Protecting the Federal Attorney

For John, BLUF:  Government officials should feel safe while executing their duties.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Federal marshals won’t provide a security detail for confirmed US Attorney Rachael Rollins despite recent threats against her life

Here is the sub-headline:

Recent e-mail to prosecutor:  “You’ll probably die.”

From The Boston Globe, by Reporter Andrea Estes, 17 December 2021, 6:15 pm.

Here is the lede plus three:

Federal marshals have declined a request from newly confirmed US Attorney Rachael Rollins for a full-time security detail, rejecting her arguments that recent threats show she could be in danger, according to two people with direct knowledge of the security discussions.

Rollins, the first Black woman to serve as US attorney for Massachusetts, has said threats against her have grown more vicious since her Senate confirmation vote earlier this month during which Republicans attacked her as a dangerous, pro-criminal prosecutor. A blatantly racist e-mail sent to the Suffolk district attorney’s office on Dec. 9 warned that “SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE IS PLOTTING TO PUT ONE IN YOUR FACE OR HEAD!!!

“You’ll probably die ... I don’t have the (nerve) to outright kill someone ... but keep going and you will find one (who does have the nerve) ... I hope,” said the e-mail, which Rollins turned over to the US Marshals Service for investigation.

But the Marshals Service, which protects federal officials, declined to provide Rollins with a security detail after investigating the threats, the two people said. One author of a threatening e-mail apologized, the two people said, and marshals concluded Rollins was at low risk.

I szympathize with Ms Rollins having to deal with death threats.  However, there are some 30,000 federal officials who could receive protectoin from the US Marshal Serice. On the other hand, in its infinite wisdom, the US Congress has only authorized 3,067 marshalls, plus 4,700 Court Security Officers.  I pray that none of those threatening Ms Rollins have the courage, or stupidity, to try to kill or injure her.

The other thing I noted in the article was that Ms Rollins is taking a pay cut to move up to being the Federal Attorney for the full state of Massachusetts.  As the Suffolk district attorney she earned $191,000 pa.  Plus, a car, a driver and a security detail.  As the Federal Attorney she will earn $172,500, and will lose the car, driver and protection unit.  Is this a comment on Suffolk county and profligate ways, or a comment on the Federal Government, deep in debt?  Or does it mean that the Federal Government should have different pay scales for different parts of the nation?

In the mean time, regardless of our political leanings we should counsel our friends and neighbors not to use inflamtory language about our elected officils.  It is OK to call for impeachment or to circulate recall petitions.  It is not OK to threaten elected or appointed officials or their familites with physical violence.

It doesn't matter if you follow Émile Loubet or Émile Zola, one needs to have some moderation in one's approach to politicians.  Remember, the most stiupid remark of the Twentieth Century was by a member of the Frankfurt School, Professor Herbert Marcuse:  "Tear down the Weimar Republic.  Whatever replaces it has to be better."

Let us not tear down this Republic.  Whatever replaces it will likely be worse.

Regards  —  Cliff