At U$.$S$.$ Customs and Border Protection $($CBP$),$ certain employees monitor social media posts to provide situational awareness and to keep track of potential threats or dangers to CBP personnel and facility operators. CBP employees who perform the monitoring receive training to distinguish between First Amendment protected activities and credible threats. For example, a threat to harm a CBP employee, without additional information, might be considered First Amendment protected speech. The threat would be considered credible only if it was accompanied by additional information that indicated the threat was actionable and plausible.

From the information given above, it can be validly concluded that, at CBP$,$

A$)$ some threats that are deemed non$-$credible can be accompanied by information that they are both actionable and plausible

B$)$ a threat will be accompanied by information that indicates the threat is actionable and plausible if the threat is regarded as a credible threat

C$)$ every employee who receives training to distinguish between First Amendment protected activities and credible threats is an employee who monitors social media posts to keep track of potential threats or dangers to CBP personnel and facilities

D$)$ at least some employees who monitor social media posts to keep track of potential threats or dangers to CBP personnel and facilities are not trained to distinguish between First Amendment protected activities and credible threats

E$)$ whenever a threat is not regarded as credible it means that there is a lack of information to indicate that the threat is actionable and plausible