Subject: Re: The More I hear..
In other words they'll do exactly what's required of them up to the letter of the law but put not an ounce more into it.

This is going to shock some of you, but I'm not going to disagree with Dope on this one. I'm not going to say that it IS the exact answer, but it's definitely a possibility that needs to be investigated. I might be more inclined to call in Benign Neglect, but there is no practical difference between that and Malevolent Indifference. They both involve following the letter of your job description, putting in the hours, but not giving it your best - just your good enough.

I'll go a step further and say that the insider LM is looking for might be wearing orange bronzer and have a bleach blond bad combover. Again, nothing definite of course, just a possibility to look into.

Let's start with history. We already know that the combover guy has had some run ins with Secret Service over his protection. We've got sworn testimony that he wanted to let people into a rally without going through metal detectors. And that he wanted Secret Service to take him to the Capital to join the march there. These are on-the-record bits of testimony, not some hearsay or wild guesses. These things happened.

Of course, in these two examples, Mr. Combover was the sitting President, with the best agents assigned to his protection. They refused to do what he asked.

But let's fast forward three years. He's no longer the sitting President, now a former President. He still gets protection, of course, but not nearly as big a detail. And the best agents are all with the sitting President's detail. Our protectee has been running his detail ragged with a hefty travel schedule, multiple trips in and out of known locations (like courthouses) on a regular basis, which in itself is a security risk - being in a known public place at a known time with those set well in advance. Then he adds the pressure of another campaign for President. He's been chewing up a lot of time from his detail. And he's not the nicest guy to work for, as has been well-documented. (The nicest guy to protect would probably be the old guy in Georgia who goes nowhere anymore and is basically waiting for the inevitable.)

My possibility here - not exactly a conspiracy theory, but something plausible that should be included in an investigation - is that this behavior towards Secret Service protection has continued after the end of his Presidency. Agents will tell him that there is some risk here or there and that he shouldn't continue his event until that risk is eliminated. But he pushes back and the events go on against the better judgement of the agents. And they go on time and again with no problems. Until one day there IS a problem.

The problem I have with this scenario is that it will take someone on the inside to confirm it - and by doing so basically admit to a failure to diligently do their job. And since agents are there to protect their protectee, I find it highly unlikely anyone would admit that these kinds of conversations were happening. That's not protecting, that's tossing them under the bus. The most likely source for background incidents (times this has happened with no adverse consequences), is someone who is not an agent, perhaps a member of the campaign staff, or someone who just happened to be in the room when the discussion was happening, much like the testimony we have about the January 6 incidents.

Again, I don't want this to be a conspiracy theory. It's not known to be true, and I don't want to imply that it is. At best, this is a possibility that should be run down in the investigation. And even if true, it's not likely that it will be uncovered in the current investigation. People will remain quiet and loyal for years or even decades.

But it could make a good movie. Think this post will suffice for a copyright protection claim? ;-)

--Peter