To recap: After a baggie of cocaine was discovered inside the White House earlier this month, the official public story -- including publised reports about where the illicit substance was located -- shifted a few times. The Secret Service launched an investigation into the matter, ultimately stated that no 'useable' forensic evidence was collected, and closed the case without solving it. They announced that based on the location of the cocaine, they'd narrowed down the list of possible suspects to around 500 people. How many of those potential culprits did they interview over the course of the brief probe? It seems that answer is...zero:
The agency, along with the FBI, tested the packet to determine it was cocaine and looked for any fingerprints or DNA evidence. But the tests yielded no usable forensic evidence. Video footage of the area where the baggie was found also provided no evidence to narrow the possible suspects beyond a list of roughly 500 staff members and visitors who passed through during a weekend earlier this month. Secret Service spokesman Anthony Gugliemi said the agency determined that interviewing all 500 people could be a strain on resources, might infringe upon civil liberties and would likely be fruitless without corresponding physical evidence tying any person to the drugs. “Yes, you could have a consensual interview,” he said, meaning the interviews would be voluntary. “But we have no evidence to approach them.” Gugliemi said the small amount of cocaine, 208 milligrams or about .007 ounce, would only result in a misdemeanor charge in the District of Columbia and the agency determined that did not warrant the expenditure of resources it would take to interview 500 people.
(1) This is not the world's greatest caper, and most Americans understand that the Secret Service has more pressing matters to which they must more urgently attend. But the Unites States boasts other law enforcement agencies, many with seemingly boundless resources -- when they really want to resolve a case. Rightly or wrongly, this matter was de-prioritized. Considering how many people get locked up over cocaine-related infractions, this might send yet another message about disparate tiers of justice, which we've seen on full display in recent weeks.
(2) If the substance in the bag had been anthrax, does anyone have a single shred of doubt that its provenance would have been aggressively investigated and determined? Cocaine isn't anthrax, of course, but that's not the point. The point is that the owner of the drugs almost certainly could have been identified. The powers that be just decided that unlocking this mystery isn't worth the trouble, for whatever reason. You may agree or disagree with that cost-benefit analysis, but not pulling out all the stops to solve this case is a choice, not an inevitability.
(3) In the process of looking into any number of crimes, law enforcement officials routinely narrow down larger universes of potential witnesses or suspects for targeted interviews. Perhaps it would have been unreasonsble to try to meet with upwards of 500 people over something of this nature. They're telling us they had no way of culling the herd, or choosing some sort of representative sub-sample for questioning? Instead, they appear to have interviewed nobody. Many observers might be forgiven for seeing this as an avoidance of even going through the motions. Also -- asking some questions would represent "civil liberties infringements"? For anyone approached? How so, exactly?
(4) Someone was sufficiently reckless, brazen, or addicted to bring cocaine into the White House. But are we to believe that said person was sophisticated enough to avoid leaving any trace on the baggie, including fingerprints? Did this criminal mastermind wear gloves in the middle of the summer? Or thoroughly and flawlessly wipe down the bag, just in case it were discovered? Is that all possible? Yes. Does it strain credulity? Also, yes. I'll remind you that this isn't the first incident of drugs being found on the White House campus during the current administration.
(5) If someone with a sensitive security clearance is an addict, or is abetting an addict, or is otherwise engaged in conduct so irresponsible as to bring cocaine into the White House, that same someone is potentially vulnerable to blackmail or extortion by a foreign power. Concern over the coke at 1600 Pennsylvania isn't just a partisan exercise in pearl clutching; there are possible national security implications, too. Knowing the identity of the culprit could either rule out this concern, or help defend against any such risk of compromise. But the case will apparently just stay unsolved. I'll leave you with this:
Today on the #guybensonshow: Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters): I Have a Theory About the White House Cocainehttps://t.co/y6yLA4idnM
— The Guy Benson Show (@GuyBensonShow) July 14, 2023
"I don’t think it’s just a White House staffer doing a bump in between briefings. My sources say that Hunter’s living at the residence and obviously he can’t go out and score narcotics, so he has to have someone bring it in…So he’s probably got a staffer and it was a drop."