Secret Service protection while incarcerated?

[wsr]

Most government officials do not make enough money to buy protection commensurate to their threats. While many are well to do by our peasant standards, protection commensurate to their typical threat is exceptionally expensive and typically runs tens of millions of dollars per year more than their total net worth, to say nothing of what they actually can spend per year.

So you ARE okay with officials getting protection after leaving office, dependent on threat. What if I told you that pretty much everyone with protection after office is getting it because of an articulable threat(s)?

I think you know what i was meaning in my first post and definitely did after my second….I was referring to automatic protection because of position held…pretty much potus and VP and they can afford it…maybe not what they think they are entitled to, but sufficient

I have no doubt plenty of officials have threats against them a decent amount are probably even legit deal with them as they come
What if I told you many low level judges, LEOs etc are under near constant threat? Of course they probably aren’t gonna be as well planned but more opportunity based(all the more reason to give instant protection) should we give them lifelong protection also? Dead is dead

The world isn’t gonna fall apart because a ex politician is killed

And yes I would give more leeway for actual public servants

[WobblyPossum]

It’s also important to remember what the ex-President of the United States represents. The position is bigger than the people who’ve held it. That’s part of what we’re protecting when we give these people lifetime USSS protection. We don’t want people kidnapping, torturing, and killing our ex-Presidents. They also probably have a whole lot of national security related info we don’t want people pulling out of their heads.

[blues]

They also probably have a whole lot of national security related info we don’t want people pulling out of their heads.

[TGS]

I think you know what i was meaning in my first post and definitely did after my second….I was referring to automatic protection because of position held…pretty much potus and VP and they can afford it…maybe not what they think they are entitled to, but sufficient

FWIW, politicians don't get "what they think they are entitled to".

They are afforded a protective posture based on the regulations promulgated by the protecting agency for their given threat.

I do this professionally, dude. The average politician can't afford what we give them if they're under threat, which can cost millions of dollars per month.

I'm trying to be polite and explain this, but apparently I have to say it: you don't know what you're talking about.

[beenalongtime]

Doesn't have to be Trump, but since we've crossed the Rubicon I expect political prosecutions of more presidents going forward. If speeding cars in Biden's motorcade run over a pedestrian in a red state, I imagine we could expect to see manslaughter charges brought after he leaves office...

I think you have a horrible example. That pedestrian would have to have been missed by all the police presence in front of the motorcade, the defensive driving skills of the drivers in front trying to force the limo to go the opposite direction, etc.
Then you would have to deal with the service more likely throwing the agent driver in the line of fire for criminal charges over their protectant.

I don't doubt this sets a precedent to go after future presidents, that is what a precedent is.

[0ddl0t]

I think you have a horrible example. That pedestrian would have to have been missed by all the police presence in front of the motorcade, the defensive driving skills of the drivers in front trying to force the limo to go the opposite direction, etc.
Then you would have to deal with the service more likely throwing the agent driver in the line of fire for criminal charges over their protectant.

It is a hypothetical I stole from the NY Times. When Biden was VP, cars from his motorcade hit & killed a pedestrian although Biden was not in the motorcade at that moment. And more recently an officer in Biden's presidential motorcade lost control of his motorcycle and crashed, though it did not cause any other injuries.

Still, it is easy to imagine a president telling the motorcade to "hurry up" and later it getting involved in a fatal accident.

[Hambo]

Prison is not gonna happen in this case.

The whole thing is a dog an pony show, and Trump is the one who benefits from being back in the spotlight.

[DC_P]

What is your impression right now of how many government officials get protection after leaving office?

I had Pence on a flight after he left office. I don't remember the time frame but I am pretty sure it was within a year. It is a bit fuzzy now but I think he was traveling home after having medical treatment and had 4-6 SS guys with him.

[TGS]

I think you have a horrible example. That pedestrian would have to have been missed by all the police presence in front of the motorcade, the defensive driving skills of the drivers in front trying to force the limo to go the opposite direction, etc.
Then you would have to deal with the service more likely throwing the agent driver in the line of fire for criminal charges over their protectant.

I don't doubt this sets a precedent to go after future presidents, that is what a precedent is.

It is a hypothetical I stole from the NY Times. When Biden was VP, cars from his motorcade hit & killed a pedestrian although Biden was not in the motorcade at that moment. And more recently an officer in Biden's presidential motorcade lost control of his motorcycle and crashed, though it did not cause any other injuries.

Still, it is easy to imagine a president telling the motorcade to "hurry up" and later it getting involved in a fatal accident.

Beenalongrime is correct. It's a terrible example, and its not how things work.

The protectee is not liable if the motorcade hits someone. I don't want to say we hit people all the time (or animals, we plowed through a bull at my last assignment), but it's not uncommon. Sometimes we purposely do it, and we have the training curriculum, agency policy, and legal authorities to back us up when we do that.

It can create bad publicity for the protectee, but they're not criminally liable. The agent in charge is responsible for telling the protectee "no" if their request would cause unsafe operating conditions. Legally, it's on the agent in charge if things go south, and on the individual driver for operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe or reckless fashion.

Notice that I said "request" from the protectee, not order. This is the second time I'm seeing this in this thread, and I think there's some general misunderstanding about the relationship between the protectee and detail. They're not in charge of the detail. They don't order the detail to do anything, except tell them where they want to go. The protecting agency decides how to operate the motorcade, so, legally it's on the agent in charge.

In particular to foreign dignitaries, if they demand we operate in an unsafe fashion, the agent in charge has the authority to serve them with a declination letter, saying that we are unable to comply with their requests and they have the option to decline protection instead. Not the president, not the secretary of state, not some disaffected bureaucrat in a DC functional bureau...the agent in charge, in the motorcade, carries with him/her at all times a letter in their jacket to hand to the protectee if they make outrageous demands which declares we won't protect them. I've personally been on a detail where we've served that...usually they back down instead of going through that process.

[Jim Watson]

I am sure the present administration could provide suitable guards for Mr Trump in the Big House.
You know, the same ones as Mr Epstein.