James Woods: 'How are Armed Assassins' Getting Near Trump, Not Harris?

army judge

army judge

Super Moderator
Actor James Woods is asking how two armed would-be assassins have been able to get close to former President Donald Trump in recent months, but not near his rival for the White House, Vice President Kamala Harris.

"We have two candidates campaigning for the presidency of the United States," he posted on X on Sunday, after the arrest of Ryan Wesley Routh, 58.

"The Secret Service employs 3,200 special agents, 1,300 Uniformed Division officers, and 2000 others, and yet two armed assassins have been within a few hundred yards of one of those candidates," said Woods.

Routh, 58, reportedly hid near Trump's West Palm Beach, Florida, golf course for almost 12 hours on Sunday. He fled after Secret Service agents protecting the former president while he was golfing saw the barrel of Routh's gun and opened fire. He was captured shortly thereafter.

He has been arraigned on charges of possessing a firearm despite being a convicted felon and possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number. Further charges are possible against him, pending an indictment from a grand jury.

Woods' questions come as members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are pushing for Trump to receive enhanced Secret Service protection, reports Axios.

"All major presidential candidates ought to receive the highest level of presidential [protection]," Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., said. "Anything less than maximum protection is a self-inflicted wound that puts our nation's stability at grave risk."

Torres and Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., introduced a bill in July to boost security for Trump, President Joe Biden, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., after a gunman opened fire on Trump at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Rep. Nick Langworthy, R-N.Y., called on Biden to issue Trump the "same security levels afforded to a sitting president to ensure his safety," and Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., said Trump should "have the same security level as the sitting president."

But Sunday, shortly after Routh was arrested, Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw said at a news conference that the Secret Service was "limited" to the areas the agency "deems possible."

"We would have had this entire golf course surrounded" if Trump was the sitting president, Bradshaw said.
 
army judge said:
Actor James Woods is asking how two armed would-be assassins have been able to get close to former President Donald Trump in recent months, but not near his rival for the White House, Vice President Kamala Harris.
Click to expand...
The first thing that comes to my mind about this is that perhaps nobody is trying to assassinate Harris.
 
I would look at Harris policies, and I know that she might have good intentions. However, wealth redistribution is not the answer and if she taxes 401k plans. I like most Americans will cash out what you can, then move the deduction to 0. So, participation in 401ks and investments through the stock market will be ZERO.
 
Rep. Nick Langworthy, R-N.Y., called on Biden to issue Trump the "same security levels afforded to a sitting president to ensure his safety," and Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., said Trump should "have the same security level as the sitting president."
Click to expand...

That sounds good in theory and I understand the sentiment behind it. Trump deserves great protection. In practice, however, providing protect that equals that given the current president is unrealistic. Doing that would at the very least require a massive increase in funding, starting with hiring a lot more secret service agents and security support personnel for the security details, more funding to pay for the large assistance provided by local, state, and other federal law enforcement agencies when the president is traveling, providing each candidate with the kind of military and national security resources that the president receives for their protection, including the special purpose built limousines, helicopters, and aircraft, including more planes that meet the requirements of the ones used for Air Force One and Marine One, etc.

Even if Congress were willing to dedicate the large increase in funding to do it, it would be impossible to put that all together in the 2½ months left in this campaign.

History has shown us that it's impossible to provide absolute perfect security even to the current president. The Secret Service does a remarkable job considering the challenges it faces. It contains and prevents a lot threats to the persons it protects (and that includes more than just the president and former presidents and their immediate family) that we never hear about. When in DC I worked at the IRS and Treasury buildings and was treated on a number of occasions to seeing a lot presidential security operations as the president moved about DC. It's a massive and well coordinated effort. And that was just the security I could see. There was a lot more going on than I ever saw. The president and vice president receive better protection than any other world leader who spends the kind of time out in public as American presidents do.

The fact is that former presidents and presidential candidates are not nearly as critical to the operation of the government and the security of the nation as is the current president. That, and the funding issue, are why the level of security provided is different for candidates and former presidents than for the current president.

Trump does deserve good protection, just not the same as the level provided the current president. The two active attempts to assassinate him clearly calls for stepped up vigilgence in protecting Trump. But it simply won't be possible to provide what those two New York House representatives are calling for.
 
Redemptionman said:
I would look at Harris policies, and I know that she might have good intentions. However, wealth redistribution is not the answer and if she taxes 401k plans. I like most Americans will cash out what you can, then move the deduction to 0. So, participation in 401ks and investments through the stock market will be ZERO.
Click to expand...

I don't see how this relates to the topic of this thread at all. It has nothing to do with the security Trump gets. This really should have gone in a separate thread.

I also have no idea what tax plan with regard to § 401(k) plans you are talking about. The Tax Foundation put out just a week ago a detailed look at the Harris tax proposals and I don't see anything mentioned about changes to the way § 401(k) plans would be treated in the tax law. Nor have I seen anywhere where touching the tax treatment of § 401(k) is on the list of proposals of either candidate. The Tax Foundation also took a detailed look at Trump's tax proposals (other than replacing the income tax with a massive increase in tarriffs as that proposal is completely unrealistic). It's not a surprise that Trump's proposals on balance fare a bit better than Trumps. But as the Foundation's analysis indicates, neither candidate's tax plans are all that great as a whole.

It's campaign season and candidates like to trot out ideas they think the public will love even if the ideas are totally unrealistic. Take Trump's idea of totally repealing the income tax and trying to raise the same money entirely through tarrifs. A lot people think that sounds good because they'd no longer have to pay income. But as someone who has studied tax for more than 40 years I can tell you that it's an absolutely terrible idea. Trump and his team know that Congress would never do it, which is what makes it safe for Trump to go out and trumpet this idea. The same thing applies to some of Harris' ideas. Some of them would DOA in Congress regardless how good a soundbite they make on the campaign trail. Neither is proposing a tax package that has truly sound tax and fiscal policies. Both would balloon the national debt. Just in different ways.
 
Tax Counsel said:
I don't see how this relates to the topic of this thread at all. It has nothing to do with the security Trump gets. This really should have gone in a separate thread.

I also have no idea what tax plan with regard to § 401(k) plans you are talking about. The Tax Foundation put out just a week ago a detailed look at the Harris tax proposals and I don't see anything mentioned about changes to the way § 401(k) plans would be treated in the tax law. Nor have I seen anywhere where touching the tax treatment of § 401(k) is on the list of proposals of either candidate. The Tax Foundation also took a detailed look at Trump's tax proposals (other than replacing the income tax with a massive increase in tarriffs as that proposal is completely unrealistic). It's not a surprise that Trump's proposals on balance fare a bit better than Trumps. But as the Foundation's analysis indicates, neither candidate's tax plans are all that great as a whole.

It's campaign season and candidates like to trot out ideas they think the public will love even if the ideas are totally unrealistic. Take Trump's idea of totally repealing the income tax and trying to raise the same money entirely through tarrifs. A lot people think that sounds good because they'd no longer have to pay income. But as someone who has studied tax for more than 40 years I can tell you that it's an absolutely terrible idea. Trump and his team know that Congress would never do it, which is what makes it safe for Trump to go out and trumpet this idea. The same thing applies to some of Harris' ideas. Some of them would DOA in Congress regardless how good a soundbite they make on the campaign trail. Neither is proposing a tax package that has truly sound tax and fiscal policies. Both would balloon the national debt. Just in different ways.
Click to expand...

A 25% tax in unrealized and realized gains, is BS but yeah you right doesn't belong here.

However, maybe you and the rest of the Trump haters can tell me how this lunatic knew where Trump was going to be Sunday as this was a late minute decision and no one but the USSS and a select few knew?

I pray everyday that Trump would be returned to power and the evil forces that hold our world hostage would be destroyed. He won the last election and when he wins this one he can finish out his 4 years in peace and return America to the great country it once was.
 
Tax Counsel said:
That sounds good in theory and I understand the sentiment behind it. Trump deserves great protection. In practice, however, providing protect that equals that given the current president is unrealistic. Doing that would at the very least require a massive increase in funding, starting with hiring a lot more secret service agents and security support personnel for the security details, more funding to pay for the large assistance provided by local, state, and other federal law enforcement agencies when the president is traveling, providing each candidate with the kind of military and national security resources that the president receives for their protection, including the special purpose built limousines, helicopters, and aircraft, including more planes that meet the requirements of the ones used for Air Force One and Marine One, etc.

Even if Congress were willing to dedicate the large increase in funding to do it, it would be impossible to put that all together in the 2½ months left in this campaign.

History has shown us that it's impossible to provide absolute perfect security even to the current president. The Secret Service does a remarkable job considering the challenges it faces. It contains and prevents a lot threats to the persons it protects (and that includes more than just the president and former presidents and their immediate family) that we never hear about. When in DC I worked at the IRS and Treasury buildings and was treated on a number of occasions to seeing a lot presidential security operations as the president moved about DC. It's a massive and well coordinated effort. And that was just the security I could see. There was a lot more going on than I ever saw. The president and vice president receive better protection than any other world leader who spends the kind of time out in public as American presidents do.

The fact is that former presidents and presidential candidates are not nearly as critical to the operation of the government and the security of the nation as is the current president. That, and the funding issue, are why the level of security provided is different for candidates and former presidents than for the current president.

Trump does deserve good protection, just not the same as the level provided the current president. The two active attempts to assassinate him clearly calls for stepped up vigilgence in protecting Trump. But it simply won't be possible to provide what those two New York House representatives are calling for.
Click to expand...
More and more, you are making up what you think is going on. In the press conference yesterday, the acting director of the USSS said that the level of protection for Trump is now equal to the protection of Biden after Biden said the SS has all the resources they need (funding). That may be true or not.

You are a respected tax expert and very knowledgeable about the law here on this forum. But that is about it. You have no more knowledge about the working of the executive branch and the SS and the deep state than anyone else.
 
cbg said:
And you do?
Click to expand...


there is a picture floating around out there of the shooter at a Harris rally the week before. You can believe what you want, you can vote for who or what you want, but this isn't about democrat and republican any longer. You need to make sure you KNOW who Harris/ Walz is before you cast a vote for them. We had 4 years of Trump, so you and every other Donkey voter out there will have to answer the question of whether or not they truly were better off under Trump or Biden regardless of the lies spewed by the media.
 
Redemptionman said:
there is a picture floating around out there of the shooter at a Harris rally the week before. You can believe what you want, you can vote for who or what you want, but this isn't about democrat and republican any longer. You need to make sure you KNOW who Harris/ Walz is before you cast a vote for them. We had 4 years of Trump, so you and every other Donkey voter out there will have to answer the question of whether or not they truly were better off under Trump or Biden regardless of the lies spewed by the media.
Click to expand...

Whether you want to believe it or not, I am MUCH better off than I was four years ago. You can whine all you like about "lies in the media" (and if you're going to try to tell me that there are no lies coming out of the Elephant side of the house, I'll call YOU a liar) but I am much better off under Biden than I was under Trump, thank you.

And no, I am not saying this because I've "listened to lies". I'm saying that because it's true.
 
cbg said:
Whether you want to believe it or not, I am MUCH better off than I was four years ago. You can whine all you like about "lies in the media" (and if you're going to try to tell me that there are no lies coming out of the Elephant side of the house, I'll call YOU a liar) but I am much better off under Biden than I was under Trump, thank you.

And no, I am not saying this because I've "listened to lies". I'm saying that because it's true.
Click to expand...


I do find that hard to believe unless you have little to no assets and live off the government. For those who pay taxes own properties, have investments, and multiple vehicles/ properties. There is no way that you are better off unless you just like paying increased taxes, increased insurance, increased property taxes. I bet you probably are better off but the shrinking middle class, and people with skin in the game are NOT.

I never said that both sides never lied, I am probably looking for another country to move to and buy property in if Harris wins. I sure as hell I am not going to let her re-appropriation programs get me.

I am hearing Belize and Portugal are nice places.
 
Redemptionman said:
I am hearing Belize and Portugal are nice places.
Click to expand...
We own a very lovely home in Belize.
The government of Belize has been very easy and fair throughout our dealings.
Belizeans are most kind and welcoming.
English is their first language across their beautiful land.

My guess is things will continue to improve.

We'll continue to enjoy our little piece of paradise on Earth.
 
cbg said:
Whether you want to believe it or not, I am MUCH better off than I was four years ago.
Click to expand...
You are very lucky indeed. But as I understand it, you are still employed, receive a 401, receive health insurance from your employer, maybe even have gotten a raise is the past year.

Think about the tens of millions of people that try to make ends meet every month. I doubt you can say that your cost-of-living has gone down or stayed even over the last 4 years. Can you?
 
welkin said:
You are very lucky indeed. But as I understand it, you are still employed, receive a 401, receive health insurance from your employer, maybe even have gotten a raise is the past year.

Think about the tens of millions of people that try to make ends meet every month. I doubt you can say that your cost-of-living has gone down or stayed even over the last 4 years. Can you?
Click to expand...

doubt it, looks like the typically blue state welfare recipient to me. Just like New Mexico and California-- the largest states where welfare is handed out.
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top