America’s most successful party crashers, Michaele and Tareq Salahi, who stormed the gates of a White House state dinner and somehow managed to get in, may soon be facing criminal charges, according to the Secret Service.Secret Service spokesman Jim Mackin says the agency is moving closer to beginning a criminal investigation. He says that’s one reason the Secret Service hasn’t yet explained what happened when Michaele and Tareq Salahi arrived at the security checkpoint Tuesday for the dinner honoring Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
One likely charge is 18 U.S.C. § 1036, “Entry by false pretenses to any real property, vessel, or aircraft of the United States or secure area of any airport or seaport,” which prohibits:
Whoever, by any fraud or false pretense, enters or attempts to enter–
(1) any real property belonging in whole or in part to, or leased by, the United States;
(2) any vessel or aircraft belonging in whole or in part to, or leased by, the United States;
(3) any secure or restricted area of any seaport, designated as secure in an approved security plan, as required under section 70103 of title 46, United States Code, and the rules and regulations promulgated under that section; or
(4) any secure area of any airport,
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.(b) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is–
(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if the offense is committed with the intent to commit a felony; or
(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both, in any other case.(c) As used in this section–
(1) the term “secure area” means an area access to which is restricted by the airport authority, captain of the seaport, or a public agency; and
(2) the term “airport” has the meaning given such term in section 47102 of title 49.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see § 1036 trespass charges paired with charges relating to misrepresentation the couple presumably had to engage in to sneak in. For example, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 is a very broad statute that (more or less) prohibits lying to the federal government:
Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully–
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years . . .
The government might try to pair these two theories to trigger the § 1036 felony. For example, they could argue that the initial fraudulent trespass on to government property in violation of § 1036 occurred with the intent of then lying to the government to get access to Obama in violation of § 1001, triggering the felony provisions of § 1036(b)(1) in addition to the felony provisions of § 1001.
It’s not totally clear how it would play out, as that could depend on the facts of the misrepresentations that the couple had to make to gain access to the dinner. But I think one thing is clear: Crashing a White House state dinner, and then bragging about it on Facebook, is really really dumb.
george weiss says:
you forgot trying to capitalize of the experience by auctioning off an interview with the media….i suppose any earnings from that are forfeiture?
November 30, 2009, 12:10 amOrin Kerr says:
George,
I’m not sure what you mean.
November 30, 2009, 12:13 amGV says:
Dumb? They’ve both received tons of publicity that will possibly translate into money down the road. Perhaps that’s not worth the risk of jail time. But that really depends on the individual, doesn’t it?
Moreover, if they are conservative and convicted, they can earn even more publicity on the conservative radio/tv show circuit.
Besides, if they are convicted, they are very likely to receive no more than probation.
And didn’t the couple claim not to lie to gain entrance? If so, they’ve committed no crime.
November 30, 2009, 12:14 amgeorge weiss says:
1) they are trying to get the network with the biggest bid to pay them for the first interview about the incident.
if this works and a network pays say a few hundred thousand…would the payment be forfeiture of a crime as it is fruits of the crime?
2) BTW seems 1001 and 1036(whether a felony 1036 or not) would have to merge for sentencing as 1001 prohibits lying and 1036 prohibits lying to gain entry-making 1001 lesser included of 1036.
November 30, 2009, 12:19 amOrin Kerr says:
GV,
I think I disagree with every sentence in your comment. To respond to each in turn, with the numbers below signalling the paragraph order:
1) My understanding is that they are already very rich. I suspect they weren’t thinking they could go to jail for the stunt.
2) Are they conservative? They are known figures, as I understand it, and I haven’t heard anything about their politics.
3) Perhaps they won’t get jail time, but I would guess they do.
4) The statutory requirement under Section 1036 is “any fraud or false pretense,” not lying. In the trespass context, acting like you are someone who has a right to be there when you don’t is generally considered a false pretense: I don’t know of any requirement that an explicit false statement be made.
November 30, 2009, 12:21 amOrin Kerr says:
(Oh, and I should add in response to GV, that it is true that such a move could be smart depending on the circumstances. For example, if the couple was eager to learn more about the federal criminal justice system first-hand, this wasn’t dumb at all. But I was assuming they had no such unusual interests.)
November 30, 2009, 12:37 amShelbyC says:
Eh. They should devote the resources they’re using to procecute these folks and use them to plug the security holes. They’re just being procecuted for embarrassing the government.
November 30, 2009, 12:40 amwlpeak says:
Well they wanted to be on a reality TV show. So can we safely conclude they are twits?
November 30, 2009, 12:41 amGV says:
Orin, just because they have money doesn’t mean they don’t want more. In any event, if the question is whether they are “dumb” for doing this, wouldn’t that turn on a question of how much they value the extra potential money/publicity versus jail time? I don’t pretend to know much about their intentions, but my understanding is that they were looking for publicity. (And I also don’t pretend to know whether they are conservative, which is why I said “If they are conservative . . . .”)
Regarding jail time, their Guideline range (assuming they have no criminal history) is 0 to 6 months. (I believe U.S.S.G. 2B1.1 would control their case.) This case is unusual, of course, and the Guidelines are advisory, so we can’t be sure what a judge would do. But all that being said, I don’t think most judges are going to throw these two in jail for pulling a stupid stunt.
Finally, if they did not lie to gain entrance, I don’t see how showing up to a party, honestly stating who you are, and gaining entrance is gaining entrance through fraud or false pretense. But I guess that would turn on the exact facts of their case and we do not know those.
November 30, 2009, 12:41 amgeorge weiss says:
shelbyc
thats a bit of a perverse incentive no? why not just have a national contest to trick the SS into letting you into the white house and if you get away with it you get a medal?
November 30, 2009, 12:43 amDavid Chesler says:
I accept as true that they’re trying to sell their story, and it’s not enough for them to be rich and beautiful or married to someone beautiful. I can’t get my head around them, or why anyone with that much of a life is on Facebook. I don’t understand why any of these rich people want to be on reality television, but apparently Michaele was a model so she likes that sort of thing. Sending a child up in a giant mylar flying saucer had already been done.
I wonder what story they told to get in. Is “Are you sure we’re not on the list? We ought to be and after our discussion with ____ at the polo dinner I was sure we were going to be at the State Dinner” enough of a lie? After the fact any statement that they would be at the dinner is true. “We should be on the list” is a matter of opinion.
Just how rich and powerful are they? Do they have friends?
November 30, 2009, 12:52 amneurodoc says:
Where did you get that impression? According to the Washington Post, the Oasis, the family winery in Hume, VA, is in bankruptcy, and it seems this couple is a pair of inveterate deadbeats. She claims to be a former Washington Redskin cheerleader, but the cheerleaders’ alumna club says they have no record of her; she claims to have modeled for Victoria’s Secret, but Victoria’s Secret says she never did; etc. Pathologic liars.
November 30, 2009, 1:02 amOrin Kerr says:
GV,
Your comments serve as a good reminder that if a VC blogger makes a debatable comment that plainly is not the point of the post, commenters will nonetheless debate the debatable point. So please note my 12:37 post noting that depending on what the couple wanted, this might have been smart, not dumb. If you would like me to amend the post itself, just let me know.
November 30, 2009, 1:03 amOrin Kerr says:
Me: “My understanding is that they are already very rich.”
Neurodoc: “Where did you get that impression? ”
Me: In my experience, people of modest means don’t generally have weddings quite this extravagant.
November 30, 2009, 1:07 amGuy says:
Based on similar past prosecutions relating to security, I’m pretty sure that’s officially the most serious crime of all.
November 30, 2009, 1:17 amptt says:
Maybe the wedding bankrupted them…
November 30, 2009, 1:21 amMike says:
In order to prosecute, wouldn’t the government be required to give out detailed information about internal security procedures? I.e., the wannabes went through x checkpoint; and x checkpoint operates as follows [insert details that should remain classified]?
Could the government keep that information classified – if it choose to prosecute – in light of the Public Trial Clause?
Seems like prudential reasons would caution against prosecution. The government would be required to give up a lot of details about White House security.
In any event, Secret Service should thank these people. While not well intentioned, the crashers did reveal a serious problem with security. Much like a hacker who doesn’t actually do anything malicious, the crashes are a net benefit to Secret Service.
November 30, 2009, 1:39 amMike says:
Yes. The point is to argue. What one argues over – even if it’s trivial – is irrelevant. A sad way to spend one’s life.
November 30, 2009, 1:42 amDangerMouse says:
The real crime: Making Obama look like an idiot.
November 30, 2009, 1:47 amDangerMouse says:
In all seriousness, what is criminal about showing up to a party uninvited and then being let in? Doesn’t that happen all the time, everywhere? Including for public events, in government buildings? I’m pretty sure it does.
If they lied, then fine. But if they just walked up to the door, and they were granted entrance, then it doesn’t seem like they were trespassing at all, and they had no false pretenses. Just because they weren’t on the list doesn’t mean that they committed fraud or anything. Uninvited guests being accepted to a party happens all the time.
Of course, the real problem is that the gatekeepers accepted these people, and made Obama look like a fool for a reality show event. That’s why there are calls to prosecute.
November 30, 2009, 1:53 amsecond history says:
Moreover, if they are conservative and convicted, they can earn even more publicity on the conservative radio/tv show circuit.
Somehow, I don’t think they are conservatives. They are hard core Palestinian jihadists bent on extending the caliphate to Washington DC (and Bravo cable) (/s). According to the Village Voice, quoting various right-wing blogs:
That settles it, send them to Gitmo!
November 30, 2009, 2:09 amdeepthought says:
In all seriousness, what is criminal about showing up to a party uninvited and then being let in? Doesn’t that happen all the time, everywhere? Including for public events, in government buildings? I’m pretty sure it does.
Most public buildings aren’t the White House, supposedly the most secure residence in the world. I hope they throw the book at them.
November 30, 2009, 2:13 amKirk Parker says:
While this does reflect unfavorably on White House security–and I want them to have good security–the bigger picture of 18 U.S.C. § 1036 is just Yet Another Verse in the song “Too Many Felonies”, isn’t it?
November 30, 2009, 2:17 amneurodoc says:
Perhaps you shouldn’t place so much reliance on your own experience of such matters. I think it far more telling that they have reportedly stiffed so many vendors, including her hairdresser multiple times, Salamander Market caterers for a princely sum (claimed $300K), their homeowners association, etc. Supposedly, their spending on grand business initiatives were in part responsible for taking the family winery, started by his parents 30 years ago, under, and the wedding took place before that bankruptcy.
Not all that important, to be sure, and objectively verifiable. Do think that you misread them, though, and thus probably fail to appreciate the nature and extent of psychopathology involved. They are all about pretending, but like the Colorado Springs couple whose ambition was celebrityhood through any means they could think of, the pretending will be much harder for them in the future, if not impossible. (I’ve seen no mention of children. I’ll speculate that they are too narcissistic and self-absorbed to want any.)
November 30, 2009, 2:18 amDave N. says:
The Village Voice quoted a whole bunch of right-wing blogs I have never heard of–certainly none with any prominence (no Hot Air, no Instapundit, no Patterico, for example). I have heard of Talking Points Memo — but even the Village Voice acknowledged that one is hardly right-wing.
I am also not so sure why conservatives would celebrate these numbskulls. Would liberals have celebrates similar gate-crashers if this stunt had occurred a year ago?
I say throw the book at them.
November 30, 2009, 2:18 amDave N. says:
I kind of like the idea that the TSA can arrest people who evade airport security. Don’t you?
November 30, 2009, 2:24 amOrin Kerr says:
Kirk Parker:
Can you explain why? As I see it, it’s a trespass statute. That’s not such a novel or overly aggressive concept, assuming it is interpreted correctly.
Neurodoc:
I’m happy to leave such questions to a, well, neuro doc.
November 30, 2009, 2:29 amGV says:
Orin, I’m sorry for posting a comment that did not address the “plain point” of your post. If you would like me to amend my comments, just let me know.
November 30, 2009, 2:43 amKirk Parker says:
Orin, it’s the felony part that disturbs me. Here in WA, we get by just fine making simple trespass (i.e. w/o any actions or intentions of burglary or assault) a simple misdemeanor.
It’s just another little entry in the federalization/criminalization follies to have a similar crime be judged much more serious simply because it was committed on US government property.
November 30, 2009, 2:51 amKirk Parker says:
Dave N.,
On rereading things, I see I didn’t make clear my issue is that the USC makes simple trespass into a felony.
As far as your airport question, the only such facility I’m really familiar with is SeaTac. It is operated by the Port of Seattle, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington. The Port has its own police force, that is equal in authority to any city police force in the state; thus it can enforce state law against trespass perfectly fine, no need for the feds to be involved. But maybe things are different in other states, and their airports are in some kind of unowned status whereby state law would not apply?
November 30, 2009, 3:17 amGuy says:
But, trespass is much more serious when it’s committed on U.S. government property, I’m not sure that it’s unwise to treat such trespass as presumptively being taken as implicating national security and terrorism and espionage concerns.
November 30, 2009, 3:28 amOrin Kerr says:
Kirk,
Simple trespass under Section 1036 is just a misdemeanor, though. Right?
November 30, 2009, 3:54 amKirk Parker says:
Guy,
Is it? § 1036, references “any real property”, meaning that faking your way into the use of a forest service cabin in a wilderness area (normally these are use for F.S. personnel only) could be treated just as strictly as faking your way into one of the ATC centers.
I don’t think it’s the federal ownership per se that makes for the gravity of the crime here.
November 30, 2009, 3:59 amKirk Parker says:
Orin,
Oh, I see that my reading comprehension is part of the problem here, related to section (b). It’s only saying it’s a felony if done w/intent to commit some other felony? That’s not nearly so bad then. Sorry for the diversion.
November 30, 2009, 4:02 amkrs says:
Obviously.
November 30, 2009, 6:36 amShelbyC says:
Well, it doesn’t seem like tresspassing at the white hosue is terribly rare. I wonder how these folk’s punishment will stack up against the other folks’?
November 30, 2009, 7:24 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Criminal Charges for the White House State Dinner Crashers? -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Luke Gilman, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Criminal Charges for the White House State Dinner Crashers?: CBS/AP reports: America’s most successful party cr.. http://bit.ly/8mLcL2 [...]
November 30, 2009, 7:28 amFedya says:
Perhaps these party crashers should have thrown their shoes at Obama. I seem to recall a guy who did a similar thing to GWB was celebrated by the left…. ;-)
November 30, 2009, 9:23 amDavid Chesler says:
@ShelbyC, what about that guy that wandered away from a tour group in what, the 1980s?
Re their richness, when rich people go broke they end up a lot broker than poor people ever have the chance to be.
November 30, 2009, 9:27 amreadery says:
Did they ever represent themselves as anyone other than thmselves? Or their intentions as anything but to go to the party? What “misrepresentation” might there be?
And since when has it ever been a crime in the United States for people to dress up and pretend to be important?
And how can there be any claim that they weren’t invited given that they were in fact let in? Since when did knocking on someone’s front door and asking to be let in become trespassing? If a homeowner lets people in by mistake, that’s nothing but the homeowner’s problem. The homeowner is in sole control of his or her invitations. As long as one comes by the front door, knocks, and gets let in, there’s simply no trespassing.
The Obamas may dress up and think they’re important, but so far as the law is concerned they’re no different from any other homeowner (and they don’t really own that home). Dressing up in fancy clothes and living in a fancy home doesn’t change that. If they let in guests by mistake, let them be more vigilant next time.
November 30, 2009, 9:32 amWhite House Party Crashers May Face Criminal Charges says:
[...] the two people who crashed a state dinner last week may be facing criminal charges. Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr explains the most likely legal theories for [...]
November 30, 2009, 9:37 amPersonFromPorlock says:
Good Lord, if this isn’t a classic case of ‘no harm, no foul’ I don’t know what is. The government’s shooting threatening looks from ‘neath its lowering brow just makes it look silly.
November 30, 2009, 9:42 amJKB says:
Yes, they should throw the book at individuals who reveal how lax federal employees have gotten in performing their duties. It’s embarrassing but obviously no one at the Secret Service had thought to run this security test.
It is very broad. I realize the cite is out of context but it would seem in its language to make every politician and most others in DC a criminal. They make false statements and misrepresentations about matters under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
November 30, 2009, 10:06 amneurodoc says:
There is a “legal” aspect to this that has not been commented on here – how did the Salahis get Justice Kennedy to speak at their wedding? Did Kennedy know the caterer was being stiffed when he partook of the Salahis’ hospitality? Are Supreme Court justices invited to many such galas because their presence adds glamour? Would Souter have gone if invited? How about Ginsburg, who I have been told is extraordinarily shy in social settings? What if the Salahis are prosecuted and the case reaches the Court, would Kennedy have to recuse himself?
November 30, 2009, 10:11 amShag from Brookline says:
Charge them with: Trespass de mashed potatoes.
November 30, 2009, 10:11 amASlyJD says:
I would love to see a reality show for these people. Something called “I wanted to be on a reality show . . . and now I’m in jail!”
November 30, 2009, 10:17 amArthurKirkland says:
This strikes me as similar to unauthorized presence at a government nuclear facility, military installation or biomedical laboratory. Were unauthorized persons to approach a nuclear facility or biomedical laboratory in a fancy van, pass the guards by stating ‘we’re here to work on the cooling system,’ and begin to stroll about a reactor or infectious agent library, I doubt many observers would defend those acts by arguing ‘they didn’t lie at the gate’ or ‘it’s not their fault they were admitted to a secure facility’ or ‘it’s no crime to request admission’ or ‘we should thank these people for exposing lax security.’
November 30, 2009, 10:57 am~FR says:
Good Lord, if this isn’t a classic case of ‘no harm, no foul’ I don’t know what is. The government’s shooting threatening looks from ‘neath its lowering brow just makes it look silly.
One thing that I don’t see mentioned is that the Salahis caused an international incident.
PM Singh is not the leader of some 4th-rate island in the South Pacific. He is the PM of INDIA- a first-rank country that has suffered much by the assassination of its leaders. The USG now has an entire omelette all over its face: I can only imagine what apologies have been sent via diplomatic channels.
This doesn’t change the legal aspects- the Salahis can only be charged with existing laws that are understood by the courts. Diplomatically speaking, throwing the book may be too good for them.
November 30, 2009, 11:00 amSuperSkeptic says:
If president Jackson didn’t prosecute, I don’t think Obama should either – I thought this guy was a democrat? :)
November 30, 2009, 11:03 amcd says:
“Sources tell ABC News the leading theory in the ongoing Secret Service investigation is that officers at the initial White House checkpoint waived the couple in, assuming that their names would be checked against a guest list at the next one.”
If that’s true (and assuming their names weren’t actually checked at the next checkpoint), it’s hard to see how the Salahi’s are guilty of anything since consent is generally a defense to trespass unless the consent was obtained by fraud.
November 30, 2009, 11:13 amDangerMouse says:
And since when has it ever been a crime in the United States for people to dress up and pretend to be important?
And how can there be any claim that they weren’t invited given that they were in fact let in? Since when did knocking on someone’s front door and asking to be let in become trespassing?
Bingo. There was no crime here.
November 30, 2009, 11:14 amDotar Sojat says:
They looked like beautiful people. They looked like celebrities. Of course they got into the Obama White House.
November 30, 2009, 11:17 amneurodoc says:
Wasn’t there already such a show with that family of bounty hunters?
November 30, 2009, 11:24 amMambolo says:
It seems the focus is concentrated on the couple who crashed the presidential party instead of the racist security team on duty. If the highest ranking member was Black it shows how scared blackfolks in America are of keeping whitefolks waiting. The real question is: would they ever have been admitted if they were a Black couple.
November 30, 2009, 11:25 amMambolo
PersonFromPorlock says:
Unauthorized presence before a foreign potentate is hardly ‘an international incident’. Now, if they’d shot him….
It was a silly thing to do and the government’s reaction, if it prosecutes, will be no less silly. Humorless isn’t the same thing as serious.
November 30, 2009, 11:50 amASlyJD says:
neurodoc,
I have no clue. When I don’t want to study for law school finals (a week away, gah!), I surf Volokh or play World of Warcraft. :)
November 30, 2009, 12:06 pmThe Enlightened Redneck » Uncle Jay Explains Party-Crashing says:
[...] that the couple had to make to gain access to the dinner,” blogger Orin Kerr wrote at The Volokh Conspiracy. “But I think one thing is clear: Crashing a White House state dinner, and then bragging [...]
November 30, 2009, 12:23 pmNunzio says:
What could they possibly have said to talk their way in? It’s a state dinner at the White House, they had no invitations, and their names weren’t on the list.
I’m sorry, but no one should be able to “lie their way in” here. Any statements they made to get in should not be considered material because only an idiot would let them in.
These people are goofs, but the Secret Service agents and White House personnel who let them in should be the ones prosecuted here.
November 30, 2009, 12:48 pm» “WH party crashers Tareq and Michaele Salahi pull out of Larry King show at last minute but deny trying to cash in” and related posts - 1019th Edition Www.composition4u.info says:
[...] Criminal Charges for the White House State Dinner Crashers? - The Volokh Conspiracy [...]
November 30, 2009, 12:49 pmArthurKirkland says:
Unless I misread this situation, we have people who still can’t bring themselves to criticize an invasion of the wrong country asserting that it would be overkill to prosecute persons who appear to have used misleading statements to get within arm’s length of world leaders in a secure setting.
November 30, 2009, 12:56 pmeyesay says:
HazardRat wrote, “the real problem is that the gatekeepers accepted these people, and made Obama look like a fool for a reality show event.” Reasonable people understand that it reflects badly on the Secret Service, not President Obama or his administration.
November 30, 2009, 1:05 pmeyesay says:
ArthurKirkland wrote, “Were unauthorized persons to approach a nuclear facility or biomedical laboratory in a fancy van, pass the guards by stating ‘we’re here to work on the cooling system,’ and begin to stroll about a reactor or infectious agent library….”
I think a better analogy would be a reception at the nuclear facility or biomedical laboratory, and an uninvited couple mingling in the waiting line and getting admitted, and then mingling at the reception until they departed. As far as I know, the couple didn’t make any untruthful statements, and after gaining admission, I don’t believe they went into any part of the White House that was off limits to the guests.
November 30, 2009, 1:13 pmCardinal Fang says:
By the end of the week, the real story is going to come out. The Salahis are old friends and contributors to Obama from back in the Illinois Senate days. Obama invited them to the dinner, but was told that Salahi would not be able to get a security clearance due to his past pro-Palestinian activities. So Obama told them to come on the QT and had the SS let them in on the sly. But someone recognized them, noted they weren’t on the guest list, and blew the whistle. Now Obama is going to throw the SS under the bus rather than admit that it was his doing. This is going to look very bad for Obama.
November 30, 2009, 1:26 pmdrunkdriver says:
um . . . Not sure if serious . . .
November 30, 2009, 1:45 pmKirk Parker says:
Cardinal F.,
Do you write fiction? You’ve got quite a knack for imagining interesting scenarios (and who knows, yours could even prove to be fairly accurate.)
November 30, 2009, 1:48 pmDilan Esper says:
Allow me to note that the world has stopped turning and I basically agree with DangerMouse. I wouldn’t quite go so far as to say there was no crime here– it’s quite possible that this was technically illegal, in one way or another, but given there was no HARM done, it’s a great case for prosecutorial discretion nonetheless.
The Salahis actually did us something of a favor, exposing security vulnerabilities in a harmless fashion. I’d much rather that these kooks snuck in than some person bent on doing real harm.
November 30, 2009, 2:24 pmAllan Walstad says:
If this is really such a big deal, the people who screwed up the security are the ones who should be in big trouble. The Salahis should be thanked for revealing this level of incompetence. Yeah, and slap them on the wrist sufficiently to discourage too much copy-catting. But unless they really are buddies of the Obamas, they probably will be dealt with sternly–for embarrassing the feds. You don’t tug on Superman’s cape…etc.
November 30, 2009, 2:32 pmDavid says:
The only “real” crime of which these nitwits are guilty is “lese-majeste”: disrespecting the king in a publicly-visible way. And it’s clear that His Majesty Is Not Amused.
I am so happy that we have so little other crime going on in this country that the Justice Department has the luxury of going full frontal on this terrible crime.
BTW they better not call me as a juror…I’m letting them off: “If the prosecution is by a twit, you must acquit.”
November 30, 2009, 3:07 pmDennis N says:
Somehow, I think some Secret Service mopes are now scouring Point Barrow for wooden nickels – in short pants.
November 30, 2009, 3:17 pmmls says:
I agree with those who say this is being blown way out of proportion. Maybe what the Salahis did was technically illegal (though I am not entirely convinced of that), but no one would be talking about prosecuting someone just because he falsely told a guard at a federal building that he had an appointment. Given that the Salahis did not do or intent to do any harm (unless you count making more reality tv), this does not, IMHO, warrant a federal criminal investigation.
November 30, 2009, 3:28 pmCriminal Charges for the White House State Dinner Crashers? | KEYTLaw says:
[...] at the security checkpoint Tuesday for the dinner honoring Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. One likely charge is 18 U.S.C. § 1036, “-”Entry by false pretenses to any real property, ve…:” (b) Whoever, by any fraud or false pretense, enters or attempts to [...]
November 30, 2009, 3:35 pmMike B says:
I spent four years in the Secret Service during the Bush administration. I was assigned for 2.5 of those years to the special operations section of the uniformed division whose duties included checking all guests that come to events like state dinners. If a person is not on the WAVES list they are not granted access to the compound.
I have spoken with former coworkers still on the job and we managed to come up with two scenarios that took place:
(1)A member of the administration cleared the guests in for the east or west wing and then snuck them into the event. This is possible given the way that the staffers operate. Staffers are notorious for trying to circumvent security procedures at the White House.
(2)The two officers checking the names at the main entrance gate got the guests jumbled up and assume that the other already checked the two off and then granted them access. This is what the officer who has taken responsibility for the incident claims took place, although I feel that it is highly unlikely. The odds of this happening are about as good as winning the lotto. Special operations officers know their responsibilities when working the gate at social events and take them very seriously
I feel that most likely some member of the staff managed to clear the two in for either the east or west wing and then brought them onto the state floor.
Regardless, the agents will use this incident as an excuse to crucify the uniformed division.
November 30, 2009, 3:37 pmFederale says:
Unsworn false statements are almost never prosecuted in federal courts. Assistant United States Attorneys always want a lie on record, which, if they have a good attorney, they will not put that lie on record. I hear that they have confessed. If they did, their attorney should be disbarred for incompetance.
November 30, 2009, 4:38 pmneurodoc says:
Was a sworn false statement the basis for Scooter Libby’s prosecution and conviction?
November 30, 2009, 4:50 pmarbitraryaardvark says:
I would be interested in EV’s opinion about whether 18 usc 1001 is constitutional. It seems to raise pretty serious issues of speech-chilling overbreadth. I doubt whether federal prosecutors want this case to be the test case.
November 30, 2009, 5:02 pmDan Hamilton says:
If the man’s looks and name had been Anglo-Saxon they would NEVER have gotten through.
He was Middle Eastern and she was dressed in a Middle Eastern Style. It would just be rude to demand to see their papers. Oh, sorry invitation and picture ID. We couldn’t have that. The SS would be profiling and that is not allowed. Remember PC is more important then safety.
November 30, 2009, 5:36 pmRandy says:
Reminds me of a story that happened during the Clinton-Gore administration. The Cheesecake Factory does not accept reservations. A man called claiming to be an aide to Tipper Gore, and they needed to make reservations for a birthday party of 12, and insisted upon it. So CF made them.
When the party arrived, and no Tipper appeared, CF asked where is she? They laughed it off and said that they just made it up to get the reservations.
CF was not amused. They called Secret Service and told them about this incident. They sent over two men to the person who organized it and pretty much scared the pants off of them.
This story made it into the Wash Post, as the SS wanted people to know that impersonating a federal official is a crime.
I admit this is a bit off point, but the SS knows how to be intimidating when they need to be, and I suspect they have already paid a visit to the couple, and they are probably regretting the whole thing. As they should, of course.
November 30, 2009, 5:42 pmMike B says:
Ultimately neither one of these individuals will face criminal charges. This is just the Secret Service grandstanding because they were made to look foolish. Numerous people are let in during public tours who are not on the WAVES list. The only reason this is such a big deal is because this particular incident went public. The Service is just trying to save face at this point.
November 30, 2009, 6:43 pmNickM says:
I think Mike B. is probably right, but I think there is a third possibility – that Bravo got them into the White House under press credentials, and then snuck them into the dinner (with or without the connivance of a WH staffer).
Nick
November 30, 2009, 6:45 pmLeo Marvin says:
I think we can assume they’re twits, whatever they wanted out of this. But if they did it to be on reality TV, they’re twits who succeeded.
I don’t know why Kennedy was there, but I wouldn’t be too hard on him if it was only due to the charm of a couple of con artists. It’s easy to look silly in retrospect for being around such people, but we don’t call them artists for nothing. You’d know better than I, but pathological dishonesty strikes me as a powerful aid to persuasion.
Don’t you think this situation justifies punishment as a deterrence?
November 30, 2009, 7:35 pmreadery says:
The only “real” crime of which these nitwits are guilty is “lese-majeste”: disrespecting the king in a publicly-visible way. And it’s clear that His Majesty Is Not Amused.
The reports suggest their behavior was completely respectful. They dressed up, acted delighted to be there, smiled, shook a few people’s hands. I’m not saying we should encourage gate-crashing at the White House, but nothing out there suggests in any way that they did anything illegal. Nor is there any evidence they misrepresented anything. They came as themselves and simply wanted to go to the party. Nor is the fact that the Indian Prime Minister shook a couple more hands than planned going to matter or be the basis of any international incident. Shaking a couple of extra hands is an ordinary part of any politician’s life.
It’s sometimes important for the law calm down a bit and take notice of what actually happened, All this fear and agitation about what might have happened doesn’t make for good law.
The President is just a person, the White House just a house. It’s simply no crime to dress up and knock on the front door and see if you get let in. So long as the number of party-crashers is small, and so long as enough people at the party know them that it’s possible they might have been legitimately invited, I don’t even see the real harm.
Do we really believe that no White House aide or family member has ever gotten a friend let in to one of these things at the last minute?
November 30, 2009, 7:36 pmDilan Esper says:
Don’t you think this situation justifies punishment as a deterrence?
If there was an epidemic of gate crashing at the White House, I might decide that was correct, but given this looks pretty isolated, no, I don’t.
November 30, 2009, 7:46 pmsecond history says:
In further developments, the Salahis have been offered a free TV appearance:
No doubt the Salahis will take the Fifth and CSPAN will get its highest ratings.
November 30, 2009, 8:26 pmmls says:
Is it me, or are Chairman Thompson’s comments inane even by congressional standards?
November 30, 2009, 8:49 pmRicardo says:
Since Eliot Spitzer avoided federal charges for his own illegal behavior, I’d say this is a pretty good case for prosecutorial discretion as well.
November 30, 2009, 8:53 pmsecond history says:
Since Eliot Spitzer avoided federal charges for his own illegal behavior, I’d say this is a pretty good case for prosecutorial discretion as well.
I think they are more likely to face charges as the Secret Service will need to make a point about security.
November 30, 2009, 9:05 pmneurodoc says:
When you say I’d know better than you about pathological dishonesty, I trust you say it because you think I have relevant professional expertise. I don’t, really. (My background is on the “neuro” side, not the “psych” one, though for largely historical reasons the board that certifies neurologists is the same one that certifies psychiatrists, the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, with some of the same requirements.)
I did have a military subordinate once who was a pathologic liar and it was breathtaking the incredible tales she would spin. I don’t know how she managed to make it in the Reserves and in her civilian DoD job, but she was technically knowledgeable and got by. (look up Baron Munchausan for the story of a legendary pathologic liar). If she hadn’t been my headache for the brief while she was under me, I might have been fascinated with her as a case.
I wasn’t serious about tasking Kennedy for playing some role in the Salahis’ grandiose wedding. I just thought to note it out for its “legal” interest, and to wonder if Supremes are sought for the prestige their presence might lend a social event. Does social intimacy with a Supreme confer more/less prestige than similar intimacy with, say, a senator? (CJ Roberts lives a few blocks from me. Maybe I can “cultivate” him before our daughter’s upcoming wedding here in DC.) And further, I wondered if Kennedy is a more sociable guy than Souter appeared to be. What is the personal rap on these individuals as company, any scuttlebutt on them when they are not going about in black robes?
I also wonder if Kennedy feels scammed to have been exploited by these two characters. Are judges better judges of character by virtue of their experience on the bench, that is if they had much at the trial level, or do they only imagine themselves to be better judges. And I take your point about calling such people con “artists” for a reason. I have wondered how much scamming I could get away with if so inclined (I’m not!), and I think the answer is very little. There is a “talent” to it, though I don’t know that the Salahis are exceptionally “talented.” (Does Madoff get credit for being exceptionally “talented,” or did he enjoy a great deal of luck?)
November 30, 2009, 10:10 pmneurodoc says:
Thompson is a Dem, so might be accused of grandstanding or whatever, but the stupidity is non-partisan stupidity.
That squib you quote first says the Salahis have been “summonsed” to testify, then refers to them as “invitees.” So, can they simply decline to appear or must they show up and take the Fifth. Would the latter increase the “value” of their story?
November 30, 2009, 10:21 pmRicardo says:
Off-topic but it is an interesting topic. From what I know about Madoff, he was not a naturally sociable person. I think having natural social skills and loads of confidence and charisma is necessary to be a “grifter,” which is probably what this couple aspire to be. There was a French con-man who came from practically nowhere and managed to earn the trust and friendship of both Hollywood types in LA and CEOs and investment bankers in the Hamptons a few years ago. He once apparently sold an office building he didn’t own to someone and just pocketed the cash. Selling a building without even showing a title takes very special skills at convincing. I doubt he ever went dateless on a Friday or Saturday night either.
By contrast, Madoff was already an established name on Wall Street before his Ponzi scheme began. He worked his way up the ladder in a largely legitimate manner and continued to run a completely legal broker-dealer business while the scam was going on. I suspect that Madoff was more just a very successful Wall Street guy who was greedy and arrogant enough to think he could get away with his scam rather than a natural psychopath. He used his reputation (and membership at elite and exclusive clubs) rather than any special sales skills to make his con work. I haven’t heard of anything in his earlier background that indicates pathological tendencies.
November 30, 2009, 11:00 pmneurodoc says:
I think the correct descriptor for a Madoff is “sociopath,” a term that has precision (see DSM-IV) that “psychopath” doesn’t. And I think they are all “naturals,” whether they are very successful as con artists or not so successful, that is that they are “born” or naturally “endowed” rather than “made,” though they may refine their skills over time.
I don’t know Madoff’s personal history in any detail. (It is interesting that his father may not have been an entirely up and up person, according to some accounts.) But though his start and early success may have been legitimate and facilitated his later crimes, I expect he was who he was all along, though it was a long time before it became clear who he really was, that is someone wholly lacking in empathy, so zero guilt feelings about ruining those placed their trust in him (“affinity” investing).
The Salahis are all about narcissism, aggrandizing themselves through social climbing, and calling attention to themselves. One would have to be a fool to trust them with any money, especially now that they have been exposed, but a very different sort of “con artist” than the truly malignant Madoff. The Salahis will stiff their creditors if they can get away with it, and it seems they have been managing to do so, but I don’t think they are intent upon true fraud and thievery like a Madoff. (I do wonder if the White House has inventoried the cutlery since the Salahis were there. I don’t imagine they would have “stolen” anything, but not unimaginable that they would have helped themselves to some “souvenirs.”)
(BTW, if you are impressed with the fraudster who sold a building he didn’t have title to, how about Mark Dreier who was selling $Ms of phony debt?)
November 30, 2009, 11:40 pmDorian says:
Finally! I hope they get the book thrown at them. This is the exact problem with reality television. Even though Bravo claims to have not known what was going on, they probably did. And I’m sure both the network and the Salahis are loving all the press they’re getting. Hope this story gets buried soon.
December 1, 2009, 12:28 amTruePath says:
There is a larger issue at stake here than the penalty applied to two white house gatecrashers and that is the erosion of our freedoms by prosecutorial discretion.
I mean imagine a similar scenario where some college kids sneak into a dance/event at westpoint and manage to snarf down some free food. Despite the fact that the statute and any publicly listed aggravating/mitigating factors would be the same it’s highly unlikely that any prosecution would result much less jail time.
So them what exactly is the reason these party crashers might get years in jail? Apparently because they should have known that faking their way into the white house and acting respectfully was ‘serious’ even though no amount of study of the law books would have distingushed it from events that would be taken as a minor matter.
I’m not expressing the point very well but I feel this kind of constructive statute application and the accumulation of power in prosecutorial discretion is slowly eroding the foundational principles of having public law rather than punishment based on mob rule or official anger.
—
P.S. Pardoning the couple would make for some good PR for Obama.
December 1, 2009, 12:58 amRicardo says:
I’m no doctor but is it really the case that Robert Hare — one of the pioneers in studying psychopathy who uses the word regularly — is being imprecise in his language [the imprecision may well be my own, of course]? His website includes a long list of academic publications on the subject of psychopathy. I always thought psychopathy was not technically considered a mental illness by psychiatrists so that it would not be in DSM for that reason alone.
December 1, 2009, 3:11 amDewayne R. says:
Do we dare talk about the fact that the couple are about to begin a reality show (they hope) on NBC? NBC would stand to increase ratings by hiring these two people. Does NBC have anyone on the “inside” at the White House that could tell the Secret Service to let these two pass?
December 1, 2009, 3:32 amTo simply say that the Secret Service failed to check these two out is insane! This entire story stinks to high heaven if we fail to find out who it was on the president’s staff that ordered (YES, ORDERED)the Secret Service to allow these people to enter. To think anything otherwise leads nowhere. These two people had to know going in that someone above the Secret Service had everything set for them to get in. How far “above” we may never get to hear.
neurodoc says:
And, IANAP (I am not a psychiatrist). Additionally, I don’t have a copy of the DSM-IV at hand, nor know its contents in any detail. But think about the term “psychopathy” and what it might mean. The “-pathy” part of course means that disease or dysfunction is involved, the only question being what type. If we speak of a “myopathy,” we mean that something is wrong with the muscles, and that could be any number of disorders either congenital to acquired. The term is specific to the extent that it differentiates muscle disorders from other disorders that could account for weakness, e.g., “neuropathy,” but that’s as far as it takes you.
“Psychopathy” says little of anything more than that there is a psychiatric disorder (e.g., the strange behavior that the person is manifesting is not a result of neurologic dysfunction, like temporal lobe epilepsy, but of schizophrenia). “Psychopathy” could signifying everything from neuroses to psychoses (e.g., an anxiety disorder [though usually not used to label less severe or serious disorders] to bipolar to schizophrenia). “Sociopathy” makes it as a DSM-IV entry because there is specificity to it. (You can find the DSM-IV criteria for the diagnosis online.) Madoff is a sociopath par excellence, though not the violent kind so familiar to criminal courts.
December 1, 2009, 9:16 amfrayling says:
The Salahis are all about narcissism, aggrandizing themselves through social climbing, and calling attention to themselves.
Much like the Obamas?
December 1, 2009, 12:33 pmsecond history says:
In more news about the Salahis about town adventures, it appears they recently crashed the Congressional Black Caucus dinner, which Obama attended. More proof that they are best buds. /s
December 1, 2009, 12:39 pmSeamus says:
I’d “defend” them to the extent of saying they shouldn’t be prosecuted.
December 1, 2009, 1:01 pmSeamus says:
The real crime: Making Obama look like an idiot.
I didn’t know Obama was responsible for designing the security procedures at state dinners.
December 1, 2009, 1:08 pmSeamus says:
If what these people did constituted “false pretenses,” then young George C. Marshall used false pretenses to get into President McKinley’s office and lobby the president for a commission as second lieutenant:
December 1, 2009, 1:17 pmJG says:
How about 18 USC 1752?
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons—
December 1, 2009, 2:11 pm(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting;
(2) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;
(3) willfully, knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any building or grounds described in paragraph (1) or (2) when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
(4) willfully and knowingly to obstruct or impede ingress or egress to or from any building, grounds, or area described in paragraph (1) or (2); or
(5) willfully and knowingly to engage in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any building, grounds, or area described in paragraph (1) or (2).
(b) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be punishable by—
(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if—
(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or
(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118 (e)(3); and
(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
(c) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States attorney in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the place where the offense occurred.
(d) None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.
(e) As used in this section, the term “other person protected by the Secret Service” means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title when such person has not declined such protection.
neurodoc says:
In a word, NO, not at all. (Charles Krauthammer, who is credentialed as psychiatrist even if he hasn’t practiced as one in decades, was a guest at a dinner party given up the street from me by George Will last February to introduce Obama to other conservatives. Afterwards, Krauthammer pronounced Obama impressive in a number of regards, one of them being his narcissism. But even if Krauthammer can claim some professional expertise in assessing people’s inner selves, I am very skeptical about his judgment. How many politicians toward the top, especially in the Senate, cannot be labeled narcissistic? How would they manage it without some measure of narcissism? Have we seen many self-doubters make it to the top politically?)
“Aggrandizing through social climbing” is an even sillier knock. And “calling attention to themselves”?!
But you weren’t really serious about this, were you?
December 1, 2009, 6:52 pmneurodoc says:
Well ArthurKirkland, count Seamus as one of the few who would “defend” those who would “hack” their way into sensitive government facilities if they could manage it. (Proof of hypothesis? Just for the fun of it? The challenge?) I guess Seamus doesn’t see any harm in simple trespass.
(A trespass I wouldn’t have liked to have seen prosecuted – the guy who did that unbelievable by doing his highwire routine between the twin towers of the WTC. That was so amazing and inspiring that it warranted a pass.)
December 1, 2009, 7:09 pmfrayling says:
But you weren’t really serious about this, were you?
No, but the fringe right (and I guess the not-so-fringe right) is. For example, on Free Republic, the number of posts using the terms “narcissist” (4,250 references (with some overlap), including “Is Barack Obama a Dangerous Pathological Narcissist? You Decide”); “narcissism” (2,890); and “narcissitic obama“(4,220) boggles the mind.
December 1, 2009, 7:33 pmneurodoc says:
I’ve never been to that website, but I know there are a lot loonies around and I will take your word for it that they tend to congregate in some places.
(Sometimes I don’t even know what some of the opinionated are going on about. Saw someone this afternoon with a bumpersticker saying, “9/11 was an inside job”. Does that mean he is a “Truther,” truly part of the lunatic fringe? He also had a couple of bumperstickers about the 7th day being the sabbath because G-d made it so, but no other indications of his religious beliefs? What message was he conveying? Aren’t bumperstickers generally unequivocal assertions/affirmations/exhortations of some sort?
December 1, 2009, 9:10 pmneurodoc says:
Do the emails between the Salahis and Jones give them enough to rule-out any prosecution for trespass? I don’t know that they are entirely in the clear, but to me they look less vulnerable today than they did before the emails were published.
December 1, 2009, 9:13 pmreadery says:
In Washington D.C.? I’m shocked, shocked.
December 3, 2009, 3:10 amCurious says:
Does anyone know of any other federal statutes that were possibly violated?
December 8, 2009, 12:05 pmHippo says:
I agree with this post. Grifters are able to get away with things that most of us cannot even fathom.
Additionally, Mr. Salahi was required to give up an expensive watch at a court hearing recently–supposedly worth thousands–which turned out to be a cheap fake.
I think the Salahi’s “wealth” is more about illusion and scamming. No wonder they’re so desperate for a reality show.
December 20, 2009, 12:01 pm