Personally, I think that if they made it to the party, good on them. After that, I’m sick of hearing about it. You’d think that there would be other real news happening in the world that could have been reported this morning instead of more about these vapid gate crashers.
Well it’s newsworthy because someone was able to get access to the POTUS in the White House under Secert Service watch. This is serious stuff and to act like its no big deal just because you (or others) may not like Obama is what’s outragous. These people could have caused an international incident with India had it been thier intent or physically threated the POTUS. This is much more newsworthy than say the Tiger Woods crap that wasting our time . . .
It seems they may well have believed they were in good shape.
They were exchanging e-mails with a presidential appointee (Michele Jones, “Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense White House Liason”) who was promising on working with them to get tickets to the state dinner, had asked them to supply social security/DOB/etc for a security check, and had promised them access to the arrival ceremony. On the morning of the event, this official sent them an e-mail which read:
She apparently did call and left a message saying she could not get them tickets.
After returning home that night, after the dinner (1:03 AM Wednesday), Tareq sent the following e-mail:
Jones replies at 1:38 PM Wednesday:
In my view, it will be almost impossible to prosecute them, assuming these e-mails are genuine.
I’m not sure I buy that position.
They were told people were trying to get tickets, but that they didn’t have them.
Now, I don’t know much about presidential events at the white house, but I think it’s reasonable to think that someone will tell you if you get a ticket–it doesn’t seem to be the kind of thing tickets are, in effect, held on the door for. The reports I’ve see say that guests to such events submit details well in advance, after they get their invitation. Even if you are invited, you don’t just show up–there are some preliminaries which, presumably, everyone in those circles of DC society will know about.
In short, I just don’t see it as reasonable to believe (if that is the standard–probably, it’s the most generous they could get–since, objectively, they weren’t invited) that a “I can’t get you tickets” to a state dinner justifies belief that they were invited–especially absent any follow-up call, and without the advance notice and submission of info for security that is standard practice at such events.
There is also good circumstantial evidence that these two knew they weren’t invited–Most reports I’ve seen noted that they didn’t stay for dinner–because, presumably, they knew there wasn’t a place setting for them, and so they’d be busted at that point.
Now, if they genuinely thought they were invited, to a state DINNER, why would they leave before the main event? Why wouldn’t they ask one of the staff “We can’t find our place for dinner–can you tell us where we’re seated?”
It’s hard to square their (1) not staying for dinner, and (2) as far as I can tell, not even acting as if they expected to stay for dinner with the concept that they thought they were invited to a state dinner.
Yeah, but they didn’t and the Secret Service has been notified so that should be the end of the story. Same thing for Tiger Woods. He crashed his truck, the FHP sent him a ticket, end of story.
Oh, and FTR, I’m in the Obama camp.
As I hinted:
Here are the excerpts from the e-mails relating to that:
Tareq responded to that e-mail with the requested information. So from his point of view, he HAD been asked for and provided the required security information.
They can argue that they realized once inside that there was no place for them for dinner, and then figured out that they weren’t supposed to be there.
Notice that I’m not saying they were in fact mistaken… just that the existence of these mails will make a successful prosecution almost impossible.
Bricker, I would liken provideing the required information to the White House staffer as akin to filling out a loan application. It is not reasonable to assume you will get the loan just because you filled out the application.
Of course.
But here’s what he said immediately after the event:
This statement is made before there’s any public outcry or suggestion that he’s done something wrong. A prior statement like this is not hearsay if it’s consistent with his courtroom testimony and offered to rebut a charge against the witness of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive.
Now, if the prosecution has a guard that says, “No, I told them their name wasn’t on the list…” and it turns out they slipped in behind him while his back was turned, then I agree they can be successfully prosecuted. But if they showed up and told a guard, “Yes, we’ve provided all our information to the Secretary of Defense’s White House Liason,” and he lets them in… there’s almost no way they get convicted.
IANAL, but I think Bricker is correct, as it appears that they didn’t intend to enter under false pretenses. On the bright side, I think that they will be social pariahs from now on.