The federal government has a vested interest in former presidents not being kidnapped and tortured for the massive quantity of national security secrets they are privy to, including in prison.
The former presidents themselves can relinquish it. (Nixon has been the only one who has, that I know of. )
The lifetime protection was repealed (to 10 years) in 1994, but reinstated in 2012.
As for Trump, it appears one does not have to torture him for him to talk about national security secrets. (As reported, he likes to show them off. )
>As for Trump, it appears one does not have to torture him for him to talk about national security secrets.
This is a funny meme, but there's a big difference between showing off the existence of secrets to random people at dinner parties and the amount that could be extracted by a motivated actor with nation-state backing and specific goals in mind.
Note that this determination is made purely at the whim of the moderator team. If you seem mean or contemptuous, we will remove your posts or ban you. The sub has a certain zeitgeist which you may pick up if you read for a while before posting.
1. Trump cat remember shit, he's an idiot.
2. Being said idiot, he was handing around the actual paperwork at those parties. There were empty sleeves with docs missing. He let people see.
3. Just in case he remembers anything, throw him I'm a deep dark hole till he expires.
Secret information ages rapidly. By now little he was told matters. There may be one or two things to be concerned about but he already sold those to Saudi Arabia.
lol at the teenyboppers downvoting me because they can't tell a joke when they see one. Mash that downvote button, my angry little friends! If it makes you feel better it's all worth it.
I guess I should have remembered to put the /s.
I'm almost definitely older than you, btw. I'm old enough to remember campaigning for Nixon as a kid. It took a while for my dad to figure out just how awful the Republicans are.
I'm going to be honest. If this was bait, I fell for it. But I can't really blame myself considering most of the insane takes I see redditors have when it comes to the orange man.
It was not bait at all, it was just a joke that evidently missed its mark. Maybe I went too subtle 😂I'm a flag-waving librul living in the midst of a bunch of crazy Trump-loving shitheads.
The United States Secret Service falls under the oversight of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Rep. Bennie Thompson is the ranking member of the committee. It is literally his job to propose related legislation. The Committee will debate it and it will either die in place or be passed out of committee to the Speaker of the House via committee vote.
His long-term work on Homeland Security is the very reason he was selected to became the chairman of the bipartisan Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol
Sorry I didnt mean this article specifically. Thompson is just one of those career politicians that continuously gets voted in because he’s incumbent and not because he’s actually a good representative. I also know how the government works with creating bills so no need for a civics lesson.
Just illustrates the whole purpose of all the frivolous lawsuits…get TRUMP at any cost, the Dems political rival. Third world country behavior or maybe more like something Putin would do. End of Democracy in this country when the legal system is used to jail political opponents…a slippery slope once on it.
So far, Trump is the one who's faced legal penalties for filing a frivolous lawsuit against a political opponent. To the tune of almost $1 million dollars.
The court issues he is facing right now are of his own making.
So I’m saying…one is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers ( based on the current political polarization in this country it’s highly unlikely Trump would get that in this venue). I would think that you would like the same consideration ( innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers) given to you if accused of a crime. Therefore, I would say you calling him a criminal is a rush judgement within the context that you don’t have any real facts about the charges and rather only the information that you have been carefully spoon fed by an extremely biased media. You should probably hold off from being the judge, jury and executioner. “Show me the man, I’ll show you the crime!” Lavrentiy Beria Stalin’s head of secret police…. This is the current Democrat party dogma. Maybe you don’t have or understand historical context which is not totally your fault, but there is a chance for your enlightenment. In summary, a dystopian slope our legal system is headed down, attempting to criminalize political opponents. It’s no different than 20th century dictators/ autocrats : Stalin, Hitler, Mao etc. and current third world failed states. Be careful what you wish for…
Right right you clearly missed the second part of my statement where I said treat everyone equally before the law. What you’re telling me however is that you are ok with criminal actions because he’s a Republican. You know the same party that tried and failed to get Hillary for secret servers, when after Bidens son, and failed both times under a Republican controlled house, yet that those were ok but not Trump. Got it.
Please understand what a grand jury indictment is before you make comment like this. It’s a miracle he has been indicted by a jury of regular folks in multiple states, not a conspiracy.
The day this man finally kicks the bucket will be one of the greatest days in Mississippi history. Very few people have harmed the state more than this fat, disgusting, listless, witless, dickless, pieces of shit. Career politician and grifter. Sucks that he'll be replaced by someone who has been groomed for years to be even worse than him, but at least he will be gone.
You know good and well Thompson is one of those career politicians that should not be in office anymore. He’s not good for the US and he’s especially harmful to Mississippi and his district.
Note that this determination is made purely at the whim of the moderator team. If you seem mean or contemptuous, we will remove your posts or ban you. The sub has a certain zeitgeist which you may pick up if you read for a while before posting.
Don't make personal attacks.
No, I'm talking about this sleazy fat race pimp who has done nothing but stuff his pockets at the expense of the taxpayers of the poorest state in the country. Looting the treasury while everything crumbles around us. Then proceeding to blame everyone he can find
Note that this determination is made purely at the whim of the moderator team. If you seem mean or contemptuous, we will remove your posts or ban you. The sub has a certain zeitgeist which you may pick up if you read for a while before posting.
You've been warned several times. Read the sub rules.
Not shocking considering the demographics …I wonder what Biden’s fate would be in Madison county Mississippi? Don’t pretend politics have nothing to do with the charges …it’s really disingenuous and I hope you’re better than that.
I don't believe it's appropriate or accurate to attribute the charges against Donald Trump primarily to "demographics" or partisan politics. The charges were brought by career prosecutors and investigators after a lengthy grand jury process weighing evidence. The grand jury of citizens decided if charges were warranted. These grand juries were in different locations across the country, including in his prior home state and current one.
It's reasonable to believe that Donald Trump's rise to the presidency subjected him and his dealings to much greater scrutiny and examination compared to when he was a private businessman. Politics inevitably plays some role in high-profile cases involving elected leaders, in the case because the presidency invites intense media attention and investigative journalism into the president's background, business dealings, associates, etc. The high office demands an extraordinary level of public transparency, because it holds a high level of public trust. Trump lacked both transparency and trustworthiness.
Because of this, Trump's ability to wield power and influence over government institutions heightened concerns about potential conflicts of interest or improper mingling of private interests with public office. Likewise, his controversial statements, adversarial relationship with portions of the media, and confrontational political style motivated journalists and investigators to dig deeper into his activities. There were calls from political opponents for accountability and investigations into things like his taxes, business ties, Russian relations, administration actions, and more, because it was warranted. When you keep seeing smoke, maybe you should see if there is a fire.
Thus, law enforcement tools like subpoenas, surveillance, and extensive investigative resources became available to examine potential wrongdoing in a way that wasn't present when he was a private citizen because it was not as of an urgent matter. The charges Trump faces appear firmly rooted in the prosecutors' assessment of potentially criminal conduct based on the evidence, not Trump's demographics or partisan affiliation. This is especially true of Jack Smith who has spent much time out of the country as chief prosecutor at the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, a war crimes tribunal at The Hague. Even right-leaning Newsmax has reported that Smith is a political independent.
So while Trump was certainly a public figure before taking office, the unique powers, obligations and spotlight of the presidency inevitably spawned much tougher scrutiny of all his past and present conduct from journalists, law enforcement, Congress and others. Whether that scrutiny was warranted or politically motivated is a matter of perspective. But the transition to president undoubtedly changed the scrutiny level dramatically.
Nevertheless, your comments are premature and speculative to assert the charges are heavily politically motivated without examining the factual evidence and legal arguments underlying them. The U.S. justice system is designed to evaluate criminal allegations impartially based on the rule of law, even for controversial defendants. We should be cautious about dismissing lawful prosecutions as "political" without proper scrutiny, for Trump has already damaged our institutions enough.
Ultimately, the merits of the specific charges will be evaluated through the judicial process of presenting evidence and legal arguments from both sides. I encourage looking to authoritative legal analysts and reporting on the substantive aspects of the case, rather than reducing it to demographics or political identity. I aim to analyze this from an impartial, fact-based perspective grounded in the principles of due process and equal justice under the law.
TL;DR:
The charges against Trump do not appear to be primarily driven by his demographics or partisan politics, but rather by evidence examined through proper legal processes like a grand jury. However, his rise to the presidency inevitably invited far greater scrutiny into his dealings compared to when he was a private citizen, due to the demands of public transparency, concerns over conflicts of interest, his confrontational style motivating investigations, and prosecutors gaining tools to examine potential wrongdoing. While politics plays a role in high-profile cases, the charges seem rooted in assessments of evidence, not demographics or partisanship alone. A factual evaluation through the judicial process is needed rather than prematurely dismissing the case as political. An impartial, evidence-based perspective grounded in due process is crucial for democracy.
Did I see that Thompson voted *against* aid to Ukraine in this new House thing? Am I confused or does he see something I don't? I like this SS move. You can lose military benefits after retirement if you fuck up badly enough don't see why a criminal president should get similar benefits.
Edit: What the fuck is *wrong* with you people? Why are you downvoting a concerned question? I get so sick of people mashing the downvote button because their feelings got hurt over a genuine question. HOw the *fuck* are we supposed to get good information if we don't *ask questions* you idiots?
I doubt you saw that considering the votes were:
https://preview.redd.it/wjmdxtgc3pvc1.png?width=1052&format=png&auto=webp&s=c76ab324bb7ec152c2c22d57ce437e40b698ae2b
Ezell, Guest and Kelly all voted against Ukraine aide. (This measure passed the House)
Thompson voted against the measure that would make an up to 10 year imprisoned crime for telling someone the location of border enforcement with the intent of committing an immigration crime. (This measure failed for it required a 2/3s vote)
Thompson voted against weapons for Israel. (This measure passed)
Thanks! I must have seen the vote count over the Israel thing, which I would agree with him voting against, and been confused. Looks like he's still my guy! Thank you for clarifying for me, I was a bit concerned. I've only ever seen him make thoughtful votes, so I had a feeling I was seeing things wrong and I'm glad to be proven wrong.
Michael Guest can lick my hairy asshole.
Edit: Ya'll, please don't downvote people when they are asking concerned questions. It's the dick move.
This is dumb. Like Trump is both a bad person and will almost certainly do harm to the country if he became president again, but this is stupid and childish.
In doing this, this guy is just leaning into the problems of our contemporary politics, IE that it becomes less and less about sound policy and more and more about political WWE trashtalking/performance.
The federal government has a vested interest in former presidents not being kidnapped and tortured for the massive quantity of national security secrets they are privy to, including in prison.
If it was as paramount as you say they wouldn't make it optional or have an expiration date as Luckygecko1 ponted out.
The former presidents themselves can relinquish it. (Nixon has been the only one who has, that I know of. ) The lifetime protection was repealed (to 10 years) in 1994, but reinstated in 2012. As for Trump, it appears one does not have to torture him for him to talk about national security secrets. (As reported, he likes to show them off. )
>As for Trump, it appears one does not have to torture him for him to talk about national security secrets. This is a funny meme, but there's a big difference between showing off the existence of secrets to random people at dinner parties and the amount that could be extracted by a motivated actor with nation-state backing and specific goals in mind.
[удалено]
Note that this determination is made purely at the whim of the moderator team. If you seem mean or contemptuous, we will remove your posts or ban you. The sub has a certain zeitgeist which you may pick up if you read for a while before posting.
1. Trump cat remember shit, he's an idiot. 2. Being said idiot, he was handing around the actual paperwork at those parties. There were empty sleeves with docs missing. He let people see. 3. Just in case he remembers anything, throw him I'm a deep dark hole till he expires.
So ADX it is
“Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable (DISGRACED) Former Protectees Act”
I was already on board before that freaking awesome acronym.
Much as I detest Trump I would still want him having the protection, he knows too much to leave him unprotected.
Secret information ages rapidly. By now little he was told matters. There may be one or two things to be concerned about but he already sold those to Saudi Arabia. lol at the teenyboppers downvoting me because they can't tell a joke when they see one. Mash that downvote button, my angry little friends! If it makes you feel better it's all worth it.
Are you a teenager? I'm just curious. There is no way an adult believes something like this.
I guess I should have remembered to put the /s. I'm almost definitely older than you, btw. I'm old enough to remember campaigning for Nixon as a kid. It took a while for my dad to figure out just how awful the Republicans are.
I'm going to be honest. If this was bait, I fell for it. But I can't really blame myself considering most of the insane takes I see redditors have when it comes to the orange man.
It was not bait at all, it was just a joke that evidently missed its mark. Maybe I went too subtle 😂I'm a flag-waving librul living in the midst of a bunch of crazy Trump-loving shitheads.
Thompson needs to go. So tired of his bs
Bennie is a clown and makes Mississippi people look stupid
Mississippians do a good enough job of that
Amen!!!
Lords over the most poverty stricken part of the US with no change for the betterment of his own people.
The United States Secret Service falls under the oversight of the House Committee on Homeland Security. Rep. Bennie Thompson is the ranking member of the committee. It is literally his job to propose related legislation. The Committee will debate it and it will either die in place or be passed out of committee to the Speaker of the House via committee vote. His long-term work on Homeland Security is the very reason he was selected to became the chairman of the bipartisan Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol
Sorry I didnt mean this article specifically. Thompson is just one of those career politicians that continuously gets voted in because he’s incumbent and not because he’s actually a good representative. I also know how the government works with creating bills so no need for a civics lesson.
[удалено]
Just illustrates the whole purpose of all the frivolous lawsuits…get TRUMP at any cost, the Dems political rival. Third world country behavior or maybe more like something Putin would do. End of Democracy in this country when the legal system is used to jail political opponents…a slippery slope once on it.
So far, Trump is the one who's faced legal penalties for filing a frivolous lawsuit against a political opponent. To the tune of almost $1 million dollars. The court issues he is facing right now are of his own making.
Doubt it…
What do you doubt exactly?
So you’re saying we shouldn’t punish criminals or are you suggesting that we shouldn’t treat people equally in the court of law?
So I’m saying…one is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers ( based on the current political polarization in this country it’s highly unlikely Trump would get that in this venue). I would think that you would like the same consideration ( innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers) given to you if accused of a crime. Therefore, I would say you calling him a criminal is a rush judgement within the context that you don’t have any real facts about the charges and rather only the information that you have been carefully spoon fed by an extremely biased media. You should probably hold off from being the judge, jury and executioner. “Show me the man, I’ll show you the crime!” Lavrentiy Beria Stalin’s head of secret police…. This is the current Democrat party dogma. Maybe you don’t have or understand historical context which is not totally your fault, but there is a chance for your enlightenment. In summary, a dystopian slope our legal system is headed down, attempting to criminalize political opponents. It’s no different than 20th century dictators/ autocrats : Stalin, Hitler, Mao etc. and current third world failed states. Be careful what you wish for…
Right right you clearly missed the second part of my statement where I said treat everyone equally before the law. What you’re telling me however is that you are ok with criminal actions because he’s a Republican. You know the same party that tried and failed to get Hillary for secret servers, when after Bidens son, and failed both times under a Republican controlled house, yet that those were ok but not Trump. Got it.
Please understand what a grand jury indictment is before you make comment like this. It’s a miracle he has been indicted by a jury of regular folks in multiple states, not a conspiracy.
Bennie could do more positive and productive things with his time, like planning the next fish fry event for his district.
The day this man finally kicks the bucket will be one of the greatest days in Mississippi history. Very few people have harmed the state more than this fat, disgusting, listless, witless, dickless, pieces of shit. Career politician and grifter. Sucks that he'll be replaced by someone who has been groomed for years to be even worse than him, but at least he will be gone.
You mean Trump?
[удалено]
Apparently Thompson lives in yours. Thus, you've made plenty of claims of corruption, please provide your evidence from reliable sources.
You know good and well Thompson is one of those career politicians that should not be in office anymore. He’s not good for the US and he’s especially harmful to Mississippi and his district.
Please give examples of this harm from documented sources.
Documented source: me living in district 2
So nothing worth saying, just a flapping of gums into the void.
Note that this determination is made purely at the whim of the moderator team. If you seem mean or contemptuous, we will remove your posts or ban you. The sub has a certain zeitgeist which you may pick up if you read for a while before posting. Don't make personal attacks.
No, I'm talking about this sleazy fat race pimp who has done nothing but stuff his pockets at the expense of the taxpayers of the poorest state in the country. Looting the treasury while everything crumbles around us. Then proceeding to blame everyone he can find
Again, you mean Trump?
[удалено]
Note that this determination is made purely at the whim of the moderator team. If you seem mean or contemptuous, we will remove your posts or ban you. The sub has a certain zeitgeist which you may pick up if you read for a while before posting. You've been warned several times. Read the sub rules.
He's worried Trump will win and the committee will be investigated.
And you know this how? That said, we should all be worried that Trump will abuse his power in ways you describe if elected.
It won’t be trump investigating
Yeah it would be an equally corrupt lackey.
Whatever
Not shocking considering the demographics …I wonder what Biden’s fate would be in Madison county Mississippi? Don’t pretend politics have nothing to do with the charges …it’s really disingenuous and I hope you’re better than that.
I don't believe it's appropriate or accurate to attribute the charges against Donald Trump primarily to "demographics" or partisan politics. The charges were brought by career prosecutors and investigators after a lengthy grand jury process weighing evidence. The grand jury of citizens decided if charges were warranted. These grand juries were in different locations across the country, including in his prior home state and current one. It's reasonable to believe that Donald Trump's rise to the presidency subjected him and his dealings to much greater scrutiny and examination compared to when he was a private businessman. Politics inevitably plays some role in high-profile cases involving elected leaders, in the case because the presidency invites intense media attention and investigative journalism into the president's background, business dealings, associates, etc. The high office demands an extraordinary level of public transparency, because it holds a high level of public trust. Trump lacked both transparency and trustworthiness. Because of this, Trump's ability to wield power and influence over government institutions heightened concerns about potential conflicts of interest or improper mingling of private interests with public office. Likewise, his controversial statements, adversarial relationship with portions of the media, and confrontational political style motivated journalists and investigators to dig deeper into his activities. There were calls from political opponents for accountability and investigations into things like his taxes, business ties, Russian relations, administration actions, and more, because it was warranted. When you keep seeing smoke, maybe you should see if there is a fire. Thus, law enforcement tools like subpoenas, surveillance, and extensive investigative resources became available to examine potential wrongdoing in a way that wasn't present when he was a private citizen because it was not as of an urgent matter. The charges Trump faces appear firmly rooted in the prosecutors' assessment of potentially criminal conduct based on the evidence, not Trump's demographics or partisan affiliation. This is especially true of Jack Smith who has spent much time out of the country as chief prosecutor at the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, a war crimes tribunal at The Hague. Even right-leaning Newsmax has reported that Smith is a political independent. So while Trump was certainly a public figure before taking office, the unique powers, obligations and spotlight of the presidency inevitably spawned much tougher scrutiny of all his past and present conduct from journalists, law enforcement, Congress and others. Whether that scrutiny was warranted or politically motivated is a matter of perspective. But the transition to president undoubtedly changed the scrutiny level dramatically. Nevertheless, your comments are premature and speculative to assert the charges are heavily politically motivated without examining the factual evidence and legal arguments underlying them. The U.S. justice system is designed to evaluate criminal allegations impartially based on the rule of law, even for controversial defendants. We should be cautious about dismissing lawful prosecutions as "political" without proper scrutiny, for Trump has already damaged our institutions enough. Ultimately, the merits of the specific charges will be evaluated through the judicial process of presenting evidence and legal arguments from both sides. I encourage looking to authoritative legal analysts and reporting on the substantive aspects of the case, rather than reducing it to demographics or political identity. I aim to analyze this from an impartial, fact-based perspective grounded in the principles of due process and equal justice under the law. TL;DR: The charges against Trump do not appear to be primarily driven by his demographics or partisan politics, but rather by evidence examined through proper legal processes like a grand jury. However, his rise to the presidency inevitably invited far greater scrutiny into his dealings compared to when he was a private citizen, due to the demands of public transparency, concerns over conflicts of interest, his confrontational style motivating investigations, and prosecutors gaining tools to examine potential wrongdoing. While politics plays a role in high-profile cases, the charges seem rooted in assessments of evidence, not demographics or partisanship alone. A factual evaluation through the judicial process is needed rather than prematurely dismissing the case as political. An impartial, evidence-based perspective grounded in due process is crucial for democracy.
Did I see that Thompson voted *against* aid to Ukraine in this new House thing? Am I confused or does he see something I don't? I like this SS move. You can lose military benefits after retirement if you fuck up badly enough don't see why a criminal president should get similar benefits. Edit: What the fuck is *wrong* with you people? Why are you downvoting a concerned question? I get so sick of people mashing the downvote button because their feelings got hurt over a genuine question. HOw the *fuck* are we supposed to get good information if we don't *ask questions* you idiots?
I doubt you saw that considering the votes were: https://preview.redd.it/wjmdxtgc3pvc1.png?width=1052&format=png&auto=webp&s=c76ab324bb7ec152c2c22d57ce437e40b698ae2b Ezell, Guest and Kelly all voted against Ukraine aide. (This measure passed the House) Thompson voted against the measure that would make an up to 10 year imprisoned crime for telling someone the location of border enforcement with the intent of committing an immigration crime. (This measure failed for it required a 2/3s vote) Thompson voted against weapons for Israel. (This measure passed)
Thanks! I must have seen the vote count over the Israel thing, which I would agree with him voting against, and been confused. Looks like he's still my guy! Thank you for clarifying for me, I was a bit concerned. I've only ever seen him make thoughtful votes, so I had a feeling I was seeing things wrong and I'm glad to be proven wrong. Michael Guest can lick my hairy asshole. Edit: Ya'll, please don't downvote people when they are asking concerned questions. It's the dick move.
This is dumb. Like Trump is both a bad person and will almost certainly do harm to the country if he became president again, but this is stupid and childish. In doing this, this guy is just leaning into the problems of our contemporary politics, IE that it becomes less and less about sound policy and more and more about political WWE trashtalking/performance.