If presidents have secret service protection for life and vice presidents for six months how does it work for a vice president who becomes acting president for a while?
If presidents have secret service protection for life and vice presidents for six months how does it work for a vice president who becomes acting president for a while?
Asking for a friend ...
Depends on if they later become president, either by election (e.g. George H.W. Bush) or because the president died in office (e.g. Lyndon Johnson). If either of those apply they get the same Secret Service protection as any other president. If it's a temporary acting presidency they do not. George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Kamala Harris each spent a few hours as acting presidents while their respective presidents underwent medical procedures involving anesthesia, and lifelong Secret Service protection doesn't apply to either Cheney or Harris.
Of note: the California Highway Patrol is now providing protections for Harris, though I am not sure how they will do that when she is out of California.
I came across this Guardian article about Todd Blanche's interview with Ghislane Maxwell on social media.
While those supportive of Trump have touted these actions as a show of openness, many others have pointed to the questions left unasked – and the people who have not been asked anything at all – as indicating that these disclosures about Epstein were more of a show than any real push for truth. For them the Maxwell transcripts, and the ignoring of victim’s voices, are not a sign of openness; they are a sign of a reluctance to pursue any potentially dangerous truth.
For example, Blanche asked Maxwell whether people around Epstein – including the numerous high-profile and powerful men who had known him – were associating with him for the purpose of sexual encounters. In her reply Maxwell said that some of the “cast of characters” around Epstein were “in your cabinet, who you value as your co-workers”.
Despite the fact that Maxwell had just openly mentioned Epstein associates as being in Trump’s current cabinet, Blanche – a hardened lawyer not known for missing a trick in trial argument – did not pause to ask Maxwell to identify the cabinet members she was referring to.
I'm kind of shocked that this isn't a bigger news story. Maxwell claims that multiple members of Trump's current cabinet "were associating with [Epstein] for the purpose of sexual encounters" and the only press on it are the Guardian and a social media outlet. Leaving completely aside the potentially libelous speculation on who she means or Maxwell's reliability when it comes to the details of her own case, why has this not been mentioned elsewhere? The media can determine what is a news story and what gets turned into a "news event" (e.g. the Clinton campaign's hacked emails), but as near as I can tell this isn't even considered a news story. Has anyone else on the Ship encountered this bit of information (i.e. that multiple members of Trump's current cabinet allegedly took part in sex trafficking minors) anywhere before I mentioned it here?
If presidents have secret service protection for life and vice presidents for six months how does it work for a vice president who becomes acting president for a while?
Asking for a friend ...
Depends on if they later become president, either by election (e.g. George H.W. Bush) or because the president died in office (e.g. Lyndon Johnson).
I guess a better comparison would be with Ford, as both conditions apply to Johnson.
Trump’s executive order instructs Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to recommend legislative and executive actions to make the renaming permanent. But unless Congress acts, the legal name remains the Department of Defense.
Trump’s executive order instructs Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to recommend legislative and executive actions to make the renaming permanent. But unless Congress acts, the legal name remains the Department of Defense.
Not to underestimate possible threats, but when you see the phrasal template "Trump issues Executive Order to..." in a headline, you should give close attention to the actual legal procedure needed to implement the EO.
The article dances around the issue of how two Trump administration policies work together. Specifically:
The U.S. military can summarily execute civilians when it is engaged in law enforcement
The U.S. military is currently deployed to two U.S. cities (Los Angeles and Washington, DC) for the alleged purpose of law enforcement
I'd give good money for a reporter to ask Trump (or, more likely, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt) if the U.S. military is currently authorized to summarily execute people in those two cities.
Also noted in the article was the fact that eleven people, the alleged number summarily executed by the U.S. Navy, seems like a fairly large number to operate such a small craft. There is the distinct possibility that this might have been a human trafficking operation, not a drug trafficking one.
I am beginning to fear we are getting set up for a second civil war. Here is the scenario: Trump sends in the National Guard to Chicago, but the Illinois governor refuses to allow the Illinois Guard to be activated. Technically, Trump could then federalize the Illinois NG under the Insurrection Act. But this would immediately be challenged in court. But the scenario that scares me is Trump sends in troops from the Texas NG. Would the Illinois governor be willing to allow this? Or could he resist, posting his NG tanks at the entrance to the Great Lakes Naval Station which Trump seems to plan on using as his base of operation?
Probably working on plans for the invasion of Chicago.
Or he is planning on how to get rid of JD Vance now that Vance has been so presumptuous as to suggest that he could fill Trump's shoes. That is not the sort of thing Trump will let go unpunished!
(1) Under the 25th amendment, if JD Vance gets half of the cabinet to sign a letter declaring that Donald Trump is unable to carry out the duties of the presidency, JD Vance becomes Acting President — which for all practical purposes is exactly the same thing as being POTUS — as soon as that letter is transmitted to Congress. Now it’s true that Congress could assemble for the purpose, and by vote restore Trump as president, but before that could happen we get to . . .
(2) Under the holding in Trump v. United States, it simply can’t be disputed that the president’s core powers include commanding the military, and issuing pardons. These are in no way areas of “shared responsibility” with Congress, where the president’s immunity from criminal prosecution, both while he’s president and afterwards, is “merely” presumptive: immunity here is absolute.
Again, neither (1) or (2) is something that can be disputed: it’s as black letter as American law can possibly be.
It follows that, if JD Vance should through a combination of bribery and extortion, induce half the cabinet to sign the requisite letter, Vance would instantly become POTUS. He could then order the military or the Secret Service to assassinate Trump, after having — remember, he’s already president — pardoned both the cabinet, himself, and anyone else involved in this PERFECTLY LEGAL COUP from any prosecution for murder, conspiracy, and sedition, as well as for offering and accepting anything and everything in the way of bribes for having committed murder, sedition, etc.
Again, it's unlikely that this scenario would play out as speculated (or at all), but it would be perfectly legal under recent Supreme Court jurisprudence.
My guess is that 12-dimensional chess theories that Putin has been planning this or that over-egg the pudding. Putin has interfered in US politics to sow discord and promote Trump, but he's bright enough to know that the more specific the outcome you try to achieve the greater (and more costly) the intervention required and the less likely it is to succeed. Fomenting chaos and profiting from it is cheaper, easier, and more reliable.
Poor little man - he couldn't take the booing. The United States Tennis Association asked broadcasters of the U.S. Open to censor any protests or reaction to President Donald Trump’s appearance at the men’s singles final Sunday, according a memo reviewed by The Athletic on Saturday.
Poor little man - he couldn't take the booing. The United States Tennis Association asked broadcasters of the U.S. Open to censor any protests or reaction to President Donald Trump’s appearance at the men’s singles final Sunday, according a memo reviewed by The Athletic on Saturday.
For anyone interested, you can see the booing all over YouTube.
SCOTUS just gave Trump's goons carte blanche to pick up anyone brown, speaking Spanish, or having a 'foreign' accent and rough them up as a potential illegal immigrant. It's horrific.
I'll take your word for it. This is far beyond any bounds we may have thought existed.
I actually think the "cheque" in question is probably just a joke between the two guys about Trump(who is not in the photo) getting together with one of Epstein's ex-girlfriends. But, still, Trump's signature(albeit obviously fake) on the "cheque" really isn't great optics, given that the photo is now part of a controversy involving human trafficking.
Letter to Epstein comes out. Looks like Donald's signature in Sharpie. Well drawn female body. Donald says he only draws straight lines. MAGA personalities claim the signature fake. Donnie ends up at the Bible Museum and announces he will sign an executive order directing the Dept of Ed to come out with guidelines allowing prayer in public schools.
What is Peter Mandelson's general reputation in the UK? He contributed to the birthday book as well, called Epstein his "best pal".
This is one of those cases where the press will revel in performative ignorance, right until the point they don't.
I'm not sure what you mean. The press will pretend not to know anything about Mandelson's questionable activities, and then suddenly switch to acknowledging them?
What is Peter Mandelson's general reputation in the UK? He contributed to the birthday book as well, called Epstein his "best pal".
This is one of those cases where the press will revel in performative ignorance, right until the point they don't.
I'm not sure what you mean. The press will pretend not to know anything about Mandelson's questionable activities, and then suddenly switch to acknowledging them?
I'm saying that the British press are very good at ignoring things when it suits their purposes and/or outright revelling in performative ignorance and failing to understand the simplest things.
What is Peter Mandelson's general reputation in the UK? He contributed to the birthday book as well, called Epstein his "best pal".
This is one of those cases where the press will revel in performative ignorance, right until the point they don't.
I'm not sure what you mean. The press will pretend not to know anything about Mandelson's questionable activities, and then suddenly switch to acknowledging them?
I'm saying that the British press are very good at ignoring things when it suits their purposes and/or outright revelling in performative ignorance and failing to understand the simplest things.
What is Peter Mandelson's general reputation in the UK? He contributed to the birthday book as well, called Epstein his "best pal".
He was a major figure during Tony Blair's electoral campaign and early government who was widely viewed as being a slick political communicator with nothing of substance to communicate, and an easy-going approach to the truth, and who had to resign as a minister (twice - he was reappointed) over scandals where he was suspected of being unduly influenced by financial favours.
What is Peter Mandelson's general reputation in the UK? He contributed to the birthday book as well, called Epstein his "best pal".
He was a major figure during Tony Blair's government who was widely viewed as being a slick political communicator with nothing of substance to communicate and who had to resign as a minister (twice - he was reappointed) over scandals where he was suspected of being unduly influenced by financial favours.
Thanks.
I assume his reputation must still have been solid enough in establishment circles that he was able to swing a coveted ambassadorial position.
I assume his reputation must still have been solid enough in establishment circles that he was able to swing a coveted ambassadorial position.
I think the establishment viewed his behaviour in both instances as being well within the accepted bounds of intra-establishment favours for chums. Conservative politicians have brazened out worse.
Mandelson was considered the architect of New Labour, the "eminence grise" of Tony Blair. I never quite understood the near-universal loathing for him but I think he was a bit like a living "Picture of Dorian Gray", with Tony Blair as Dorian Gray obviously. He symbolised the idea that Labour was jettisoning its traditional principles and cosying up to big business. Thus quotes such as [We are] "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes" and the time he allegedly mixed up mushy peas with guacamole in a fish and chip shop have lingered in the public memory.
I am beginning to fear we are getting set up for a second civil war. Here is the scenario: Trump sends in the National Guard to Chicago, but the Illinois governor refuses to allow the Illinois Guard to be activated. Technically, Trump could then federalize the Illinois NG under the Insurrection Act. But this would immediately be challenged in court. But the scenario that scares me is Trump sends in troops from the Texas NG. Would the Illinois governor be willing to allow this? Or could he resist, posting his NG tanks at the entrance to the Great Lakes Naval Station which Trump seems to plan on using as his base of operation?
There isn't the strong regional division between potential partisans that there was in the nineteenth century. There's still some, but it's not as extreme. For example, in 2024 there were more Harris voters in Texas than there were in New York state. The potential combatant powers are much more geographically intermingled than we often think.
My guess is that any potential civil war that grows from the current moment will more closely resemble the Troubles than the previous American Civil War. More bombings, targeted assassinations, and guerilla raids, fewer pitched battles between large masses of troops.
Mandelson was considered the architect of New Labour, the "eminence grise" of Tony Blair. I never quite understood the near-universal loathing for him but I think he was a bit like a living "Picture of Dorian Gray", with Tony Blair as Dorian Gray obviously.
...and as slippery as a lube factory full of eels.
Mandelson was considered the architect of New Labour, the "eminence grise" of Tony Blair. I never quite understood the near-universal loathing for him but I think he was a bit like a living "Picture of Dorian Gray", with Tony Blair as Dorian Gray obviously.
...and as slippery as a lube factory full of eels.
...that's covered in grease when your hands are coated in cooking oil.
I am beginning to fear we are getting set up for a second civil war. Here is the scenario: Trump sends in the National Guard to Chicago, but the Illinois governor refuses to allow the Illinois Guard to be activated. Technically, Trump could then federalize the Illinois NG under the Insurrection Act. But this would immediately be challenged in court. But the scenario that scares me is Trump sends in troops from the Texas NG. Would the Illinois governor be willing to allow this? Or could he resist, posting his NG tanks at the entrance to the Great Lakes Naval Station which Trump seems to plan on using as his base of operation?
Maybe that civil war is on already? Against brown people like me who those masked men think look Mexican. Then that stacked supreme court say go ahead and keep doing it.
Looks like been a long war already against black people. Maybe if you kill them one at a time if you're a white police then its just murder. What do I know.
Comments
My youngest brother says - "before engaging mouth, put brain in gear."
If presidents have secret service protection for life and vice presidents for six months how does it work for a vice president who becomes acting president for a while?
Asking for a friend ...
Depends on if they later become president, either by election (e.g. George H.W. Bush) or because the president died in office (e.g. Lyndon Johnson). If either of those apply they get the same Secret Service protection as any other president. If it's a temporary acting presidency they do not. George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Kamala Harris each spent a few hours as acting presidents while their respective presidents underwent medical procedures involving anesthesia, and lifelong Secret Service protection doesn't apply to either Cheney or Harris.
I'm kind of shocked that this isn't a bigger news story. Maxwell claims that multiple members of Trump's current cabinet "were associating with [Epstein] for the purpose of sexual encounters" and the only press on it are the Guardian and a social media outlet. Leaving completely aside the potentially libelous speculation on who she means or Maxwell's reliability when it comes to the details of her own case, why has this not been mentioned elsewhere? The media can determine what is a news story and what gets turned into a "news event" (e.g. the Clinton campaign's hacked emails), but as near as I can tell this isn't even considered a news story. Has anyone else on the Ship encountered this bit of information (i.e. that multiple members of Trump's current cabinet allegedly took part in sex trafficking minors) anywhere before I mentioned it here?
I guess a better comparison would be with Ford, as both conditions apply to Johnson.
Not to underestimate possible threats, but when you see the phrasal template "Trump issues Executive Order to..." in a headline, you should give close attention to the actual legal procedure needed to implement the EO.
<gift link to NY Times article "Trump Claims the Power to Summarily Kill Suspected Drug Smugglers">
The article dances around the issue of how two Trump administration policies work together. Specifically:
I'd give good money for a reporter to ask Trump (or, more likely, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt) if the U.S. military is currently authorized to summarily execute people in those two cities.
Also noted in the article was the fact that eleven people, the alleged number summarily executed by the U.S. Navy, seems like a fairly large number to operate such a small craft. There is the distinct possibility that this might have been a human trafficking operation, not a drug trafficking one.
If I recall my Civil War History, much of that war was fought using one state's militia against another state's militia. https://www.usahistorytimeline.com/pages/the-role-of-state-militias-in-the-civil-war.php
Heaven help us if it comes to this.
It w
My guess is that 12-dimensional chess theories that Putin has been planning this or that over-egg the pudding. Putin has interfered in US politics to sow discord and promote Trump, but he's bright enough to know that the more specific the outcome you try to achieve the greater (and more costly) the intervention required and the less likely it is to succeed. Fomenting chaos and profiting from it is cheaper, easier, and more reliable.
For anyone interested, you can see the booing all over YouTube.
Now google "Pashcow hands Epstein a cheque for 'depreciated woman'".
I actually think the "cheque" in question is probably just a joke between the two guys about Trump(who is not in the photo) getting together with one of Epstein's ex-girlfriends. But, still, Trump's signature(albeit obviously fake) on the "cheque" really isn't great optics, given that the photo is now part of a controversy involving human trafficking.
I call this the theatre of the absurd.
Given a choice between trusting Mandelson and sticking my head into a sackfull of half-starved weasels, I'd go for the mustelids every time.
This is one of those cases where the press will revel in performative ignorance, right until the point they don't.
What's the reason for your distrust?
I'm not sure what you mean. The press will pretend not to know anything about Mandelson's questionable activities, and then suddenly switch to acknowledging them?
Aside from tbe fact that he's a career politician he was sacked as a minister for dodgy dealings at least twice that I can remember.
I'm saying that the British press are very good at ignoring things when it suits their purposes and/or outright revelling in performative ignorance and failing to understand the simplest things.
"yum yum"
They also included a photo from the book of Mandelson in his bathrobe talking to Epstein.
Thanks. Maybe I'll read up on that.
Thanks.
He is gay.
I assume his reputation must still have been solid enough in establishment circles that he was able to swing a coveted ambassadorial position.
There isn't the strong regional division between potential partisans that there was in the nineteenth century. There's still some, but it's not as extreme. For example, in 2024 there were more Harris voters in Texas than there were in New York state. The potential combatant powers are much more geographically intermingled than we often think.
My guess is that any potential civil war that grows from the current moment will more closely resemble the Troubles than the previous American Civil War. More bombings, targeted assassinations, and guerilla raids, fewer pitched battles between large masses of troops.
...and as slippery as a lube factory full of eels.
...that's covered in grease when your hands are coated in cooking oil.
Maybe that civil war is on already? Against brown people like me who those masked men think look Mexican. Then that stacked supreme court say go ahead and keep doing it.
Looks like been a long war already against black people. Maybe if you kill them one at a time if you're a white police then its just murder. What do I know.