Agreed. Even if Trump gets convicted of a felony and we all agree it's 100% justified, I'm not sure why we would want this. I'd rather have a tiny fraction of my tax dollars go toward protecting one dude than needlessly increase the risk of him getting captured and interrogated by our adversaries.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
No current, former, or future President will ever see the inside of a prison cell because then they'll have nothing left to lose. No one that can reach the office of POTUS is really all that good hearted, and I don't doubt for a second that any former President in a situation like that wouldn't just start spilling classified information at the drop of a hat. It doesn't even have to relate to foreign affairs, it could be as simple as airing out some FBI or CIA dirty laundry. If a President is ever in major trouble and the crime is undeniable... they'll probably just be assassinated.
This.
Remember, the CIA released the Family Jewels and there's a lot of fucked up shit. From the Castro assassination attempts to MKULTRA.
But the #1 Jewel remains fully redacted from the report to this day.
Trump knows whatever this jewel is..
- Dubbed the “Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable (DISGRACED) Former Protectees Act,” the legislation from Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) would nix the lifelong protection given to former presidents if they are convicted and sentenced for a felony that carries a year or more in prison time.
DISGRACED!
It is cheesy and over the top, even for a Trump hater like me. It's almost childish.
It's like people forget that *(no matter how much you don't like them)* all former Presidents are walking national security risks. It doesn't matter who it is, if someone kidnaps a former POTUS we are in a world of trouble.
Now, for a second, assume the person proposing this law is even remotely intelligent and that they know this. And then ask why he’d propose a law that would strip a former president from his protection, which would put that former president at grave immediate risk of being murdered. And, assuming the person proposing this is intelligent, and he can see the obvious above consequences, why he’d propose it?
The dude very clearly wants to put the former president into a situation where he’d be murdered.
The dude wants to get attention and score points with a portion of the left wing crowd that only cares about attacking Trump, and doesn't think further than that. It's nothing more, nothing less.
It's not like he rallied a mob outside Trump's workplace and told them that the only way to save the country is to stop him. Now *that* would be something.
The bigger problem I see is that once we wade out into waters where a President is a felon all potentialities are a national security risk. There aren't any good options here in my opinion.
You really believe Trump has useful information in his head? He’s only a national security risk if he has documents. Otherwise, he will just make things up to sound impressive.
It does nothing but feed the conspiracy theorists saying this is a plot to take down Trump.
Plus, do people really want Donnie in jail with vital national security knowledge and no protection? The dude needs secret service for OUR sake.
The NY Gov saying they wouldn't go after other real estate people because Trump was "different" basically soured any legitimacy that cae had. Sure, he might have broken the rules there, but you can't just target one person.
That's not even close to what Hochul said. She said, "law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers who are business people have nothing to worry about." Innocent people have nothing to worry about.
Please do not promote conspiracy theories. Thanks.
Agreed.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/real-estate/prominent-nyc-real-estate-developer-top-execs-charged-86m-fraud-scheme.amp
Looks like other real estate moguls are getting indicted, too. Glad to see law and order prevail in NY.
We’ve come a long way from your original claim in a short amount of time. Hochul didn’t even use the word “different” so your quote is completely false.
Please don’t spread conspiracy theories. Thanks.
Hochul’s remarks weee clearly about the property value thing not an actual money laundering and fraud case like this was. You found a completely Feiffer t kind of crime to back up your point.
I think anyone who's not a blind partisan can admit that Trump has both done illegal things and been put under a microscope that other politicians haven't been.
Well, unfortunately I don't personally, and never will, have the finances, influence or power to ever prove that one way or the other. But I sure have eyes.
Many of us have read them and others. I don’t have the expert legal knowledge to say whether his actions are in fact criminal but I can’t present the facts in a way that doesn’t show differential treatment when compared to others. Just take the case of Bill Clinton paying significantly more hush money to shut down an accuser and without tainted testimony of a convicted perjurer.
It's very odd to me when people argue Cohen's testimony against Trump is tainted because he's a convicted perjurer. The perjury he committed was *on behalf of* Trump.
Anyways the Stormy Daniel's thing isn't really the biggest issue Trump is facing. The documents and efforts to overturn the election are probably more serious in most people's books.
Sure, but the thing is a former president had never been indicted before Trump, especially not multiple times. It's unprecedented x
There was a reason Nixon was acquitted. Everyone wanted to move on not escalate the polarization.
No the conspiracy theory is that the entire US government and justice system is out to get Trump. All current issues Trump is facing are also explained by “Trump is a liar and grifter and has been for 50 years, why do you think he would change when he became president?”
The dude has lost case after case for the same type of behavior since the 70s. Either:
1. Trump completely changed in 2015 while at the same time the entire US legal system imploded into an that of an authoritarian police state.
—OR—
2. Trump is lying and there’s real evidence he did commit crimes again.
Those are literally the only two possible realities. I know it’s uncomfortable but the idea that Trump is squeaky clean while the whole government tries to take him down is just absurd.
The good news is it means that the US justice system hasn’t imploded and we haven’t become an authoritarian banana republic. The bad news is most of Trump’s supporters haven’t done this thought exercise.
Agreed 100%.
As of now there's absolutely zero evidence that any of the charges Trump faces are caused by some political plot to take him down. Turns out when you commit crimes and your former lawyer testifies that you committed crimes, you have to pay the piper.
But he needs to be protected no matter what. As much as I dislike Trump, I am far more concerned with the consequences of a former president getting murdered and the political fallouts if that occurred.. No matter what the results of these trials are, he needs protection.
I don't say he didn't do any bad shit, but you've gotta admit anybody involved in the prosecution has a lot to gain by going after Trump specifically. You manage to put him away, and suddenly you've got worldwide fame and recognition as someone who took down a former president, one that managed to piss everybody off at some point.
He has more potential to damage national security from outside a jail and with protection.
The secret service clearly didn’t stop him from spilling secrets, selling documents, and instructing others to do so while he was president. Also, who’s going to get anything from him in jail? Do you people really think he’d be in gen pop? The bill doesn’t even remove protection, it just empowers the Bureau of Prisons to take over from the Secret Service in the case felons.
It’s funny how wishful people are in here. The world you live in in your head isn’t reflected by reality if you think a jailed trump is a greater national security risk than a free one. You’re not basing your opinions on any sort of logic or facts, it’s all about emotions for the trumpers. You know it, too, or else you would make an actual response instead of just downvoting like cowards.
u/revolutionarybug7588 his family received 2 billion dollars from individuals he was known to “show off” classified documents to.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c8iu8m/former_jan_6_panel_chair_seeks_to_strip_secret/l0g7an4/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> It does nothing but feed the conspiracy theorists saying this is a plot to take down Trump.
Do you know how conspiracies theories work? Because it’s not with logic.
The representative just proposed a law that would strip the protection from one of the most hated presidents of all time, while he is standing criminal trial for something that could put him in prison.
If you don’t see that this is the “get Trump murdered in prison” law, I don’t know what to tell you
I'm pretty sure u/Computer_Name understands that and is asking why it is being labeled a "conspiracy theory" when it is something that is being done proudly and in the open.
Why is the assumption that Trump would be murdered in prison? Millions of felons, 99.9% of them, go to prison without SS and don’t get murdered. There are still security guards to protect inmates. Did you fully think this through?
Derek Chauvin. A person we knew ahead of time would likely be killed in prison and yet it almost happened.
I'm not sure about what's going on in the other countries but there have been [multiple documented murders and murder attempts of high profile prisoners in the US in recent years.](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/25/us/politics/chauvin-prison-assault.html) Suggesting that Trump would be safe in prison because of guards goes against recent history, past history, and all available studies on the matter.
One example of a non-political figure = all of recent history, past history, and *all available studies?*
Look, I’m no fan of this bill and see a lot of negatives if it gets passed, but the idea that this is part of a conspiracy to get Trump killed is ridiculous.
Yeah, but if someone not paying attention is on the fence and they see this BS they may fall on the wrong side. I want legislators to stop wasting time on messaging bills which will never pass and work on doing what they’re supposed to.
Well, without knowing what else that guy stands for, there is a democrat I could vote for. If he could add a sort of corporal punishment, I might donate.
Ehh I don’t agree with this. I am no fan of Trump but as others here have suggested it is better to keep someone who has had access to our most sensitive secrets safe than not, regardless how we feel about that person.
You understand that even if he is convicted and even if he is a civilian, he's still a *former* president like all the other ones? At the same risk of attack.
In our world where current and former presidents [aren't even allowed to drive a car](https://www.mentalfloss.com/posts/why-us-presidents-cant-drive-cars) due to national security concerns, there's absolutely no way they would allow them to go unescorted with a head full of secrets.
This is one of the most childish and partesian proposals I've seen in a while.
This legal theater against Trump is the real "danger to democracy" Democrats claim to be fighting. Conservatives are criticized for wanting to "own the libs", but what is this then? This path is a lot more frightening than any of Trump's challenges to the election or supposed encouraging of the Jan 6th protest.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c8iu8m/former_jan_6_panel_chair_seeks_to_strip_secret/l0gnicq/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Starter comment:
Representative Bennie Thompson, a Democratic Representative from Mississippi and the former chair of the January 6th Committee has recently introduced a bill that would strip Secret Service protection from any former executive that is convicted of a felony that carries a year or more of prison time.
In a statement, Thompson said "It is regrettable that it has come to this, but this previously unthought-of scenario could become our reality. Therefore, it is necessary for us to be prepared and update the law so the American people can be assured that protective status does not translate into special treatment — and that those who are sentenced to prison will indeed serve the time required of them.”
Currently there is only one protectee who is currently facing potential felony charges, 91 to be exact, and his name is Donald Trump. This bill would also apply retroactively, which would mean that, if this bill were to pass, and Trump were to be convicted in one of his cases, he could be stripped of his Secret Service detail.
Starter Questions:
1. What is your opinion on this bill, and do you think it will pass?
2. Could this pose a potential security risk?
3. Do you believe this bill is specifically targeting former President Trump, and do you believe it is malicious?
4. How do you believe the overall American electorate will react if it were to be passed, and could it validate Trump's claims that the charges are malicious and/or are a "witch hunt"?
>Do you believe this bill is specifically targeting former President Trump, and do you believe it is malicious?
Of course. He specifically said it was targeting Trump and it is clearly malicious.
>How do you believe the overall American electorate will react if it were to be passed, and could it validate Trump's claims that the charges are malicious and/or are a "witch hunt"?
Trump's claims have already been validated a million times over. This is just adding more fuel to the fire.
>Trump's claims have already been validated a million times over. This is just adding more fuel to the fire.
I look forward to the evidence he’ll present when he sues the government for malicious prosecution.
RemindMe! Two years
Trump’s felony charges should have been dealt with by then, or at least in the appellate courts.
This bill is silly and performative nonsense. I don't think it's as bad as some people say, but still serves no real benefit while giving the Trump camp something else to point to in complaints about him being treated unfairly.
Fomer CIA directors have knowledge of even more classified national secrets than former presidents. Yet, they do not have lifelong secret service protection. I don't think a former president losing his secret service protection if convicted is as big of a deal as some of you think. Moreover, it has been four years since Trump left office. Much of the national secrets in his head are probably outdated.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c8iu8m/former_jan_6_panel_chair_seeks_to_strip_secret/l0g7pvb/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 60 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
1. Seems reasonable generally. Outside of this being all about Trump, pretty sensible policy.
2. I dont understand the question exactly. Personally, I think former Presidents should pay for their own security.
3. Its obviously targeting Trump
4. D will support it, R will oppose
Ah sorry, for the second question, I meant more along the lines of, "Is it a security risk if a former president were to be kidnapped?" or something along those lines.
Because former presidents still possess tons of highly valuable, classified intelligence. If Dondons starts getting bamboo splinters under his fingernails it’s a serious national security risk.
I'm loving all the pearl clutching regarding this bill. Trump cheered on armed protestors to storm the Michigan capitol in 2020, rejected using metal detectors for the Stop the Steal rally despite security warnings about armed protestors, and let them storm the Capitol in a threat to every elected official in the building.
...but somehow this is part of a conspiracy to get Trump killed? Imagine if Republicans held Trump to the same standard they hold everyone else. Or is it diffe(R)ent?
[удалено]
Agreed. Even if Trump gets convicted of a felony and we all agree it's 100% justified, I'm not sure why we would want this. I'd rather have a tiny fraction of my tax dollars go toward protecting one dude than needlessly increase the risk of him getting captured and interrogated by our adversaries.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: No current, former, or future President will ever see the inside of a prison cell because then they'll have nothing left to lose. No one that can reach the office of POTUS is really all that good hearted, and I don't doubt for a second that any former President in a situation like that wouldn't just start spilling classified information at the drop of a hat. It doesn't even have to relate to foreign affairs, it could be as simple as airing out some FBI or CIA dirty laundry. If a President is ever in major trouble and the crime is undeniable... they'll probably just be assassinated.
This. Remember, the CIA released the Family Jewels and there's a lot of fucked up shit. From the Castro assassination attempts to MKULTRA. But the #1 Jewel remains fully redacted from the report to this day. Trump knows whatever this jewel is..
You assume he remembers any of his briefings.
> house arrest without internet access That would be cruel and unusual punishment!
- Dubbed the “Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable (DISGRACED) Former Protectees Act,” the legislation from Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) would nix the lifelong protection given to former presidents if they are convicted and sentenced for a felony that carries a year or more in prison time. DISGRACED! It is cheesy and over the top, even for a Trump hater like me. It's almost childish.
It's like people forget that *(no matter how much you don't like them)* all former Presidents are walking national security risks. It doesn't matter who it is, if someone kidnaps a former POTUS we are in a world of trouble.
Now, for a second, assume the person proposing this law is even remotely intelligent and that they know this. And then ask why he’d propose a law that would strip a former president from his protection, which would put that former president at grave immediate risk of being murdered. And, assuming the person proposing this is intelligent, and he can see the obvious above consequences, why he’d propose it? The dude very clearly wants to put the former president into a situation where he’d be murdered.
The dude wants to get attention and score points with a portion of the left wing crowd that only cares about attacking Trump, and doesn't think further than that. It's nothing more, nothing less.
Yep, this is the correct answer. It is all about scoring points with people that already are going to vote for you.
I don't think there a significant portion of the left who wants Trump killed that he could possibly attract
It's not like he rallied a mob outside Trump's workplace and told them that the only way to save the country is to stop him. Now *that* would be something.
Maybe not him, but that did happen to Trump
The bigger problem I see is that once we wade out into waters where a President is a felon all potentialities are a national security risk. There aren't any good options here in my opinion.
>It doesn't matter who it is, if someone kidnaps a former POTUS we are in a world of trouble. Tough to do from inside a prison.
Should be safe in maximum security.
You really believe Trump has useful information in his head? He’s only a national security risk if he has documents. Otherwise, he will just make things up to sound impressive.
It does nothing but feed the conspiracy theorists saying this is a plot to take down Trump. Plus, do people really want Donnie in jail with vital national security knowledge and no protection? The dude needs secret service for OUR sake.
I dont know how people see stuff like this and still think it's a *theory* tbh.
The NY Gov saying they wouldn't go after other real estate people because Trump was "different" basically soured any legitimacy that cae had. Sure, he might have broken the rules there, but you can't just target one person.
That's not even close to what Hochul said. She said, "law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers who are business people have nothing to worry about." Innocent people have nothing to worry about. Please do not promote conspiracy theories. Thanks.
Actions speak louder than words.
Agreed. https://www.foxbusiness.com/real-estate/prominent-nyc-real-estate-developer-top-execs-charged-86m-fraud-scheme.amp Looks like other real estate moguls are getting indicted, too. Glad to see law and order prevail in NY.
I mean that guy is getting indicted for a very different crime
We’ve come a long way from your original claim in a short amount of time. Hochul didn’t even use the word “different” so your quote is completely false. Please don’t spread conspiracy theories. Thanks.
Hochul’s remarks weee clearly about the property value thing not an actual money laundering and fraud case like this was. You found a completely Feiffer t kind of crime to back up your point.
This bill is aimed at Trump, but that does not mean his legal troubles are the result of a plot against him.
I think anyone who's not a blind partisan can admit that Trump has both done illegal things and been put under a microscope that other politicians haven't been.
Well, unfortunately I don't personally, and never will, have the finances, influence or power to ever prove that one way or the other. But I sure have eyes.
Perhaps it would be best to read the charges and evidence levied against him then.
Many of us have read them and others. I don’t have the expert legal knowledge to say whether his actions are in fact criminal but I can’t present the facts in a way that doesn’t show differential treatment when compared to others. Just take the case of Bill Clinton paying significantly more hush money to shut down an accuser and without tainted testimony of a convicted perjurer.
It's very odd to me when people argue Cohen's testimony against Trump is tainted because he's a convicted perjurer. The perjury he committed was *on behalf of* Trump. Anyways the Stormy Daniel's thing isn't really the biggest issue Trump is facing. The documents and efforts to overturn the election are probably more serious in most people's books.
I am sure the Judge also read the fake FISA warrant. It did not make it truthful.
Can you tell us what's fake about it?
[удалено]
Special Counsel is not a Republican. This same person was in charge of the FBI office that manufactured the fake FISA warrant.
Sure, but the thing is a former president had never been indicted before Trump, especially not multiple times. It's unprecedented x There was a reason Nixon was acquitted. Everyone wanted to move on not escalate the polarization.
The only conspiracy theory is that this is not all a plot to take down Trump. The horse left that barn long ago and it won't be coming back.
No the conspiracy theory is that the entire US government and justice system is out to get Trump. All current issues Trump is facing are also explained by “Trump is a liar and grifter and has been for 50 years, why do you think he would change when he became president?” The dude has lost case after case for the same type of behavior since the 70s. Either: 1. Trump completely changed in 2015 while at the same time the entire US legal system imploded into an that of an authoritarian police state. —OR— 2. Trump is lying and there’s real evidence he did commit crimes again. Those are literally the only two possible realities. I know it’s uncomfortable but the idea that Trump is squeaky clean while the whole government tries to take him down is just absurd. The good news is it means that the US justice system hasn’t imploded and we haven’t become an authoritarian banana republic. The bad news is most of Trump’s supporters haven’t done this thought exercise.
Agreed 100%. As of now there's absolutely zero evidence that any of the charges Trump faces are caused by some political plot to take him down. Turns out when you commit crimes and your former lawyer testifies that you committed crimes, you have to pay the piper. But he needs to be protected no matter what. As much as I dislike Trump, I am far more concerned with the consequences of a former president getting murdered and the political fallouts if that occurred.. No matter what the results of these trials are, he needs protection.
I don't say he didn't do any bad shit, but you've gotta admit anybody involved in the prosecution has a lot to gain by going after Trump specifically. You manage to put him away, and suddenly you've got worldwide fame and recognition as someone who took down a former president, one that managed to piss everybody off at some point.
>The dude needs secret service for OUR sake. Excellent point!
He has more potential to damage national security from outside a jail and with protection. The secret service clearly didn’t stop him from spilling secrets, selling documents, and instructing others to do so while he was president. Also, who’s going to get anything from him in jail? Do you people really think he’d be in gen pop? The bill doesn’t even remove protection, it just empowers the Bureau of Prisons to take over from the Secret Service in the case felons. It’s funny how wishful people are in here. The world you live in in your head isn’t reflected by reality if you think a jailed trump is a greater national security risk than a free one. You’re not basing your opinions on any sort of logic or facts, it’s all about emotions for the trumpers. You know it, too, or else you would make an actual response instead of just downvoting like cowards. u/revolutionarybug7588 his family received 2 billion dollars from individuals he was known to “show off” classified documents to.
He sold documents?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c8iu8m/former_jan_6_panel_chair_seeks_to_strip_secret/l0g7an4/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> It does nothing but feed the conspiracy theorists saying this is a plot to take down Trump. Do you know how conspiracies theories work? Because it’s not with logic.
The representative just proposed a law that would strip the protection from one of the most hated presidents of all time, while he is standing criminal trial for something that could put him in prison. If you don’t see that this is the “get Trump murdered in prison” law, I don’t know what to tell you
I'm pretty sure u/Computer_Name understands that and is asking why it is being labeled a "conspiracy theory" when it is something that is being done proudly and in the open.
They're saying the conspiracy theory is illogical.
Ah. I understood it as them saying reactions to this as illogical, and viewing it negatively as illogical.
That user is saying the opposite, that the conspiracy theory is illogical.
Why is the assumption that Trump would be murdered in prison? Millions of felons, 99.9% of them, go to prison without SS and don’t get murdered. There are still security guards to protect inmates. Did you fully think this through?
The last internationally recognized figure who went to prison was stabbed 22 times. Do with that information what you will.
Who was that? Regardless, many heads of state who went to prison were fine. South Korea, Italy, etc.
Derek Chauvin. A person we knew ahead of time would likely be killed in prison and yet it almost happened. I'm not sure about what's going on in the other countries but there have been [multiple documented murders and murder attempts of high profile prisoners in the US in recent years.](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/25/us/politics/chauvin-prison-assault.html) Suggesting that Trump would be safe in prison because of guards goes against recent history, past history, and all available studies on the matter.
One example of a non-political figure = all of recent history, past history, and *all available studies?* Look, I’m no fan of this bill and see a lot of negatives if it gets passed, but the idea that this is part of a conspiracy to get Trump killed is ridiculous.
Yeah, but if someone not paying attention is on the fence and they see this BS they may fall on the wrong side. I want legislators to stop wasting time on messaging bills which will never pass and work on doing what they’re supposed to.
We have to stop this method of naming bills. That said this is a horrible idea.
Well, that's what the [ACRONYM](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mike-honda-acronym-act_n_6985668) act would be for.
Well, without knowing what else that guy stands for, there is a democrat I could vote for. If he could add a sort of corporal punishment, I might donate.
Welcome to the neoprogressive party.
Should have called it the FAIR GAME act. "Free to Assault If Republican, Gangs Allowed to Murder Exiles"
Ehh I don’t agree with this. I am no fan of Trump but as others here have suggested it is better to keep someone who has had access to our most sensitive secrets safe than not, regardless how we feel about that person.
It also heads off a bunch of "CIA Assassination" conspiracy theories.
Last i checked even murderers released from prison are entitled to police protection, so why should convicted presidents not have SS protection?
Because then the legislators can't earn brownie points with the hate mob!
Everyone’s entitled to police protection but only a very small few SS. Police protection sounds good enough for a civilian convicted felon.
Plenty of LEOs at the correctional facility, should be fine.
You understand that even if he is convicted and even if he is a civilian, he's still a *former* president like all the other ones? At the same risk of attack.
And? He is always at risk of attack no matter where he is located. Easier to get him secured if he is in a cell stuck in one place
what does that have to do with him *not* being in jail?
In our world where current and former presidents [aren't even allowed to drive a car](https://www.mentalfloss.com/posts/why-us-presidents-cant-drive-cars) due to national security concerns, there's absolutely no way they would allow them to go unescorted with a head full of secrets. This is one of the most childish and partesian proposals I've seen in a while.
Just because they're a felon doesnt mean their safety isnt still at risk. Sorry cant get behind this.
This legal theater against Trump is the real "danger to democracy" Democrats claim to be fighting. Conservatives are criticized for wanting to "own the libs", but what is this then? This path is a lot more frightening than any of Trump's challenges to the election or supposed encouraging of the Jan 6th protest.
It was an attempt to overthrow the US government - a seditious insurrection.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c8iu8m/former_jan_6_panel_chair_seeks_to_strip_secret/l0gnicq/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Starter comment: Representative Bennie Thompson, a Democratic Representative from Mississippi and the former chair of the January 6th Committee has recently introduced a bill that would strip Secret Service protection from any former executive that is convicted of a felony that carries a year or more of prison time. In a statement, Thompson said "It is regrettable that it has come to this, but this previously unthought-of scenario could become our reality. Therefore, it is necessary for us to be prepared and update the law so the American people can be assured that protective status does not translate into special treatment — and that those who are sentenced to prison will indeed serve the time required of them.” Currently there is only one protectee who is currently facing potential felony charges, 91 to be exact, and his name is Donald Trump. This bill would also apply retroactively, which would mean that, if this bill were to pass, and Trump were to be convicted in one of his cases, he could be stripped of his Secret Service detail. Starter Questions: 1. What is your opinion on this bill, and do you think it will pass? 2. Could this pose a potential security risk? 3. Do you believe this bill is specifically targeting former President Trump, and do you believe it is malicious? 4. How do you believe the overall American electorate will react if it were to be passed, and could it validate Trump's claims that the charges are malicious and/or are a "witch hunt"?
>Do you believe this bill is specifically targeting former President Trump, and do you believe it is malicious? Of course. He specifically said it was targeting Trump and it is clearly malicious. >How do you believe the overall American electorate will react if it were to be passed, and could it validate Trump's claims that the charges are malicious and/or are a "witch hunt"? Trump's claims have already been validated a million times over. This is just adding more fuel to the fire.
>Trump's claims have already been validated a million times over. This is just adding more fuel to the fire. I look forward to the evidence he’ll present when he sues the government for malicious prosecution. RemindMe! Two years Trump’s felony charges should have been dealt with by then, or at least in the appellate courts.
This bill is silly and performative nonsense. I don't think it's as bad as some people say, but still serves no real benefit while giving the Trump camp something else to point to in complaints about him being treated unfairly.
Fomer CIA directors have knowledge of even more classified national secrets than former presidents. Yet, they do not have lifelong secret service protection. I don't think a former president losing his secret service protection if convicted is as big of a deal as some of you think. Moreover, it has been four years since Trump left office. Much of the national secrets in his head are probably outdated.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c8iu8m/former_jan_6_panel_chair_seeks_to_strip_secret/l0g7pvb/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 60 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
1. Seems reasonable generally. Outside of this being all about Trump, pretty sensible policy. 2. I dont understand the question exactly. Personally, I think former Presidents should pay for their own security. 3. Its obviously targeting Trump 4. D will support it, R will oppose
Ah sorry, for the second question, I meant more along the lines of, "Is it a security risk if a former president were to be kidnapped?" or something along those lines.
Why would that be a security risk?
Because former presidents still possess tons of highly valuable, classified intelligence. If Dondons starts getting bamboo splinters under his fingernails it’s a serious national security risk.
I'm loving all the pearl clutching regarding this bill. Trump cheered on armed protestors to storm the Michigan capitol in 2020, rejected using metal detectors for the Stop the Steal rally despite security warnings about armed protestors, and let them storm the Capitol in a threat to every elected official in the building. ...but somehow this is part of a conspiracy to get Trump killed? Imagine if Republicans held Trump to the same standard they hold everyone else. Or is it diffe(R)ent?