« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them  (Read 4058 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline flowers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,798
Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« on: March 13, 2016, 05:35:11 pm »
http://theweek.com/speedreads/609856/once-candidates-have-secret-service-protection-federal-crime-impede-disrupt

Quote
Donald Trump made headlines Monday when he reportedly ordered his Secret Service agents to remove 30 black students from a campaign event. Under federal law, however, he — or any candidate with Secret Service protection — theoretically could have asked the agents to do much more.

That's because H.R. 347, which updated existing protest regulations in 2011, makes it a federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison to "impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of government business or official functions" — and that applies to a candidate if they're under Secret Service guard.

The difficulty, as journalist Dahlia Lithwick and First Amendment lawyer Raymond Vasvari argued in 2012, is that "it’s almost impossible to predict what constitutes 'disorderly or disruptive conduct,'" and anything designated a National Special Security Event (NSSE) gets Secret Service protection — including major sporting events, concerts, and more.

"And that brings us to the real problem with the change to the old protest law," Lithwick and Vasvari concluded. "Instead of turning on a designated place, the protest ban turns on what persons and spaces are deemed to warrant Secret Service protection. It’s a perfect circle: The people who believe they are important enough to warrant protest can now shield themselves from protesters." Bonnie Kristian

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347
Logged

Offline flowers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,798
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2016, 05:36:39 pm »
I would love to see Trump bring this up.
Logged

Bill Cipher

  • Guest
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2016, 05:37:37 pm »
Quote from: flowers on March 13, 2016, 05:36:39 pm
I would love to see Trump bring this up.

So why didn't he bring it up in time to prevent the disaster in Chicago?
Logged

Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,567
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2016, 05:42:00 pm »
Quote from: flowers on March 13, 2016, 05:36:39 pm
I would love to see Trump bring this up.

Doesn't matter. His backing down on Friday night just stirred the hornet's nest.  He's going to get more, and more organized protests at his events. He'll ramp up his rhetoric even more, guaranteeing more protests.

Instead of dialing back his yelling and screaming, he's making things worse.  Dick Cheney was perfect in the way he dealt with protesters.

America's gonna get a bellyful of that stuff, and it's not going to work in Trump's favor.
Logged
Roy Moore's "spiritual warfare" is driving past a junior high without stopping.

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,021
  • Gender: Female
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2016, 06:16:46 pm »
Thanks for posting this flowers.  The problem is - who has the authority to prosecute these thugs?  Loretta Lynch? 

Logged
Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

HAPPY2BME

  • Guest
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2016, 06:23:52 pm »
Quote from: alicewonders on March 13, 2016, 06:16:46 pm
Thanks for posting this flowers.  The problem is - who has the authority to prosecute these thugs?  Loretta Lynch?

=======================

That brings up a good point.

Since what is being discussed here is 'Federal Protection' provided by the SS, it instantly falls under federal jurisdiction.
Logged

Offline Carling

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,240
  • Gender: Male
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #6 on: March 13, 2016, 06:25:39 pm »
Quote from: sinkspur on March 13, 2016, 05:42:00 pm
Doesn't matter. His backing down on Friday night just stirred the hornet's nest.  He's going to get more, and more organized protests at his events. He'll ramp up his rhetoric even more, guaranteeing more protests.

Instead of dialing back his yelling and screaming, he's making things worse.  Dick Cheney was perfect in the way he dealt with protesters.

America's gonna get a bellyful of that stuff, and it's not going to work in Trump's favor.

Cowards go silent in the face of bullying, violence, and chaos.

What you suggest is cowardice.  I assume you'd take your own advice.  Not that I'm surprised one bit.
Logged
Trump has created a cult and looks more and more like Hitler every day.
-----------------------------------------------

Bill Cipher

  • Guest
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #7 on: March 13, 2016, 06:26:30 pm »
Quote from: Carling on March 13, 2016, 06:25:39 pm
Cowards go silent in the face of bullying, violence, and chaos.

What you suggest is cowardice.  I assume you'd take your own advice.  Not that I'm surprised one bit.


:boring:
Logged

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,021
  • Gender: Female
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2016, 06:27:41 pm »
Quote from: HAPPY2BME on March 13, 2016, 06:23:52 pm
=======================

That brings up a good point.

Since what is being discussed here is 'Federal Protection' provided by the SS, it instantly falls under federal jurisdiction.

Yeah, I don't see Obama jumping on it.  Trump needs to bring this up - often and loudly!
Logged
Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Bill Cipher

  • Guest
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2016, 06:30:27 pm »
Since Trump is, by his fanboiz' own admission, Yugely intelligent, it has to be the case that Trump is very well aware of this law, which begs the question:  why didn't he bring it up before Chicago?  Maybe he didn't because he didn't want to.
Logged

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2016, 06:44:12 pm »
Just to point out that on this very site, just a few years ago, when Obama signed this into law, HR 347 was decried an attack on the 1st Amendment and Free Speech.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=127324.0

So, just so I'm clear with the current talking point and am not confused by the change, the mantra now is Obama's law preventing protesting at a political event is good?
Logged

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2016, 06:44:52 pm »
Quote from: alicewonders on March 13, 2016, 06:27:41 pm
Yeah, I don't see Obama jumping on it.  Trump needs to bring this up - often and loudly!

Obama is the one who made it law.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=127324.0
Logged

Offline DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,279
  • Gender: Male
  • "...and the winning number is...not yours!
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2016, 06:59:16 pm »
Quote from: AbaraXas on March 13, 2016, 06:44:12 pm
Just to point out that on this very site, just a few years ago, when Obama signed this into law, HR 347 was decried an attack on the 1st Amendment and Free Speech.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=127324.0

So, just so I'm clear with the current talking point and am not confused by the change, the mantra now is Obama's law preventing protesting at a political event is good?

Come on, man!

Yelling and screaming/protesting along a rope line OUTSIDE the event/building is NOT the same as charging the stage and disrupting the speaker/event.

You boyz are getting more silly and desperate with each passing day.


Logged
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - David Burge (Iowahawk)

"It was only a sunny smile, and little it cost in the giving, but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living" F. Scott Fitzgerald

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #13 on: March 13, 2016, 07:05:29 pm »
Quote from: DCPatriot on March 13, 2016, 06:59:16 pm
Come on, man!

Yelling and screaming/protesting along a rope line OUTSIDE the event/building is NOT the same as charging the stage and disrupting the speaker/event.

You boyz are getting more silly and desperate with each passing day.

I'm not talking about charging a stage and HR347 doesn't limit that, it limits anything the Secret Service deeps as 'disruptive speech'. Charging the stage is already covered under other laws such as threats of violence, attempted assault, etc. As is 'rioting'. There are already laws against that.

HR347 prohibits 'disruptive speech and protest'.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752

For example, if a Tea Party member screams at Hillary 'you lie' at an event, the Secret Service can deem that disruptive and arrest the person with a felony.

This is the wrong law to make the point about violence at events.
Logged

Offline flowers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,798
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #14 on: March 13, 2016, 07:20:58 pm »
Quote from: alicewonders on March 13, 2016, 06:16:46 pm
Thanks for posting this flowers.  The problem is - who has the authority to prosecute these thugs?  Loretta Lynch?
Look how fast that guy who rushed the stage yesterday go out.
Logged

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,021
  • Gender: Female
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #15 on: March 13, 2016, 07:48:31 pm »
Quote from: AbaraXas on March 13, 2016, 06:44:12 pm
Just to point out that on this very site, just a few years ago, when Obama signed this into law, HR 347 was decried an attack on the 1st Amendment and Free Speech.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=127324.0

So, just so I'm clear with the current talking point and am not confused by the change, the mantra now is Obama's law preventing protesting at a political event is good?

I don't remember saying that I thought that law was GOOD.  I didn't even remember that it was done.  But it is done - it is now the law - and these thugs are taking protest to disruption.  It is a disruption, and now I see that it's even a crime.  Trump has the right to say something about it. 

I just can't believe that there are people here that think that these little thug/tantrums to interrupt Trump's speeches are A-OK.  That it serves him right. 

I'm a bit surprised, in light of that, that Ted Cruz - the brilliant legal scholar and genius of all that is ethical and legal - didn't mention that when he gave his scathing opinion on Trump's protester problems.  No, he took the opportunist road to try to score some political points - instead of standing in solidarity with Trump's right to have a rally without these disruptions. 

Logged
Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,567
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #16 on: March 13, 2016, 07:50:46 pm »
Logged
Roy Moore's "spiritual warfare" is driving past a junior high without stopping.

HAPPY2BME

  • Guest
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #17 on: March 13, 2016, 08:00:43 pm »
Quote from: flowers on March 13, 2016, 07:20:58 pm

Thanks for posting this flowers.  The problem is - who has the authority to prosecute these thugs?  Loretta Lynch?
 
Look how fast that guy who rushed the stage yesterday go out.

=================================

I am now seeing allegations that this 'charging the stage' incident was actually staged by Donald Trump himself.

Logged

HAPPY2BME

  • Guest
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #18 on: March 13, 2016, 08:03:29 pm »
Quote from: alicewonders on March 13, 2016, 07:48:31 pm

I'm a bit surprised, in light of that, that Ted Cruz - the brilliant legal scholar and genius of all that is ethical and legal - didn't mention that when he gave his scathing opinion on Trump's protester problems.  No, he took the opportunist road to try to score some political points - instead of standing in solidarity with Trump's right to have a rally without these disruptions.

==================================

Cruz is Cruz - 24/7

Ted Cruz: Donald Trump is Responsible for Chicago Chaos!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmxBp4IFe_I&feature=youtu.be

Marco Condemns Trump's Divisive Rhetoric On Fox News | Marco Rubio for President

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uGnGEJXrUY&feature=youtu.be
Logged

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #19 on: March 13, 2016, 08:08:22 pm »
Quote from: alicewonders on March 13, 2016, 07:48:31 pm
I don't remember saying that I thought that law was GOOD.  I didn't even remember that it was done.  But it is done - it is now the law - and these thugs are taking protest to disruption.  It is a disruption, and now I see that it's even a crime.  Trump has the right to say something about it. 

I just can't believe that there are people here that think that these little thug/tantrums to interrupt Trump's speeches are A-OK.  That it serves him right. 

I'm a bit surprised, in light of that, that Ted Cruz - the brilliant legal scholar and genius of all that is ethical and legal - didn't mention that when he gave his scathing opinion on Trump's protester problems.  No, he took the opportunist road to try to score some political points - instead of standing in solidarity with Trump's right to have a rally without these disruptions.

Keep reading, the law some are wanting to apply now has zero to do with violence, rushing the stage, or mobs, it is directly aimed at speech deemed 'disruptive or protest'.  It is left up to the discretion of the current authority.  To many, this law is specifically aimed at protecting authority from challenge. Joe Wilson's "You Lie" moment could be criminalized under that law and called disruption.

Like I said, this isn't the law one wants to bring up in regards to stopping violent protests, punching protestors, and 'stage rushing'. This law is all about speech, period.

Use the role reversal test.  If there were protests against Hillary and she called for quelling them under this law, would you be OK with it?
Logged

Offline flowers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,798
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #20 on: March 13, 2016, 08:19:50 pm »
Quote from: HAPPY2BME on March 13, 2016, 08:00:43 pm
=================================

I am now seeing allegations that this 'charging the stage' incident was actually staged by Donald Trump himself.
A Cruz spokesman yesterday on Cnn accused TRump of that in Chicago. Even the Cnn anchor stopped in her tracks and said........whoa, she clarified that Cnn nor anyone else had any proof of that.  Cruz's guy said they had proof. I tried to remember the guys name, I should have written it down.
Logged

Offline DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,279
  • Gender: Male
  • "...and the winning number is...not yours!
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2016, 08:48:54 pm »
Quote from: AbaraXas on March 13, 2016, 08:08:22 pm
Keep reading, the law some are wanting to apply now has zero to do with violence, rushing the stage, or mobs, it is directly aimed at speech deemed 'disruptive or protest'.  It is left up to the discretion of the current authority.  To many, this law is specifically aimed at protecting authority from challenge. Joe Wilson's "You Lie" moment could be criminalized under that law and called disruption.

Like I said, this isn't the law one wants to bring up in regards to stopping violent protests, punching protestors, and 'stage rushing'. This law is all about speech, period.

Use the role reversal test.  If there were protests against Hillary and she called for quelling them under this law, would you be OK with it?

Keep twisting yourself in to knots but, that's BS, AbaraXas.

It's to stop COORDINATED mobs...period, where the intended 'target' of the protest has Secret Service protection.

PS:  And you don't think Hillary was use it?

« Last Edit: March 13, 2016, 08:49:50 pm by DCPatriot »
Logged
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - David Burge (Iowahawk)

"It was only a sunny smile, and little it cost in the giving, but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living" F. Scott Fitzgerald

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #22 on: March 13, 2016, 08:49:50 pm »
Quote from: DCPatriot on March 13, 2016, 08:48:54 pm
Keep twisting yourself in to knots but, that's BS, AbaraXas.

It's to stop COORDINATED mobs...period, where the intended 'target' of the protest has Secret Service protection.

I posted a link to the law above, have fun.
Logged

Offline DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,279
  • Gender: Male
  • "...and the winning number is...not yours!
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #23 on: March 13, 2016, 08:52:11 pm »
Quote from: AbaraXas on March 13, 2016, 08:49:50 pm
I posted a link to the law above, have fun.




I posted a link about the law earlier this AM...BEFORE TOS had a thread on it.

@Bill Cipher was unable to search Google, so I accommodated him.

Take your Hate-Trump blinders off and try some objectivity for once.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2016, 08:57:52 pm by DCPatriot »
Logged
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - David Burge (Iowahawk)

"It was only a sunny smile, and little it cost in the giving, but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living" F. Scott Fitzgerald

Offline Chosen Daughter

  • For there is no respect of persons with God. Romans 10:12-13
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,890
  • Gender: Female
  • Ephesians 6:13 Stand Firm in the face of evil
Re: Once candidates have Secret Service protection, it's a federal crime to 'impede or disrupt' them
« Reply #24 on: March 13, 2016, 09:53:35 pm »
Are there three threads on this?  Well why doesn't Trump just have them arrested instead of threatening violence?
Logged
AG William Barr: "I'm recused from that matter because one of the law firms that represented Epstein long ago was a firm that I subsequently joined for a period of time."

Alexander Acosta Labor Secretary resigned under pressure concerning his "sweetheart deal" with Jeffrey Epstein.  He was under consideration for AG after Sessions was removed, but was forced to resign instead.
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »