[Zagadka]

Trump private security force ‘playing with fire’
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/d ... rce-232797

President-elect Donald Trump has continued employing a private security and intelligence team at his victory rallies, and he is expected to keep at least some members of the team after he becomes president, according to people familiar with the plans.

The arrangement represents a major break from tradition. All modern presidents and presidents-elect have entrusted their personal security entirely to the Secret Service, and their event security mostly to local law enforcement, according to presidential security experts and Secret Service sources.

But Trump — who puts a premium on loyalty and has demonstrated great interest in having forceful security at his events — has opted to maintain an aggressive and unprecedented private security force, led by Keith Schiller, a retired New York City cop and Navy veteran who started working for Trump in 1999 as a part-time bodyguard, eventually rising to become his head of security.

Security officials warn that employing private security personnel heightens risks for the president-elect and his team, as well as for protesters, dozens of whom have alleged racial profiling, undue force or aggression at the hands of Trump’s security, with at least 10 joining a trio of lawsuits now pending against Trump, his campaign or its security.

“It’s playing with fire,” said Jonathan Wackrow, a former Secret Service agent who worked on President Barack Obama’s protective detail during his 2012 reelection campaign. Having a private security team working events with Secret Service “increases the Service’s liability, it creates greater confusion and it creates greater risk,” Wackrow said.

“You never want to commingle a police function with a private security function,” he said, adding, “If you talk to the guys on the detail and the guys who are running the rallies, that’s been a little bit difficult because it’s so abnormal.”

Wackrow, who left the Secret Service in 2014 and is now executive director of a security company called RANE (short for Risk Assistance Network + Exchange), said if he were the lead agent at a Trump rally, “I wouldn’t allow it.” But he suggested it’s a tricky situation for the Secret Service. “What are they going to do, pick a fight with the president-elect and his advisers? That’s not a way to start a romance.”

Several past presidential nominees have used private security or, in the case of governors running for president, state police details. But the experts could not think of another example of a president-elect continuing with any private security after Election Day, when Secret Service protection expands dramatically for the winner. In fact, most candidates drop any outside security the moment they’re granted Secret Service protection.

Trump’s spending on private security, on the other hand, actually increased after he was granted Secret Service protection in November 2015.

Through the end of last month, Trump’s campaign had spent more than $1 million on private security contracting, compared with $360,000 spent by the campaign of his vanquished Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, according to Federal Election Commission reports. That’s despite the fact that every other aspect of her campaign operation dwarfed his. Overall, her campaign outspent his by nearly 75 percent.

Whereas Clinton’s security spending — like that of most presidential campaigns — went mostly to protection for her offices and payments to local law enforcement or security companies for ad hoc event security, Trump’s campaign took it to a whole different level. It built a robust private security force that traveled the country supplementing the protective personal security supplied by the Secret Service, and working to identify and remove possible protesters — or just people Trump and his allies had a bad feeling about — from his events.

The private security team has been present at each of the seven rallies on Trump’s post-election “Thank You Tour” and has removed protesters — sometimes roughly — at many stops.

That included about a dozen protesters during a rally here on Dec. 9 in a minor-league arena called the Deltaplex, where Trump mostly shrugged off the interruptions until he became impatient with a particularly disruptive protester. “Get ‘em out!” the president-elect instructed his private security. That appeared to spur Trump’s security director, Schiller, to venture away from the stage, where he arrived with Trump, and wade deep into the crowd to assist other private security personnel with the removal.

Before the end of the rally, Schiller returned to his place by Trump’s side, along with a Secret Service contingent of which he is often misidentified as a member. (Despite being — at 58 years old — significantly older than most agents, Schiller looks the part, invariably sporting a uniform of dark suits and white shirts, along with a Secret Service-issued perimeter pin, and maintaining an athletic 6-foot-4-inch, 210-pound frame.) Together, the entourage accompanied Trump back to the airport, onto his plane and back to New York. It was the same routine as Schiller and Trump repeated countless times during the campaign, and it likely will be repeated countless more times over the coming years, since Schiller is expected to follow Trump into the White House, according to multiple sources on the transition team.

In interviews with about a dozen people who interact with Trump, they said even as the president-elect’s Secret Service detail has expanded significantly since the election, he remains most comfortable with Schiller and his team. A native of New Paltz, New York, and father of two, Schiller has been director of security for The Trump Organization since 2004.

The Trump associates say Schiller is expected to become a personal White House aide who would serve as the incoming president’s full-time physical gatekeeper, though he might not be able to offer his boss the wide range of services he has in the past. For instance, federal law prohibits anyone other than law enforcement officers from bringing firearms into federal buildings, and there are even stricter rules about who can carry on the White House grounds or around Secret Service protectees. Schiller had been armed at times early in the campaign, but it’s unclear whether he continued carrying a firearm after Trump was granted Secret Service protection.

Even after the arrival of Trump’s Secret Service detail, which typically marks the end of any pre-existing security arrangement, Schiller never strayed from his boss’ side.

The associates say Schiller provides more than just security. Trump has been known to ask Schiller’s opinion on all manner of subjects. When people want to reach Trump, they often call Schiller’s cellphone and he decides who gets through to the boss.

Photos often show Schiller looming over Trump’s shoulder as he works crowds, standing sentry by the stage as Trump speaks, or ejecting protesters from rallies. He’s developed a small but avid fan base on Twitter, where Trump supporters cheer Schiller’s confrontations with protesters, pose for selfies with him at events and backstage, and praise him as a brave “American Eagle” who kept Trump “safe & sound.”

And Schiller, a registered Republican, showed signs of reveling in Trump’s campaign, creating his own Twitter account just before the first primaries to promote the campaign and chronicle his unique perspective from the trail. He occasionally channeled his boss’ attacks on rivals like Ted Cruz (“Wow Lyin Ted is becoming unhinged! So sad...,” he tweeted as Trump was clinching the GOP nomination over the Texas senator) and spread false claims about Democrats, including that 20 percent of Clinton’s campaign cash came from people who were responsible for the September 2001 terrorist attacks, that a grand jury had been convened to investigate her use of a private email server for State Department business and that Obama encouraged undocumented immigrants to vote illegally.

...

[The Sabbaticus]

... including that 20 percent of Clinton’s campaign cash came from people who were responsible for the September 2001 terrorist attacks ...

Well, Saudi Arabia did contribute significantly to the Clinton Foundation. Or are they now denying that as well in the vein of 'Fake news!'?

[quetzalcoatl]

Q: How much money did Trump make selling real estate to the Saudis?
A: More than the entire net worth of the Clintons.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Capitalism, is all about making money. Finger-wagging about the morality of people you are selling shit to is just hilarious. Crooked Hillary lost and crooked Trump won - we get that.

[Hong Wu]

Sounds like fake news, I doubt the secret service provides general security at anyone's rallies and if or in what capacity Trump keeps some of them on (will it only be for future rallies?) is not known, nor is there any argument for why it should matter if Trump adds private security on top of the secret service. Obama's dealings with a "demoralized" secret service that seemingly didn't want to protect him at all were far more scandalous than this non-story.

[quetzalcoatl]

Obama's dealings with a "demoralized" secret service that seemingly didn't want to protect him at all were far more scandalous than this non-story.

Kind of doubt the truth of this. Can you offer some evidence here, or are you just projecting your own ill will towards Obama onto the Secret Service? If this assertion were true, it would be grounds for dismantling the entire agency. If they don't want to do their jobs, find somebody who does.

[Hong Wu]

Kind of doubt the truth of this. Can you offer some evidence here, or are you just projecting your own ill will towards Obama onto the Secret Service? If this assertion were true, it would be grounds for dismantling the entire agency. If they don't want to do their jobs, find somebody who does.

Duckduckgo it ( ), there's lots of articles on this. Here's one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... hands.html

[quetzalcoatl]

Duckduckgo it ( ), there's lots of articles on this. Here's one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... hands.html

How does this article (which deals with well-known issues regarding the competence and training of Secret Service agents) support your assertion that the Secret Service didn't want to protect him? There's one hell of a lot of difference between those two assertions - the first is correctable and the second is not.

[Hong Wu]

How does this article (which deals with well-known issues regarding the competence and training of Secret Service agents) support your assertion that the Secret Service didn't want to protect him? There's one hell of a lot of difference between those two assertions - the first is correctable and the second is not.

I said that they arguably don't want to protect him and the secret service is not generally associated with problems or "training issues" like these, so if you want to read between the lines and find other stories about how they were "demoralized" under Obama, it was a fairly high profile story at one point during his administration.

[quetzalcoatl]

I said that they arguably don't want to protect him and the secret service is not generally associated with problems or "training issues" like these, so if you want to read between the lines and find other stories about how they were "demoralized" under Obama, it was a fairly high profile story at one point during his administration.

It's not their job to protect Presidents of whom they approve. It's their job to protect Presidents. You are saying that they are so morally corrupted that being 'demoralized' is implicit permission to not perform their duties (i.e., allow the president to be assassinated) - don't pretend this is not what you are saying, btw. I have no doubt that you want Obama to be killed, and that this 'demoralization' is simply you projecting that desire onto the Secret Service. I don't happen to believe this is true of any Secret Service agent. However if it is, then the whole agency should be terminated with prejudice.

[Hong Wu]

It's not their job to protect Presidents of whom they approve. It's their job to protect Presidents. You are saying that they are so morally corrupted that being 'demoralized' is implicit permission to not perform their duties (i.e., allow the president to be assassinated) - don't pretend this is not what you are saying, btw. I have no doubt that you want Obama to be killed, and that this 'demoralization' is simply you projecting that desire onto the Secret Service. I don't happen to believe this is true of any Secret Service agent. However if it is, then the whole agency should be terminated with prejudice.

I have honestly never thought about the implications of Obama being killed and he's now irrelevant. I was just bringing up the story because I think it shows a double standard in the media, events listed in that Telegraph article are a way bigger deal than the story here.

[SpecialOlympian]

Well, Saudi Arabia did contribute significantly to the Clinton Foundation. Or are they now denying that as well in the vein of 'Fake news!'?

How, exactly, was money donated to the Clinton Foundation supposed to be funneled into the Clinton campaign?

It is is a registered and active charity that publishes its tax filings.

Really enjoying how "fake news" is now the new argumentative and ideological crutch employed by our least informed posters here.

I was just bringing up the story because I think it shows a double standard in the media, events listed in that Telegraph article are a way bigger deal than the story here.

The article you posted is also, get this, two years old and talks about events that occurred within the six years before it was published. Zagadka posted a recent article talking about current events.

How do you function in the normal world (lol you don't, still lolling at your GOP volunteer story)? Your brain seems to function, if it can be described as such, in a universe where all information is relative to other information and devoid of any contextual awareness. So of course a 2014 article about (then current) congressional hearings is equally as valid as a recently published article about the incoming president's private security. The only logical conclusion to draw from this, a comparison between two news sources in different countries describing current events two years apart, is apparently media bias. Again, from news sources from different countries describing events two years apart.

[Igor Antunov]

How, exactly, was money donated to the Clinton Foundation supposed to be funneled into the Clinton campaign?

The same way $4 million of it was funneled from CF to Chelsey's wedding.

[SpecialOlympian]

*Checks watch*

Good job Igor, only 5 minutes before you burst in to talk about wikileaks.

When you have something more definitive than a text dump on a website owned by someone with an obvious axe to grind against the Clintons let me know.

[Igor Antunov]

Well according to 17 US intelligence agencies and the Obama administration wikileaks data is real enough to be damaging to Clinton's campaign.

[SpecialOlympian]

The hack was real, that doesn't mean there is no incentive to manufacture additional emails. The only evidence I see of it is the Wikileaks page and then dozens of articles commenting on said page.

But by all means, go ahead and dig through the published tax returns of the Clinton Foundation and show me where they spent $900,000 on wedding expenses. Then report it to the IRS and really stick it to those Clintons, Igor.

[The Sabbaticus]

"Foreign dollars

The Washington Post reported last week that foreign sources, including governments, made up a third of those who have given the foundation more than $1 million over time. The Post found that the foundation, begun by former president Bill Clinton, has raised nearly $2 billion since its creation in 2001.

Foreign governments and individuals are prohibited from giving money to U.S. political candidates, to prevent outside influence over national leaders. But the foundation has given donors a way to potentially gain favor with the Clintons outside the traditional political limits.

In a presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton would be likely to showcase her foreign-policy expertise, yet the foundation’s ongoing reliance on foreign governments’ support opens a potential line of attack for Republicans eager to question her independence as secretary of state and as a possible president.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the foundation had accepted new foreign-government money now that the 2008 agreement has lapsed.

A review of foundation disclosures shows that at least two foreign governments — Germany and the United Arab Emirates — began giving in 2013 after the funding restrictions lapsed when Clinton left the Obama administration. Some foreign governments that had been supporting the foundation before Clinton was appointed, such as Saudi Arabia, did not give while she was in office and have since resumed donating."

Foundation officials said last week that if Clinton runs, they will consider taking steps to address concerns over the role of foreign donors.

“We will continue to ensure the Foundation’s policies and practices regarding support from international partners are appropriate, just as we did when she served as Secretary of State,” the foundation said in a statement.

Foreign governments had been major donors to the foundation before President Obama nominated Clinton to become secretary of state in 2009. When the foundation released a list of its donors for the first time in 2008, as a result of the agreement with the Obama administration, it disclosed, for instance, that Saudi Arabia had given between $10 million and $25 million.

In some cases, the foundation said, governments that continued to donate while Clinton was at the State Department did so at lower levels than before her appointment.

Washington Post

And of course these foreign contributors (e.g. Norway) have vastly scaled back their donations since the loss of Hillary's presidential bid. Nothing suspicious about that.

[SpecialOlympian]

Hi Sabbaticus. You might remember me from my post, the one I made within the last two hours.

Back then, in the long long ago, I asked you how money given to the Clinton Foundation (a charity) was funneled to the to the Clinton Campaign. I didn't ask you for wild speculation.

And of course these foreign contributors (e.g. Norway) have vastly scaled back their donations since the loss of Hillary's presidential bid. Nothing suspicious about that.

Vastly scaled back.

Over a two month period.

Nice.

[The Sabbaticus]

Hi Sabbaticus. You might remember me from my post, the one I made within the last two hours.

Back then, in the long long ago, I asked you how money given to the Clinton Foundation (a charity) was funneled to the to the Clinton Campaign. I didn't ask you for wild speculation.

What 'wild speculation' would that be? You're referring to the contents of the Washington Post article -- a pro-Hillary newspaper? Your question was immaterial by the way, as I only had to establish that their might be a case to be made over influence peddling/financial contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and I made use of a mainstream newspaper to affirm this.

If you read back to my original comment, you would see that I did not completely affirm the assertion of Schiller.

[SpecialOlympian]

Oh yeah, you were just ~asking questions~. I'd say that's coy, but as a Dutchman you're incapable of such positive emotions.

And no, you cited a WaPo article to continue with the assertion that the Clinton Foundation funneled money to the campaign. I'm so glad we can continue to have this conversation post election, because Trump supporters are dumb enough to fall for any bait.

[Albert]

It is the degenerate libercucks who are the dumb ones. Clinton foundation is definitely suspicious, it was probably used to siphon money to Clinton's pockets privately. They paid with the foundation for their daughters wedding. How is that charity? Unless it is literally "charity" for Clintons, then that makes sense.

And you work on finance you know how this stuff works. Tax free travel expenses are always nice and couple hundred thousand on office supplies will not look suspicious.