As we process the events surrounding the attempt on former President Donald Trump’s life in Butler, Pennsylvania, on Saturday, it’s worth remembering that, just a number of weeks ago, House Democrats wanted to strip the presumptive GOP nominee of Secret Service protection.
Thankfully, according to CNN, a spokesperson for the president says he is “fine” after the shooting. The same can’t be said for one audience member at the rally in Pennsylvania, who died from his injuries.
Two others were critically injured as of 11 p.m. Eastern. The shooter was also killed.
On social media, Trump said that the bullet hit him in the “upper part of my right ear.” Photographic evidence of his injuries seems to support some sort of injury to the former president’s right ear.
Nevertheless, bullets were fired, this was an assassination attempt … and, if the House Democrats had their way, this could have been a lot worse.
In April, Mississippi Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson — somewhat ironically, the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee — introduced the Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable Former Protectees Act, or DISGRACED Former Protectees Act.
Behind that tortuous acronym is a sinister purpose: It would “terminate [Secret Service protection] for any person upon sentencing following conviction for a Federal or State offense that is punishable for a term of imprisonment of at least one year.”
The bill was sent to the House Judiciary Committee in April in anticipation of the outcome of Trump’s “hush money” trial in New York City, among other kangaroo court proceedings against the former president.
The bill had eight co-sponsors: Reps. Joyce Beatty of Ohio, Troy Carter of Louisiana, Yvette Clark of New York, Steve Cohen of Tennessee, Bonnie Watson Coleman of New Jersey, Jasmine Crockett of Texas, Barbara Lee of California, and Frederica Wilson of Florida.
“Unfortunately, current law doesn’t anticipate how Secret Service protection would impact the felony prison sentence of a protectee — even a former president,” Rep. Thompson said in a news release, according to the Mississippi Clarion Ledger.
“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.”
The bill has not been passed, nor did it have any particular chance of passing, given a Republican-controlled House.
Had it gotten through Congress somehow, the ambiguous language might have meant that Trump’s conviction on 34 counts in a Manhattan court for l’affaire Stormy Daniels could have meant his Secret Service protection was revoked.
Remember, sentencing was set for Thursday before it was postponed. That meant, had this bill been passed (somehow) and Trump received a sentence of one year or more but remained free on appeal, he theoretically might not have had Secret Service protection on Saturday.
A “fact sheet” released by Thompson insisted it would only “terminate Secret Service protection for individuals who otherwise qualify for it upon sentencing following conviction for a Federal or State felony.”
“Former President Donald J. Trump’s unprecedented 91 felony charges in Federal and State courts across the country have created a new exigency that Congress must address to ensure Secret Service protection does not interfere with the criminal judicial process and the administration of justice,” the fact sheet said.
It’s worth noting that, since Sen. Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in June 1968 shortly after he was declared the winner of the all-important California primary, the Secret Service has provided protection to all major party presidential candidates and nominees.
Thompson’s bill — and the ambiguous language used in the text, which says it would terminate Secret Service protection “upon sentencing following conviction … that is punishable for a term of imprisonment of at least one year” — is extremely reckless and essentially constituted a threat that, if Donald Trump continued running and this got passed, his protection as a candidate would be kaput.
After the events of Saturday, we also know that if Thompson had his way, Trump might well be kaput, as well. That’s something voters should remember when they cast their ballot this fall.
