Why is Biden denying Secret Service protection to RFK Jr.?

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,719
14,599
Here
✟1,207,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others


55 years after his father was assassinated in Los Angeles, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is now running as an independent candidate for president while being forced to deal on his own with multiple threats from troubled minds. Just last week, an intruder was arrested twice after trying to break into the LA home of Kennedy and his wife Cheryl Hines, both of whom were inside at the time.

With regard to that break-in attempt — where the intruder was arrested, booked, released and then went right back to the Kennedy home to try and break in again — The Hill headlined its story “Cheryl Hines slams Biden for not providing RFK Jr. security detail.”

Why is Hines — who deeply respects President Biden — so upset at him and his administration? Because the Kennedy campaign has reached out several times to the administration formally asking for Secret Service protection, only to be repeatedly denied.

Just two months ago, a heavily armed man impersonating a U.S. marshal was spotted and arrested at one of RFK Jr.’s campaign events in Los Angeles before he could get near the candidate.



Raises a couple interesting conversation points:
A) I was today years old when I learned that RFK Jr is married to the actress who plays Larry David's wife on Curb your Enthusiasm.
1699198581147.png

1699198640855.png



B) With regards to secret service protection, the US law states:
Under 18 U.S.C. ' 3056(a)(7), "[m]ajor Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates," as identified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, are eligible for Secret Service protection.


So it comes down to what gets defined as "major". Obviously I can't just proclaim tomorrow that I'm running for president, and then expect the government to send me some guys in black suits with earpieces to watch over me when I go to the mall.

When you read the official Secret Service article on it, they say
When determining whether a candidate for the Office of President or Vice President of the United States qualifies as a major candidate, the Secretary has broad discretion and may consider a variety of factors.

These factors include, but are not limited to:

  1. Whether the candidate has publicly announced his or her candidacy and has filed the appropriate documentation with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and is in compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, and related laws;
  2. Whether the candidate is actively campaigning on a national basis for the office for which his or her candidacy has been announced, as demonstrated by operating a national campaign apparatus, regularly appearing at public events in multiple states, producing and publishing campaign advertisements, and other similar indicia of a campaign;
  3. A threat assessment conducted by the Secret Service of general or specific threats directed towards the candidate (for these purposes, “threats” should be defined as explicit threats of bodily harm to the candidate or indications of inappropriate behavior towards the candidate suggesting potential bodily harm);
  4. Whether, during and within an active and competitive major party primary, the most recent average of established national polls, as reflected by the Real Clear Politics National Average or similar mechanism, the candidate is polling at 15% or more for 30 consecutive days;
  5. Whether the candidate is the formal or de facto nominee of a major party for President or Vice President;
  6. Whether the candidate is an independent or third-party candidate for President polling at 20% or more of the Real Clear Politics National Average for 30 consecutive days;
  7. Whether the candidate is the Vice Presidential running mate of the above independent or third-party candidate.

Whether anyone like the guy or not, it seems like he does check off a lot of these boxes that they claim they "may consider as a factor"
 

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,719
14,599
Here
✟1,207,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Funny how the greatest threat to the Kennedys has always been their own party
I don't know if that conclusion can be jumped to... Were Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan card carrying progressive democrats?
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,719
14,599
Here
✟1,207,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Is Biden providing security for all the people , that want to be the next president?
There are certain stipulations the Secret Service lists that list on their website that they "may consider" (that include, but are not limited to the 7 listed in my OP -that's straight from the Secret Service website) when deciding who's eligible.

Seems like he checks most if not all of those boxes (apart from #5 which only applies to the major parties).

He has filed all of the correct paperwork with the FEC
He is campaigning and making appearances in multiple states
He has been the recipient of specific targeted threats (one that's rather concerning in general...the one where someone tried to break into their home with them in it, the police arrested the person, released them, and the person went right back and tried to break in again...another was an armed man showing up at one of his events impersonating a US Marshal)
He has polled as high as 22% in national polls conducting a 3-way match up between him, Biden, and Trump.

So while he's obviously not the "odds on favorite" for 2024, he's put enough of a dent in the game that he's certainly not just some "rando write-in candidate" either. If he's polling at 22% in nationwide polls against Trump and Biden in a 3-way match up, that means he's polling almost as well as Perot did when he ran as a 3rd party candidate.

To give it a little context, Ben Carson applied for (and got approved for) secret service protection when he was only at 29% in GOP primary polls (nationwide polls at the time only had him at 13%)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,719
14,599
Here
✟1,207,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
To be honest, I'm not really interested in discussing conspiracy theories with regards to this one. Just practical questions about secret service coverage
Not if you follow the controlled narrative
 
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
22,552
8,436
up there
✟307,584.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
To be honest, I'm not really interested in discussing conspiracy theories with regards to this one. Just practical questions about secret service coverage
As am I . But getting to the bottom of such actions requires all angles to be looked at.
 
Upvote 0

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.
Jul 1, 2007
17,286
5,060
Native Land
✟332,355.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
There are certain stipulations the Secret Service lists that list on their website that they "may consider" (that include, but are not limited to the 7 listed in my OP -that's straight from the Secret Service website) when deciding who's eligible.

Seems like he checks most if not all of those boxes (apart from #5 which only applies to the major parties).

He has filed all of the correct paperwork with the FEC
He is campaigning and making appearances in multiple states
He has been the recipient of specific targeted threats (one that's rather concerning in general...the one where someone tried to break into their home with them in it, the police arrested the person, released them, and the person went right back and tried to break in again...another was an armed man showing up at one of his events impersonating a US Marshal)
He has polled as high as 22% in national polls conducting a 3-way match up between him, Biden, and Trump.

So while he's obviously not the "odds on favorite" for 2024, he's put enough of a dent in the game that he's certainly not just some "rando write-in candidate" either. If he's polling at 22% in nationwide polls against Trump and Biden in a 3-way match up, that means he's polling almost as well as Perot did when he ran as a 3rd party candidate.

To give it a little context, Ben Carson applied for (and got approved for) secret service protection when he was only at 29% in GOP primary polls (nationwide polls at the time only had him at 13%)
It's a waste of tax payers money. I say the same for Ben Carson.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,719
14,599
Here
✟1,207,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It's a waste of tax payers money. I say the same for Ben Carson.
In this day in age...I think it's is perfectly acceptable to extend secret service to candidates provide they meet a certain criteria.

The question is, what is the threshold for that criteria.

Without it, given how unstable the political climate is, it could set up a pretty bad incentive structure.

All people would have to do is just start making threats and showing up a candidate's houses to get them to drop out of the race.

Without that protection, it can be all but guaranteed that Proud Boys and Oath Keepers start getting a little too "up close and personal" with Democratic candidates, and the same would apply to Antifa & BLM members showing up at the houses of Republicans.

If you thought there was turmoil before surrounding election controversy...that would be a drop in the bucket compared to claims that would be made (and the backlash that would follow) if people's preferred candidate said "I had to drop out of the race because someone was showing up at my house and threatening my family"

And that isn't an unprecedented concern... If you hit the rewind button to go back to '92. Perot cited the reason for him pulling the plug on his presidential ambitions was due to the fact that people (who he suspected were Republican operatives) were threatening to take certain actions at his daughter's wedding.


Like I said earlier, obviously there are limits, a person can't merely stand up and shout "I'm running for president" (sort of like Michael Scott from the office saying "I declare bankruptcy!") and expect to get government funded protection.

But, once a person meets certain criteria, they should be eligible. Otherwise, our elections get reduced to "whichever side has the most obnoxious people willing to threaten candidates wins because they intimidate people out of running"
 
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
22,552
8,436
up there
✟307,584.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Without that protection, it can be all but guaranteed that Proud Boys and Oath Keepers start getting a little too "up close and personal" with Democratic candidates, and the same would apply to Antifa & BLM members showing up at the houses of Republicans.
Exactly. Last time around will look like a picnic this time round now that polls show Trump ahead of Biden
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,719
14,599
Here
✟1,207,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Just shows who is a threat to Biden.
As it stands right now, RFK is pretty much a threat to both Biden and Trump (as he has some things that appeal to both factions) - though both sides try to claim that he's a threat exclusively to the opposing side.



So with regards to the person who tried to break into his home twice in one night, and the person who showed up heavily armed at his event impersonating a US marshal, that could've just as easily been a Trump fan instead of Biden fan for all we know, it's tough to find specific details about either story.

Various polls show some slightly mixed results (some say he takes a little more from Biden, others suggest he takes a little more from Trump). But in either case, the RNC & DNC strategies aren't typically based on 3-way races, and his presence (pulling 15%-25% of the total national vote depending on which poll you look at) throws a wrench into the normal strategies of both parties. It's been a rare exception where a "3rd party candidate" can actually disrupt the status quo (Nader and Perot are the only two I can think of from recent history).
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,719
14,599
Here
✟1,207,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You'd think people would wise up and vote their little hearts out for the House, but vote for a more neutral moderator for President. Kinda like here in the forums. lol
Well, I do think that's what happens in most cases. Trump was something of an outlier in that regard.

For instance, Biden is certainly between Marjorie Green and Tlaib on the political spectrum.

In 2012, Mitt Romney and Obama certainly weren't the farthest right and left people, respectively.

The way I saw it, is that the civility breakdown started occurring during the Bush II administration, and has been following a tit for tat escalation pattern ever since. That's certainly when the large-scale "emotional buy-in" to conspiracy theories started happening.

WaPo, a left leaning publication, have acknowledged as much

Before the election denial conspiracies, before covid conspiracies, before the birther conspiracies, existed the "Bush was in on 9/11" conspiracy, and it was gleefully accepted (on a partisan basis) to nearly the same degree that the aforementioned conspiracies were gleefully accepted

1699235171641.png


In fact, even as recent as 2016, there's still a bunch of people buying into that one...
1699235231934.png
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,682
10,494
Earth
✟143,668.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
In this day in age...I think it's is perfectly acceptable to extend secret service to candidates provide they meet a certain criteria.

The question is, what is the threshold for that criteria.

Without it, given how unstable the political climate is, it could set up a pretty bad incentive structure.

All people would have to do is just start making threats and showing up a candidate's houses to get them to drop out of the race.

Without that protection, it can be all but guaranteed that Proud Boys and Oath Keepers start getting a little too "up close and personal" with Democratic candidates, and the same would apply to Antifa & BLM members showing up at the houses of Republicans.

If you thought there was turmoil before surrounding election controversy...that would be a drop in the bucket compared to claims that would be made (and the backlash that would follow) if people's preferred candidate said "I had to drop out of the race because someone was showing up at my house and threatening my family"

And that isn't an unprecedented concern... If you hit the rewind button to go back to '92. Perot cited the reason for him pulling the plug on his presidential ambitions was due to the fact that people (who he suspected were Republican operatives) were threatening to take certain actions at his daughter's wedding.


Like I said earlier, obviously there are limits, a person can't merely stand up and shout "I'm running for president" (sort of like Michael Scott from the office saying "I declare bankruptcy!") and expect to get government funded protection.

But, once a person meets certain criteria, they should be eligible. Otherwise, our elections get reduced to "whichever side has the most obnoxious people willing to threaten candidates wins because they intimidate people out of running"
That he’s not getting Secret Service Protection “now” seems to be the crux of the thing, but you’re probably right, the line has not been crossed, the “I’s haven’t all been dotted, nor have all of the “t’s” been crossed.

This could be yet another instance of Situation Normal, therefore we’re upset over it! that seems to have gained some popularity in the past few years?
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,719
14,599
Here
✟1,207,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That he’s not getting Secret Service Protection “now” seems to be the crux of the thing, but you’re probably right, the line has not been crossed, the “I’s haven’t all been dotted, nor have all of the “t’s” been crossed.

This could be yet another instance of Situation Normal, therefore we’re upset over it! that seems to have gained some popularity in the past few years?
Well, actually if you look at some of what I posted above, while there is some precedent to the idea that it's not super common for a candidate to receive a security detail this early in the process (though, it's not entirely unheard of...Obama received early-protection over a year prior to election day due to a direct tangible threat before he'd even received his party's nomination)

But as far as the rest of the criteria they list on the website, it seems he actually has "checked off the boxes" that would normally satisfy the criteria for receiving protection.

While I don't recall the exact details surrounding the threat Obama got that warranted his receiving protection a year early, I would imagine that "same person trying to break into your house twice in one day" and "heavily armed guy impersonating federal agent showing up your event" certainly has to be worth consideration.

...and it's certainly understandable for him to have extra concerns about this being that he's one of the few people who can claim that both his dad and uncle victims of political assassination. Needless to say, it's probably more of a sensitive subject for him than it would be for most people as most don't experience that once in their family much less twice.
 
Upvote 0

FreeinChrist

CF Advisory team
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2003
145,074
17,410
USA
✟1,752,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat

In regard to presidential campaign, the Secret Service is authorized by law (18 United States Code § 3056) to protect:​
  • Major presidential and vice presidential candidates and their spouses within 120 days of a general presidential election. As defined in statute, the term "major presidential and vice presidential candidates" means those individuals identified as such by the Secretary of Homeland Security after consultation with an advisory committee.
The Secret Service provides protection for major candidates, unless declined.​
Is RJK Jr a major candidate and the general presidential election 120 days or less away?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FreeinChrist

CF Advisory team
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2003
145,074
17,410
USA
✟1,752,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Here is the actual law:

(7) Major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates and, within 120 days of the general Presidential election, the spouses of such candidates.  As used in this paragraph, the term “major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates” means those individuals identified as such by the Secretary of Homeland Security after consultation with an advisory committee consisting of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and one additional member selected by the other members of the committee.  The Committee shall not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2).​
 
Upvote 0