Fake News Alert: Secret Service Not Running Out of Money Because of Trump and Family

 

Major news outlets around the country would have you think that the United States Secret Service is running out of money due to President Trump’s frequent travel and large family. From the USA Today:

The Secret Service can no longer pay hundreds of agents it needs to carry out an expanded protective mission – in large part due to the sheer size of President Trump’s family and efforts necessary to secure their multiple residences up and down the East Coast.

Secret Service Director Randolph “Tex” Alles, in an interview with USA TODAY, said more than 1,000 agents have already hit the federally mandated caps for salary and overtime allowances that were meant to last the entire year.

Problem is, that’s not true. According to a press release from Director Alles:

This issue is not one that can be attributed to the current Administration’s protection requirements alone, but rather has been an ongoing issue for nearly a decade due to an overall increase in operational tempo.

Better luck next time.

(h/t @max)

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 79 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Hypatia Member
    Hypatia
    @

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    Ever think a member in good standing of the Fake News Club might have purged that cover?

    Just so I’m clear, you’re suggesting that

    Realizing their embarrassment at promoting global cooling, they went back and purged it, thereby erasing it from history?

    Okay, what’s more likely:

    That in 1977, Time magazine published a cover with a picture of a penguin and 21st century graphics, and then published the same cover 29 years later, then to cover it up, went back and purged the 1977 cover (with the 21st century graphics) from their archive, and haven’t been caught, despite a million copies of that magazine going out?

    OR

    That the cover you posted is a fake and your memory of that cover from 1977 is incorrect?

    Fred, after seeing @ctlaw ‘s post of the Newsweek cover, I see I may have been thinking of that one. The fact remains, though, that Time did publish a “Global Cooling” article in the 1970s, which contributed to my crossed memories. It was 40 years ago. But my general memory of the way these news publications have embarrassed themselves is correct. I really don’t understand your trying to twist yourself into a pretzel to find ways to support the Left.

    Oh, children!   Squabbling among ourselves–when we should all be worshipping at Al Gore’s shrine !  Did ya  know global temperatures now are lower than they were the year he won the Nobel?   His be the power and the glory forever!

    • #31
  2. Israel P. Inactive
    Israel P.
    @IsraelP

    Mike LaRoche: Better luck next time.

    No. This time is enough. It will be quoted by many over a period of years. Clarification and retractions don’t matter. Once it’s said, it’s repeated as truth.

    • #32
  3. Hypatia Member
    Hypatia
    @

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    I think they’re putting this lie out because they plan to conveniently “under-protect” Trump tonight in Phoenix.

    Remember a few months ago, one of these agents said she “wouldn’t take a bullet ” for Trump? (Uh…did she even get fired–that story was buried so fast..?)

    How many other traitors does the corps contain?

    Tonight is the deep state’s chance to provide covert support( as opposed to the overt ideological support they always provide) to the Antifa and its ilk.

    Watch!

    Yah, but why not just give him the heart attack drug we all know they used on justice Scalia? Seems easier than planning not to protect him from some Antifa assassin.

    More likely I think their issue is that they have hit the cap on overtime and they just want more dough.

    I said I hoped I’d be ridiculed tomorrow, but I guess you just couldn’t wait!  May you be right!

    (Looked it up–no, the Clinton-loving, Trump-hating SS agent was not fired.  First, paid admin leave, then, we think, transferred to another post in Homeland Security.   So yuh.  )

    • #33
  4. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Hypatia (View Comment):

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    I think they’re putting this lie out because they plan to conveniently “under-protect” Trump tonight in Phoenix.

    Remember a few months ago, one of these agents said she “wouldn’t take a bullet ” for Trump? (Uh…did she even get fired–that story was buried so fast..?)

    How many other traitors does the corps contain?

    Tonight is the deep state’s chance to provide covert support( as opposed to the overt ideological support they always provide) to the Antifa and its ilk.

    Watch!

    Yah, but why not just give him the heart attack drug we all know they used on justice Scalia? Seems easier than planning not to protect him from some Antifa assassin.

    More likely I think their issue is that they have hit the cap on overtime and they just want more dough.

    I said I hoped I’d be ridiculed tomorrow, but I guess you just couldn’t wait! May you be right!

    (Looked it up–no, the Clinton-loving, Trump-hating SS agent was not fired. First, paid admin leave, then, we think, transferred to another post in Homeland Security. So yuh. )

    I’m aghast that a SS agent who said she won’t take a bullet for the president hasn’t been fired.

    • #34
  5. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    Fred, I remember the actual Time issue from 1977 because I was 27 years old then. If I didn’t recall the exact wording from the actual cover all these years later, then please excuse me. But it doesn’t change the facts; however, your gleeful pouncing on it is duly noted.

    I’m not gleefully pouncing, I’m correcting a fiction that is regularly passed around among conservatives.

    Here is every cover from 1977:

    http://time.com/vault/year/1977/

    You are invited to point to the one you remember. But with all due respect to you and your memory, the one you posted is an obvious and easily disproven fraud.

    Do we still have penguins?

    • #35
  6. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    Fred Cole (View Comment):
    Real Time covers from 1977 look like this:

    http://time.com/vault/year/1977/

    They had some ugly covers in 1977, but you’ve got to love the one with Linda Ronstadt on it.

    • #36
  7. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):
    Real Time covers from 1977 look like this:

    http://time.com/vault/year/1977/

    They had some ugly covers in 1977, but you’ve got to love the one with Linda Ronstadt on it.

    If they were gonna go back and purge anything, it would be Jimmy Carter as MOTY.

    • #37
  8. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    I think they’re putting this lie out because they plan to conveniently “under-protect” Trump tonight in Phoenix.

    I so hope you’re wrong. If something happens to him this country will be in serious trouble.

    • #38
  9. MLH Inactive
    MLH
    @MLH

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    Ever think a member in good standing of the Fake News Club might have purged that cover?

    Just so I’m clear, you’re suggesting that

    Realizing their embarrassment at promoting global cooling, they went back and purged it, thereby erasing it from history?

    Okay, what’s more likely:

    That in 1977, Time magazine published a cover with a picture of a penguin and 21st century graphics, and then published the same cover 29 years later, then to cover it up, went back and purged the 1977 cover (with the 21st century graphics) from their archive, and haven’t been caught, despite a million copies of that magazine going out?

    OR

    That the cover you posted is a fake and your memory of that cover from 1977 is incorrect?

    Fred, after seeing @ctlaw ‘s post of the Newsweek cover, I see I may have been thinking of that one. The fact remains, though, that Time did publish a “Global Cooling” article in the 1970s, which contributed to my crossed memories. It was 40 years ago. But my general memory of the way these news publications have embarrassed themselves is correct. I really don’t understand your trying to twist yourself into a pretzel to find ways to support the Left.

    I remember a Time  cover with scientists playing in the ice and the doom and gloom of the coming ice age. My older sister, who turns 60 next month, is a journalist of sorts and a Dem, can’t remember the fear of the coming ice age. I don’t get it.

    • #39
  10. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Kay of MT (View Comment):
    You wonder how these people sleep at night.

    Smugly! I mean Snugly.

    Where are my three points, Max?  Stop lollygagging!

    • #40
  11. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    MLH (View Comment):
    I remember a Time cover with scientists playing in the ice and the doom and gloom of the coming ice age. My older sister, who turns 60 next month, is a journalist of sorts and a Dem, can’t remember the fear of the coming ice age. I don’t get it.

    It was one of those flash-in-the-pan things that was hyped in the ’60s and ’70s.  There wasn’t the scientific consensus about global cooling then that there is about global warming now, and the warnings about cooling didn’t pan out.

    However back then, as now, the media love sensational headlines, and so the global cooling got hyped.

    • #41
  12. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    Fred, after seeing @ctlaw ‘s post of the Newsweek cover, I see I may have been thinking of that one. The fact remains, though, that Time did publish a “Global Cooling” article in the 1970s, which contributed to my crossed memories. It was 40 years ago. But my general memory of the way these news publications have embarrassed themselves is correct. I really don’t understand your trying to twist yourself into a pretzel to find ways to support the Left.

    Okay, a few things:

    1. I don’t blame your memory for being fuzzy.  It was 40 years ago.  I can hardly remember what I had for breakfast.
    2. The fact remains that the Time cover you posted is an easily disprovable fraud.
    3. With all due respect, I’m not the one twisting myself into a pretzel.
    4. I don’t understand why correcting obvious factual errors is “support[ing] the left.”
    • #42
  13. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    MLH (View Comment):
    I remember a Time cover with scientists playing in the ice and the doom and gloom of the coming ice age. My older sister, who turns 60 next month, is a journalist of sorts and a Dem, can’t remember the fear of the coming ice age. I don’t get it.

    It was one of those flash-in-the-pan things that was hyped in the ’60s and ’70s. There wasn’t the scientific consensus about global cooling then that there is about global warming now, and the warnings about cooling didn’t pan out.

    However back then, as now, the media love sensational headlines, and so the global cooling got hyped.

    There was no consensus because the left hadn’t yet become the thought police they are today. Anyone who dares to step out of lockstep now will have his career and life ruined.

    • #43
  14. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    Fred, after seeing @ctlaw ‘s post of the Newsweek cover, I see I may have been thinking of that one. The fact remains, though, that Time did publish a “Global Cooling” article in the 1970s, which contributed to my crossed memories. It was 40 years ago. But my general memory of the way these news publications have embarrassed themselves is correct. I really don’t understand your trying to twist yourself into a pretzel to find ways to support the Left.

    Okay, a few things:

    1. I don’t blame your memory for being fuzzy. It was 40 years ago. I can hardly remember what I had for breakfast.
    2. The fact remains that the Time cover you posted is an easily disprovable fraud.
    3. With all due respect, I’m not the one twisting myself into a pretzel.
    4. I don’t understand why correcting obvious factual errors is “support[ing] the left.”

    GAH never mind, I know you don’t.

    • #44
  15. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    MLH (View Comment):
    I remember a Time cover with scientists playing in the ice and the doom and gloom of the coming ice age. My older sister, who turns 60 next month, is a journalist of sorts and a Dem, can’t remember the fear of the coming ice age. I don’t get it.

    It was one of those flash-in-the-pan things that was hyped in the ’60s and ’70s. There wasn’t the scientific consensus about global cooling then that there is about global warming now, and the warnings about cooling didn’t pan out.

    However back then, as now, the media love sensational headlines, and so the global cooling got hyped.

    There was no consensus because the left hadn’t yet become the thought police they are today. Anyone who dares to step out of lockstep now will have his career and life ruined.

    And were not willing to engage in a massive scheme to destroy conflicting data.

    • #45
  16. Nick Baldock Inactive
    Nick Baldock
    @NickBaldock

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    Fred, after seeing @ctlaw ‘s post of the Newsweek cover, I see I may have been thinking of that one. The fact remains, though, that Time did publish a “Global Cooling” article in the 1970s, which contributed to my crossed memories. It was 40 years ago. But my general memory of the way these news publications have embarrassed themselves is correct. I really don’t understand your trying to twist yourself into a pretzel to find ways to support the Left.

    Okay, a few things:

    1. I don’t blame your memory for being fuzzy. It was 40 years ago. I can hardly remember what I had for breakfast.
    2. The fact remains that the Time cover you posted is an easily disprovable fraud.
    3. With all due respect, I’m not the one twisting myself into a pretzel.
    4. I don’t understand why correcting obvious factual errors is “support[ing] the left.”

    GAH never mind, I know you don’t.

    Umm… isn’t “the details may have been wrong, but – what the hell! – the overall point is valid” one of those sophistical justifications for which we hammer the Left in, for example, fake accusations of sexual assault or hate crime?

    I don’t think playing fast and loose with the truth is good for the Right because I don’t think it’s good.

    • #46
  17. MLH Inactive
    MLH
    @MLH

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    MLH (View Comment):
    I remember a Time cover with scientists playing in the ice and the doom and gloom of the coming ice age. My older sister, who turns 60 next month, is a journalist of sorts and a Dem, can’t remember the fear of the coming ice age. I don’t get it.

    It was one of those flash-in-the-pan things that was hyped in the ’60s and ’70s. There wasn’t the scientific consensus about global cooling then that there is about global warming now, and the warnings about cooling didn’t pan out.

    However back then, as now, the media love sensational headlines, and so the global cooling got hyped.

    There was no consensus because the left hadn’t yet become the thought police they are today. Anyone who dares to step out of lockstep now will have his career and life ruined.

    And were not willing to engage in a massive scheme to destroy conflicting data.

    Y’all need to listen to James Delingpole  interview Chris Horner.

    • #47
  18. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    There was no consensus because the left hadn’t yet become the thought police they are today. Anyone who dares to step out of lockstep now will have his career and life ruined.

    No, there was no consensus because scientists were unsure whether global cooling or global warming would be the problem.

    There was a 2008 study that looked at scholarly climate articles between 1965 and 1979.  The study found that during that period, 10% predicted cooling, 62% predicted warming, and 28% found insufficient data to predict either way.

    • #48
  19. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Nick Baldock (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    Fred, after seeing @ctlaw ‘s post of the Newsweek cover, I see I may have been thinking of that one. The fact remains, though, that Time did publish a “Global Cooling” article in the 1970s, which contributed to my crossed memories. It was 40 years ago. But my general memory of the way these news publications have embarrassed themselves is correct. I really don’t understand your trying to twist yourself into a pretzel to find ways to support the Left.

    Okay, a few things:

    1. I don’t blame your memory for being fuzzy. It was 40 years ago. I can hardly remember what I had for breakfast.
    2. The fact remains that the Time cover you posted is an easily disprovable fraud.
    3. With all due respect, I’m not the one twisting myself into a pretzel.
    4. I don’t understand why correcting obvious factual errors is “support[ing] the left.”

    GAH never mind, I know you don’t.

    Umm… isn’t “the details may have been wrong, but – what the hell! – the overall point is valid” one of those sophistical justifications for which we hammer the Left in, for example, fake accusations of sexual assault or hate crime?

    I don’t think playing fast and loose with the truth is good for the Right because I don’t think it’s good.

    That is not what this is about at all.

    • #49
  20. MLH Inactive
    MLH
    @MLH

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    There was no consensus because the left hadn’t yet become the thought police they are today. Anyone who dares to step out of lockstep now will have his career and life ruined.

    No, there was no consensus because scientists were unsure whether global cooling or global warming would be the problem.

    There was a 2008 study that looked at scholarly climate articles between 1965 and 1979. The study found that during that period, 10% predicted cooling, 62% predicted warming, and 28% found insufficient data to predict either way.

    Enron

     

    • #50
  21. Anuschka Inactive
    Anuschka
    @Anuschka

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    I think they’re putting this lie out because they plan to conveniently “under-protect” Trump tonight in Phoenix.

     

    Tonight is the deep state’s chance to provide covert support( as opposed to the overt ideological support they always provide) to the Antifa and its ilk.

    Could this be why Pence will also be there? As a hedge in case something goes wrong? Like Johnson in Texas with Kennedy.

    • #51
  22. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    MLH (View Comment):
    Enron

    I’m not sure what this means in this context.

    • #52
  23. MLH Inactive
    MLH
    @MLH

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    MLH (View Comment):
    Enron

    I’m not sure what this means in this context.

    Listen to the Delingpole podcast with Chris Horner.

    • #53
  24. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Fred Cole (View Comment):
    I don’t understand why correcting obvious factual errors is “support[ing] the left.”

    I believe I made some comment yesterday about how quickly folks are to tell others they are making “common cause” with the left.  This is a different context, but the same thing nonetheless.

    • #54
  25. Mike LaRoche Inactive
    Mike LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    There was no consensus because the left hadn’t yet become the thought police they are today. Anyone who dares to step out of lockstep now will have his career and life ruined.

    No, there was no consensus because scientists were unsure whether global cooling or global warming would be the problem.

    There was a 2008 study that looked at scholarly climate articles between 1965 and 1979. The study found that during that period, 10% predicted cooling, 62% predicted warming, and 28% found insufficient data to predict either way.

    That 2008 study is more fake news.

    • #55
  26. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):
    Michelle Obama’s vacation in Spain cost American taxpayers $467,585

    And each trip to Mar-a-Lago costs $3 million.

    Edit: That’s the generally used figure. That seems to be based on a couple of dubious figures.

    For their part, Judicial Watch pegged Trump’s two trips to Mar-a-Lago in February and March as costing a combined $1.2 million.

    As long as we’re pulling made up estimates out of our Ahrses,  I’m pretty sure I heard it was $3.23 billion dollars with about $500 million of that to pay for the the urinating hookers alone!

    • #56
  27. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Mike LaRoche (View Comment):
    That 2008 study is more fake news.

    You’re right, of course.  It’s my fault for referring to a peer reviewed journal instead of notrickszone.com.

    • #57
  28. Robert McReynolds Member
    Robert McReynolds
    @

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    So what happens if they run out of money?

    Well the FED issues more bonds for suckers to buy and then gives that money to Congress to appropriate with the “promise” of repaying those suckers in five, ten, or thirty years. And that’s how money is made Little Johnny.

    • #58
  29. Mike LaRoche Inactive
    Mike LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Mike LaRoche (View Comment):
    That 2008 study is more fake news.

    You’re right, of course. It’s my fault for referring to a peer reviewed journal instead of notrickszone.com.

    Michael Mann and Michael Bellesiles thank you for your support.

    • #59
  30. Robert McReynolds Member
    Robert McReynolds
    @

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Mike LaRoche (View Comment):
    That 2008 study is more fake news.

    You’re right, of course. It’s my fault for referring to a peer reviewed journal instead of notrickszone.com.

    The guy who runs the site seems pretty legit to me:

    http://notrickszone.com/about-pierre-gosselin/

     

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.