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?
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.