Last week when I responded to your public records request for emails associated with the investigation of threats directed against Senator Jason Rapert, it was my intention for the content of the records to answer any questions relating to how the investigation began and ended.
In the interest of transparency and being cooperative, I entertained a single question posed by Max, “Can you summarize the findings of the Arkansas State Police”.
I answered the question simply. “There was no credible threat”.
Keeping my answer to a limited number of words was probably not an accurate representation of the investigation as a whole.
Since that statement was issued I’ve learned that the law enforcement agencies that were initially involved treated the threats as being credible, which is a matter of routine by any law enforcement procedure standards. In other words, whenever a reported threat is received by police from the person who is the intended target, the threat must be considered credible.
Based on these facts, I’m submitting to you (copied below) a paragraph for an accurate representation of the facts to be included in my summary of the findings of this investigation.
Upon receipt of the threat information in February 2013 from Senator Jason Rapert, as in all threat investigations, the threats were treated as credible threats by all law enforcement agencies involved in the in the investigation. The law enforcement agencies discussed preventative security measures with Senator Rapert while these threats were being properly investigated.
The lack of pursuit of charges would indicate that no agency found a credible threat of imminent harm to Rapert in any of the threats?He responded:
I believe you’ll find the answer to your question within the files provided to you last week.Can I boil this down? What I wrote was correct. I dug up records by an FOI request after Rapert started spinning contradictory stories on TV to cover his bad behavior following the great Lowe's parking lot incident. Rapert reported threats. Police treated them seriously at the outset. They invested many manhours running them down. In the end, nobody was charged with a crime, concrete indication that none was deemed a threat of immediate harm to the senator or his family. The FOI materials, indeed, reflect some police concern that Rapert was mistaking political speech for threats. One threat about wishing to see Rapert shot came from a federal prisoner, in no position to deliver. Another came from a source, as best police could determine, from somewhere overseas.