestiality) is
part of the accepted English lexicon. What's so different about
discussing it on a newsgroup?
Secondly, even if such a law existed, are they really going to send
their Gestapo after lil ol' *me*? Talk about strategic nuke MIRVs for a
sparrow, in addition to the kind of public outcry such an act would
take. Are you looking for another Petrov Affair? Not that my spineless
govt would do anything, but there are believe it or not a few countries
out there with fairly good reasons for disliking the USA
Rohan Tolstrup
Mike Chapman
--
-Mike Chapman.
"Once a king, always a king. Once a night is enough."
Tolstrup wrote in message <368CDF...@c032.aone.net.au>...
>>
<snip>
>Rohan Tolstrup
>any idea what the hell I can do with a metre-long inflatable spider?
Create your very own World Wide Web.......
Kurt Ullman
wrote:
>> well, firstly discussing the assassination of the person holding the
>> office of President of the United States of America, specifically
>> Clinton as his personal quirks and weaknesses are relevant to the
>> subject matter, is by no means illegal
>
>If your in the US of A and the government feels you are serious enough it is
>illegal.
>
Heck they don't even have to think you are serious. I worked on a
Psych Unit for 14 years and every couple years one or more Secret Squirrels
would show up on our doorstep wanting to talk to a client or two about certain
phone calls they were making. A couple were frequent flyers with both us and
the SS.
--------------------------------------------------------
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts--for support rather than illumination."
Andrew Lang