• BigLadKarlLiebknecht [he/him, comrade/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    I’d naively assumed that as Speaker of the House and second-in-line for the presidency, she’d be afforded SS protection. But you’re totally right, she has no protection. It’s incredible to me that Laura Bush is afforded more protection than someone so close to actually becoming president.

    Doesn’t shock me given the shambles of the US in general, but still very surprised, from a security perspective. For perspective, even Keith Starmer has police bodyguards!

    • hahafuck [they/them]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Surprising congress doesn't have its own guards but probably there is a good reason congresspeople don't want to subordinate their security to the executive branch

      • PorkrollPosadist [he/him, they/them]
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        They do. The US Capitol Police. It exists for exactly the reason you mention about subordination to the executive branch. The US Marshals exist for a similar reason to serve the judicial branch, but they answer to the Attorney General who is appointed by the President.

        In practice, the whole thing is stupid though. Just a parliamentary LARP. Not much better than some Proud Boy neckbeard appointing themselves sergeant at arms of the local chapter. They follow the directives of congress, which changes hand time and time again. As some "extreme leftist" Democrat, I wouldn't trust my security falling into the hands of Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell every couple of years.

      • Frank [he/him, he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        In the capitol the Capitol police "protect" them. I mean, they withdrew and left them with minimal security hoping they'd get massacred on Jan 6th, but they allegedly protect them.

        At home they're on their own unless they can convince one of the local police departments to lend them a protection detail.