HR 8081 DISGRACED Former Protectees Act. To terminate United States Secret Service protection for felons.

posted 167 days ago by aslan_is_0n_the_m0ve 167 days ago by aslan_is_0n_the_m0ve +61 / -0

HR 8081 DISGRACED Former Protectees Act

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8081/text

118th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 8081

To terminate United States Secret Service protection for felons.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 19, 2024

Mr. Thompson of Mississippi (for himself, Mr. Carter of Louisiana, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Ms. Crockett, Mrs. Beatty, and Mr. Cohen) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To terminate United States Secret Service protection for felons.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable Former Protectees Act” or the “DISGRACED Former Protectees Act”.

SEC. 2. DENYING CERTAIN FELONS SECRET SERVICE PROTECTION.

Section 3056(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking “declined.” and inserting “declined.The protection authorized in paragraphs (1) through (8) shall terminate 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.”.

So now as a convicted felon facing more than one year imprisonment, POTUS would no longer be eligible for SS protection detail, briefings, etc should this become law.

20 comments

20 comments share save hide report block hide replies

To The Great Awakening

We are researchers who deal in open-source information, reasoned argument, and dank memes. We do battle in the sphere of ideas and ideas only. We neither need nor condone the use of force in our work here. WE ARE THE PUBLIC FACE OF Q. OUR MISSION IS TO RED-PILL NORMIES.

This is a pro-Q community. Please read and respect our rules below before contributing.

WHY Q?

"Those who cannot understand that we cannot simply start arresting w/o first: ensuring the safety & well-being of the population shifting the narrative removing those in DC through resignation to ensure success defeating ISIS/MS13 to prevent fail-safes freezing assets to remove network-to-network abilities kill off COC to prevent top-down comms/org, etc. etc. should not be participating in discussions." Q

Comments (20)

sorted by:

▲ 6 ▼

– SOGWAP 6 points 167 days ago +6 / -0

This might have passed to get to trump. Boomerang

permalink save report block reply

▲ 3 ▼

– floridafrog 3 points 167 days ago +3 / -0

Introduced, hasn't passed....

permalink parent save report block reply

– Magpi 3 points 166 days ago +3 / -0

Would be hilarious if it passes and Trump is acquitted on appeal but the law still stands for when THEY are convicted lol.

▲ 2 ▼

– ThinkItThrough 2 points 165 days ago +2 / -0

If you read the text, the protection ends when they are “sentenced.“ There is no requirement that they actually serve that time in prison. Based on the text, the success of any subsequent appeal would be irrelevant. (But I assume that the interpretation of that point would depend upon whether the person affected was a conservative or a progressive.)

“The protection authorized in paragraphs (1) through (8) shall terminate 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.”