- Reaction score
- 18,754
- Points
- 1,280
From a quick perusal of Town Hall's site, it seems that it might not be the most unbiased source.
A Deeply Fractured US
- Thread starter BeyondTheNow
- Start date
- Status
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 2,759
- Points
- 1,160
A closer reading of that paragraph would indicate that it is the "spouses" of major candidates that may receive protection in the four months leading to the election. There doesn't appear to be a specific time period to being a "major candidate" and receiving protection. The linked article does provide a link to the Secret Service page about 2024 campaign candidate protection.
Campaign 2024 - Candidate Protection
The Secret Service does not determine who qualifies for protection, nor is the Secret Service empowered to independently initiate candidate protection. By law, major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, as identified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, are eligible for Secret...
www.secretservice.gov
The primary timeline for providing protection is . . .
- Protection under these guidelines should only be granted within one year prior to the general election. Protection more than one year prior to the general election should only be granted in extraordinary, case by case circumstances in consultation with the committee, based on threat assessment and other factors.
But then there's also the optics factor.
Or he could just be a whiny baby.
- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
Lots of emphasis being put on indictments. Grand Juries are completely sided and a tool of the prosecution. As knowledgable, constitutional lawyers will tell you, you can indict a ham sandwich. All charges are allegations until proven in court and it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, not for the defendant to prove their innocence.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 18,754
- Points
- 1,280
Reuters and Associated Press, for two.
You’re right, I’m sorry. I first read it on a USSS website that slightly paraphrased and omitted the comma. That was sloppy on my part. It appears he would be eligible if deemed a ‘major candidate’, although I don’t know when they begin to meaningfully assess that.A closer reading of that paragraph would indicate that it is the "spouses" of major candidates that may receive protection in the four months leading to the election. There doesn't appear to be a specific time period to being a "major candidate" and receiving protection. The linked article does provide a link to the Secret Service page about 2024 campaign candidate protection.
Campaign 2024 - Candidate Protection
The Secret Service does not determine who qualifies for protection, nor is the Secret Service empowered to independently initiate candidate protection. By law, major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, as identified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, are eligible for Secret...
The primary timeline for providing protection is . . .
Under the guidelines detailed on that page, and of course, subject to there actually being being an extraordinary threat to Mr. Kennedy, he could be given protection. Or he could, if he also met the polling guidelines.
- Protection under these guidelines should only be granted within one year prior to the general election. Protection more than one year prior to the general election should only be granted in extraordinary, case by case circumstances in consultation with the committee, based on threat assessment and other factors.
But then there's also the optics factor.
Or he could just be a whiny baby.
Frequently Asked Questions About Us
The United States Secret Service, one of the nation's oldest federal investigative law enforcement agencies, was founded in 1865 as a branch of the U.S. Treasury Department.
www.secretservice.gov
That’s because the indictment, in conjunction with the search warrant affidavit, is what those of us outside of the investigation have to work with at this juncture. I would contend that this particular case will have been treated much more carefully and thoughtfully than the overwhelming majority of criminal prosecutions would be. The stakes are far too high to go all ham-fisted on this one, or on the pending January 6th indictment, which seems likely to be quite limited in scope.
In any case, it’s less the specific charges laid that we’re focusing discussion on, and more the fact set as laid out in the indictment document (most recently the additional info outlined in the new superseding indictment). It gives considerable insight into portions of the investigation, and how much investigative and prosecutorial work has been done to get to this point. It’s apparent that quite a lot of information was presented to the Grand Jury before seeking the indictment. It paints a pretty clear picture of why the named offenses have been charged.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,738
- Points
- 1,040
Nope. They slant their coverage like everyone else. Everyone has "priors", and few writers can police themselves to avoid tendentious phrasing and modifiers, and statements of controversial claims as if they were facts.
- Reaction score
- 21,933
- Points
- 1,260
Do you have any idea how the process for selecting personnel for a Grand Jury works?
To say they are slanted and a tool of the prosecution is a little ridiculous and misleading.
On RFKJr, he’s not a major candidate, so it doesn’t matter, and if he was the time line is still off.
Follow up on this- Trump’s defamation lawsuit against CNN was dismissed with prejudice last night (meaning the plaintiff cannot amend the claim; the case is done), on motion by CNN. Trump basically failed to make a plausible claim of factual defamation that should go to trial. This case basically centered around CNN’s use of the term “Big Lie” in reference to Trump’s lies about election fraud.
Brief 11 page decision that does a useful little dive into what constitutes defamation in Florida, the First Amendment, and factual claims versus opinions in determining whether defamatory claims can have been made.
The plus side to Trump on this is he doesn’t face the prospect of civil discovery on a case that revolves around his claims of election fraud. That would not have gone well for him and the timing could have been politically inconvenient.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,917
- Points
- 1,160
As I recall a few years before Covid, Reuters was getting slammed on some scandal about how they handled news and what they throttled and didn't.
- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
Chrystia Freeland used to work for Reuters. Just saying.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,738
- Points
- 1,040
Presentation is everything.
"Jim, we've just received word of shots fired somewhere by someone. Could this possibly be the work of racist white separatist extremists?" "Quite possibly, Stacy."
"Arabic-speaking witnesses say Mohammed ibn-Mohammed was reciting a passage from the Koran shortly before he detonated the explosive vest he was wearing. So far, we have no motive."
Anonymously-sourced tips and leaks in one political situation - run with it at the top of every hour.
Open sworn testimony, affidavits, and correspondence with names in another political situation - avoid mention as much as possible.
It looks like the Biden-favouring tribe have blown past all possible points at which they might have tried to argue alternative explanations and are hoping for a stand at the last gate: no evidence directly linking Joe Biden to payments. It's a pretty safe hope; there aren't going to be any cheques to "Joe Biden" with "Bribe to get Shokin fired" on the memo line. The most there is likely to be is money flowing into and between companies, with Joe Biden owning stakes in one or more or receiving money therefrom.
"Jim, we've just received word of shots fired somewhere by someone. Could this possibly be the work of racist white separatist extremists?" "Quite possibly, Stacy."
"Arabic-speaking witnesses say Mohammed ibn-Mohammed was reciting a passage from the Koran shortly before he detonated the explosive vest he was wearing. So far, we have no motive."
Anonymously-sourced tips and leaks in one political situation - run with it at the top of every hour.
Open sworn testimony, affidavits, and correspondence with names in another political situation - avoid mention as much as possible.
It looks like the Biden-favouring tribe have blown past all possible points at which they might have tried to argue alternative explanations and are hoping for a stand at the last gate: no evidence directly linking Joe Biden to payments. It's a pretty safe hope; there aren't going to be any cheques to "Joe Biden" with "Bribe to get Shokin fired" on the memo line. The most there is likely to be is money flowing into and between companies, with Joe Biden owning stakes in one or more or receiving money therefrom.
- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
Alan Dershowitz, an eminent Constitutional lawyer and no friend of Trump’s, talks Grand Jury's and indictments.
fb.watch
Alan Dershowitz: Prosecutors can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich | 'National Report' | Alan Dershowitz: "Prosecutors can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, if it's in the District of Columbia you can get them to indict a tuna... | B
Alan Dershowitz: "Prosecutors can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, if it's in the District of Columbia you can get them to indict a tuna...
fb.watch
Last edited:
Alan Dershewitz, an eminent Constitutional lawyer and no friend of Trump’s, talks Grand Jury's and indictments.
Alan Dershowitz: Prosecutors can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich | 'National Report' | Alan Dershowitz: "Prosecutors can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, if it's in the District of Columbia you can get them to indict a tuna... | B
Alan Dershowitz: "Prosecutors can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, if it's in the District of Columbia you can get them to indict a tuna...
Indeed. Probable Cause isn’t nothing, but it’s not a super high threshold either. Fortunately for Trump, his fate in the weightiest case he’s currently facing will be decided before a sympathetic judge and a jury of his peers from his political stronghold in the southern district of Florida.
The indictments are interesting and worthy of discussion, particularly, as I said, the actual informational content therein. It’s still significant in considering what role he should play in America’s future and overseeing its national security. It’s reasonable for voters to consider their contents when deciding if he can and should be trusted with any more of America’s national secrets. But the criminal consequences, if any, will wait for the resolution of a trial where the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He’ll get a fair shake.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,738
- Points
- 1,040
Going to get worse if it looks like Joe Biden was taking money out of a web of companies and Ukrainian interests were one of the parties putting money in. Going to get a lot worse if that happens and the ground war still isn't showing any dramatic changes in territory holdings this time next year.
- Reaction score
- 18,754
- Points
- 1,280
- Reaction score
- 21,933
- Points
- 1,260
Brad, you know that the current President of Ukraine isn't the guy who was doing the side deals earlier right? As well that Big Z ran on a an anti-corruption mandate and has made a lot of reforms that resulted in jailing corrupt politicians...
Watch out for those worms - they can cross the border you know
- Status
Similar threads
