Secret Service Protection with a serious question

CAJUNLAWYER

CAJUNLAWYER

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
19,079
Reaction score
62,938
Location
On da Bayou Teche
Past presidents have lifetime secret service protection. Is it at the same intense level as a sitting president? I mean when Bill Clinton travels is there all the advance planning done as when the sitting president travels?
Now when an individual runs for president, that individual does not get presidential level secret service protection until he wins his party's nomination.
What level of secret service protection is Trump now getting? The full monty or the retirement level?
Who had the ball for the pre clearing Saturday, the local police or Trump's secret Service detail? I can't see Trump's current detail having access to the resources that Biden has as sitting president. Seems as if Trump is in a grey area until he gets the official nomination and gets the full sitting president protection .
or am I wrong?
Thought about this over the weekend and thought I'd throw it out to see if anyone has an answer.
And PLEASE no conspiracy theories......I just think that this is something that should be talked about. Perhaps at some point a presumptive nominee should get the full protection before the actual nomination. I really do not think that local police are trained to do a complete presidential level work up of an outdoor speech venue and I do not think that at this time the government has allocated full sitting presidential resources to the candidate' secret service protection. Or am I wrong? I'd like to hear from some of out members with federal experience as to what they think about this.
 
Register to hide this ad
So, sitting Presidents enjoy a greater level of protection than former Presidents, which decreases as the former Presidents age and recede from public life. As an example, I'm guessing that President Carter doesn't have a SS ERT and rooftop snipers following him everywhere. Further, the SS relies more and more on local LEO's as former Presidents age and recede from public life. It hasn't been revealed yet to my knowledge, but by the way they were dressed, I'm guessing those two counter snipers on the roof at the rally were local LEO. President Trump is also entitled to SS protection as the presumptive (until this week) Republican Presidential nominee. That protection is also at a lower level than a sitting President. I am merely spitballing this last part, but I presume that President Trumps current level of protection, as a former President and presumptive Presidential nominee, remained somewhat below that of the sitting President, but would have incrementally ramped up as the election draws near . . .

Until the events of Saturday, July 13, 2024, which changed everything . . .



CAJUNLAWYER said:
Past presidents have lifetime secret service protection. Is it at the same intense level as a sitting president? I mean when Bill Clinton travels is there all the advance planning done as when the sitting president travels?
Now when an individual runs for president, that individual does not get presidential level secret service protection until he wins his party's nomination.
What level of secret service protection is Trump now getting? The full monty or the retirement level?
Who had the ball for the pre clearing Saturday, the local police or Trump's secret Service detail? I can't see Trump's current detail having access to the resources that Biden has as sitting president. Seems as if Trump is in a grey area until he gets the official nomination and gets the full sitting president protection .
or am I wrong?
Thought about this over the weekend and thought I'd throw it out to see if anyone has an answer.
And PLEASE no conspiracy theories......I just think that this is something that should be talked about. Perhaps at some point a presumptive nominee should get the full protection before the actual nomination. I really do not think that local police are trained to do a complete presidential level work up of an outdoor speech venue and I do not think that at this time the government has allocated full sitting presidential resources to the candidate' secret service protection. Or am I wrong? I'd like to hear from some of out members with federal experience as to what they think about this.
Click to expand...
 
If I may add on to the questions....

Are the ROE for the protective details different between POTUS and a "presumptive nominee?

Or, in different terms, would the counter-sniper have shot first if the sitting president was onstage? It certainly seemed like he had the assassin sighted in.
 
It’s now being said the SS was aware that the roof top of the shooters building was a problem but due to lack of manpower they could not cover it however they should have made sure to have local officers on that site. Easy to say now of course. Also the SS did not cover Trump during his exit from the stage exposing him to the possibility of a second shooters attempt. An assassin has to be “effective” only once the “protection” has to be perfect always. I bet Putin has no trouble funding adequate protection
 
Last edited:
Best practice is that a protection team always does an advance survey of a venue the principal is going to appear at. The main differences, depending upon perceived threat level, is the depth of the survey. OK, the SS would/should have done an advance survey of the venue. Then the agent(s) would have drawn up a plan. Hopefully whoever did it wanted a post on that roof and saved a copy. The roof should have been posted. Budget and staffing can interfere with things.

However, given the reduced size from the presidential team, the team's emphasis is close protection of the principal. They have to depend upon the locals for coverage beyond that and that's where the issues begin. Command, control and communication with the various groups is going to suffer. I noted in another post that shared responsibility is effectively no responsibility.
 
Last edited:
The close in agents who jumped and covered Trump seem to have been up to speed. I am not up to speed on counter-sniper stuff, but it sure seems that the building question should've been secured and was not.

I am not sure if the marksmen who took out the shooter were local, although I tend to doubt it. The one time I remember my agency being involved in a detail for a sitting detail, the SWAT guys were themselves under the eyes/scopes of the Secret Service, but the level of coverage is a lot different.

Also, there is no such thing as "Rules of Engagement" for LE. That is a military term that does not and never should be applied to LE. The only standard is 4th amendment (it's a seizure), and defense of self and others is always preemptive.

Best guess - the coverage was less than adequate because there is a different standard for the retired President than there is for an actual nominee. That ought to be revisited.
 
Doug M. said:
Also, there is no such thing as "Rules of Engagement" for LE. That is a military term that does not and never should be applied to LE. The only standard is 4th amendment (it's a seizure), and defense of self and others is always preemptive.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember that one of the key components to the Ruby Ridge lawsuit was that the FBI altered their "rules of Engagement" during the standoff.

Additionally, US law enforcement has co-opted every other aspect of the military, so why not a simple phrase?
 
One cockamamie notion I'll toss is that the idealized perception of the gun toting psycho is is strictly a product from the political right and the fact that a rally was held in a pro Trump arena had lessened the threat to the point assets were allocated according to preconceived ideas.
 
petepeterson said:
I seem to remember that one of the key components to the Ruby Ridge lawsuit was that the FBI altered their "rules of Engagement" during the standoff.

Additionally, US law enforcement has co-opted every other aspect of the military, so why not a simple phrase?
Click to expand...

And the FBI commander and DC brass later denied making any such changes just two dead and $3 million later.

Here are the DOJ rules:

1-16.200 - DEADLY FORCE
Law enforcement officers and correctional officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.
Deadly force may not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect.

DHS rules are nearly identical.
 
Last edited:
cololab said:
Pull up podcasts by radio talk figure Dan Bongino or stream his live show. He is a former NYPD officer and Secret Service Special Agent. He can explain chapter and verse of the differences between the details assigned to a sitting versus a former POTUS.
Click to expand...
Perfect! Forgot about Dan. I suspect he will have a lot to say today
 
notsofast said:
...Also the SS did not cover Trump during his exit from the stage exposing him to the possibility of a second shooters attempt. ...
Click to expand...
Sure looked to me like they were doing their best to cover him with their bodies as they hustled him off stage. A tall agent holding his right arm up and over Trump in an effort to shield him stood out to me in particular. It also looked to me that the female agent in the mix, while doing her best, was physically simply too small to be up to the task of using her body as shield.

They were all — including the woman I describe as too small — clearly ready and willing to take a bullet for their charge, and at that moment in time it was a real possibility.

That is their job, their mission, of course, but that they executed immediately with no sign of fear, only urgency and intent, impressed me.

----

Edited to add: Here is a former SS agent who is critical of the speed, or lack thereof, rather, with which the SS removed Trump from the scene:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/vide...a209f4-46e3-47b4-994e-27a9dc7e4eb5_video.html
 
Last edited:
Dan is the man and has already spoken on the subject.

Question: What is the standard for holstering a pistol. I'm sure drawing and holstering is covered ad nauseum at the SS academy.

1-16.200, DEADLY FORCE sure sounds like Rules of Engagement to me. Call it what you will.
 
Retired W4 said:
. . .
Question: What is the standard for holstering a pistol. I'm sure drawing and holstering is covered ad nauseum at the SS academy. . . .
Click to expand...

I was not SS. When I attended Firearms Instructor School at FLETC for my agency, we spent two entire days with a blue gun drawing and holstering . . .
 
A 20 year old managed to outsmart all the professionals, get on a roof top with clear line of sight to the stage and got shots off including a head shot that missed. Think about that.
 
cololab said:
Pull up podcasts by radio talk figure Dan Bongino or stream his live show. He is a former NYPD officer and Secret Service Special Agent. He can explain chapter and verse of the differences between the details assigned to a sitting versus a former POTUS.
Click to expand...

Dan has been hot on this today. There needs to be a major house cleaning from the top down at the USSS. This can not be allowed to happen again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Multiple Secret Service Agents Placed on Leave
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
2K
Beemerguy53
Beemerguy53
chief38
WOW! GROSS! BUT A PINK TOILET BOWL RING MIGHT BE LINKED TO DIABETICS!
Replies
8
Views
753
Walkin Horse
W
Golddollar
WHAT TO DO WITH THE $$$
2 3
Replies
44
Views
1K
M29since14
M
F
Young Brothers Massacre, A tactical expert opinion.
Replies
13
Views
1K
tops
tops
spicychinesefood
Model 66-8 (4.25in) post-200 rounds questions from a beginner
Replies
7
Views
621
Muley Gil
M

Latest posts

Back
Top