Security Failure at White House

Is Secret Service security as lax as Ron Kessler reported in his new book In The President's Secret Service?

You might begin to think so when you look at the report of the couple who penetrated White House security during the President's first State Dinner recently.

See http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Couple-Crashes-White-House-State-Dinner-Investigation-Launched-74650777.html

It looks like these folks just showed up and bluffed their way through a check point.

In an attempt to save face the Secret Service spokesman said that the two went through a magnetometer. Big deal. They could have been carrying a ceramic knife or have picked up a sharp knife from the dinner table. There is a photo of the woman of the pair with her hand on the Vice President's chest. She could have cut his throat!

The Secret Service appears to need a shake up.

The security is fine, but when you're agency is a political tool, and your budget gets cut because you happen to jack-up the wrong Senator or Representative at an event, do you think people (USSS agents and officers) are going to be more inclined or less inclined to stop people and asking what they're doing? You might laugh, but it has happened in the past. The USSS once lost $10 million from their budget b/c someone on the Hill got their ego bruised. You get in more trouble when you hold someone up then when you let them go.

The same people that complain when there are "security lapses" are the same people who complain when they get held up or their name's not on a list. You can't have it both ways, folks!

[worfusa2008]

Not to mention the junior White House staffer who passes someone though an isolated checkpoint because he/she/they "look like they belong". Staff always gets the final say. You can't win an argument with someone on the staff. Ask any Agent who won a battle (at the checkpoint) but lost the war (office of choice). It will be interesting how this plays out.

Things have certainly changed from many years ago. Every old timer has heard the following excpressions: 1. "I pay your salary" and 2. "Do you know who I am?" My response was always simple to these two questions 1. Then you must be the person I need to talk to about an increase in my salary and 2. Yes Congressman Jones, I know who you are but you still will not be admitted to the secure area. Also the press with a hundred different excuses why they must be allowed outside the pess bullpen. There were very few instances of agents getting trouble for doing their job properly in those days.

[worfusa2008]

Not "official trouble", but trouble nevertheless. As in, "Why can't you be more accommodating? We have to get along with these people". This usually said by Bosses who were looking for a soft landing after getting their ticket punched on PPD or VPPD.

Not to mention the junior White House staffer who passes someone though an isolated checkpoint because he/she/they "look like they belong". Staff always gets the final say. You can't win an argument with someone on the staff. Ask any Agent who won a battle (at the checkpoint) but lost the war (office of choice). It will be interesting how this plays out.

All too true. I could name names (but won't on this public board) of agents who stood up to staffers and later saw their careers truncated by vindictive staffers with influence.

I saw Bob Haldeman personally remove barricades around the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City to allow "the adoring crowd" to rush in and surround President Nixon for the purpose of a photo op. Obviously he suffered no consequences for destroying security arrangements. No agent dared make an official complaint about it within the WH.

There was a period at the White House when a Deputy Director sat in on staff meetings with the President, during which the DD agreed to inappropriate uses of USSS personnel. When the actions were proposed, the DD's response was always "Yes, Mr. President."

I don't know where Big Change gets the idea that things were different in "the old days." I know one agent who offended LBJ by simply being professional on the job. LBJ ordered that he be sent directly from the LBJ ranch to his new assignment in NYC without benefit of going home to get clothes. That's pretty far back into the old days.

Obviously Ron Kessler documents similar cases in more recent years.

Politicians can ruin the careers of agents who offend them......

In my posting I only addressed the general public, congressional members , their staff, and the press. Much of what you stated regarding WH staffers, political advance agents and "hangers on" was true in the old days and obviously remains true today. It is my belief that this type of situation has a greater effect on PPD and VPPD agents than on field agents on a protective assignment. In my experience, field agents with a strong SAIC generally had less problems in this area. I also think, (not based on personal experience as I have been retired many years) this is a much greater problem today than in the past.

Charge the couple for lying to the Secret Service...maybe you should concentrate on yet ANOTHER screw up by your agents. I have a novel idea...why don't you find out who screwed up and allowed them into the White House and deal with them accordingly and ensure that it does not happen again. Oh that's right...play the blame game and don't accept responsibility...it's the federal goverment's motto.

Charge the couple for lying to the Secret Service...maybe you should concentrate on yet ANOTHER screw up by your agents. I have a novel idea...why don't you find out who screwed up and allowed them into the White House and deal with them accordingly and ensure that it does not happen again. Oh that's right...play the blame game and don't accept responsibility...it's the federal goverment's motto.

The above poster is obviously guessing under what circumstances the situation occurred. I am in no way condoning what happened and it should be thoroughly investigated and let the chips fall where they may. But as often happens in this type of situation, you have an outsider with no personal knowledge of the security procedures in effect for this occasion spouting off without knowisng the facts or exactly what happened to allow this couple into the dinner. Again it should not have happened but re-read some of the above posts written by ex-agents who have experience with this type of problem and re-think your position until the facts come out. Remember one thing in protecting the President of the US for over 108 years, only one has been lost (that is enough) so the Secret Service must be doing something right. I totally agree with your statement regarding the federal government , in general, not taking responsibility for their actions, just don't paint every agency with the broad brush. A proud retired agent.

OK folks, I worked in the White House for several years and I'm prepared to give you a likely scenario for how this breach of security went down.

First, be aware that many, many White House staffers do not take security seriously. This is particularly true if the staffer is personally acquainted with the person who is wanting White House access.

Then, remember that the couple involved are publicity hounds who are attempting to get a spot on a reality TV show.

Next, be aware that at any given time, including during a State Dinner, there are hundreds of people in the White House Complex who are there for reasons totally unrelated to the "big event" of the day.

Now, suppose that this couple is acquainted with someone who has an office in the White House. With sufficient motivation that person could "invite" them to the person's office. The couple would then be granted access to the White House although they were not on the State Dinner guest list.

Once the staffer picks up the couple at the access gate it would be possible to wander around (while escorted) and perhaps end up at the State Dinner. Properly dressed and escorted by a staffer it is entirely conceivable that the couple could "wander" into the State Dinner reception room.

Don't scoff. This is a likely scenario.

It would also justify having the couple state they were "invited" to the White House. There goes the charge of lying to a federal officer.

An investigation should and will determine who at the White House facilitated the entry of this couple. Discipline should be quick and severe.

Likely Scenario - # 1.you are not the only one posting on here that worked at the White House. Many posters have, some far longer than two years. #2 Based on the information already made public, your scenario appears very unlikely. #3 For your scenario to be factual, the couple would have had to exit the White House and re-enter going through the various checkpoints as the known facts would indicate. Not a likely scenario.

Likely Scenario - # 1.you are not the only one posting on here that worked at the White House. Many posters have, some far longer than two years. #2 Based on the information already made public, your scenario appears very unlikely. #3 For your scenario to be factual, the couple would have had to exit the White House and re-enter going through the various checkpoints as the known facts would indicate. Not a likely scenario.

I said I worked there several years, not two years.

I don't think you got the drift of my post. I'll summarize.

A staffer violated the rules and got them in.

[quote="Not Likely":1q1i5yrn]Likely Scenario - # 1.you are not the only one posting on here that worked at the White House. Many posters have, some far longer than two years. #2 Based on the information already made public, your scenario appears very unlikely. #3 For your scenario to be factual, the couple would have had to exit the White House and re-enter going through the various checkpoints as the known facts would indicate. Not a likely scenario.

I said I worked there several years, not two years.

I don't think you got the drift of my post. I'll summarize.

A staffer violated the rules and got them in.[/quote:1q1i5yrn]

I got the "drift" of your post and I don't disagree that a white house staffer very well may have been involved in the caper knowingly or unknowly. I just disasgree with your scenario as to how the couple ultimately gained access. It makes no sense that if they were visiting a WH staffer (prior to the WH dinner); your scenario, that they would depart the WH and re-enter again for access to the dinner presumarily with the assisatnce (again) with a WH staffer. Why leave, if they were already inside? You are scorrect several is more than two (but few more) per Websters.

[worfusa2008]

There is a report circulating on the visual media that three "Guards" have been placed on administrative leave (with pay), pending completion of an investigation. I guess we'll see how that turns out. I hope there is not someone painting their names on the front bumper of a DC Metrobus somewhere. I remember seeing photos of Harry Truman having a sign on his desk that said, "The Buck Stops Here". It will be interesting to see if anyone in Management does the honorable thing and falls on his/her sword, at least AD-PO if not the Director.

[quote="Likely scenario":1223zlvi][quote="Not Likely":1223zlvi]Likely Scenario - # 1.you are not the only one posting on here that worked at the White House. Many posters have, some far longer than two years. #2 Based on the information already made public, your scenario appears very unlikely. #3 For your scenario to be factual, the couple would have had to exit the White House and re-enter going through the various checkpoints as the known facts would indicate. Not a likely scenario.

I said I worked there several years, not two years.

I don't think you got the drift of my post. I'll summarize.

A staffer violated the rules and got them in.[/quote:1223zlvi]

I got the "drift" of your post and I don't disagree that a white house staffer very well may have been involved in the caper knowingly or unknowly. I just disasgree with your scenario as to how the couple ultimately gained access. It makes no sense that if they were visiting a WH staffer (prior to the WH dinner); your scenario, that they would depart the WH and re-enter again for access to the dinner presumarily with the assisatnce (again) with a WH staffer. Why leave, if they were already inside? You are scorrect several is more than two (but few more) per Websters.[/quote:1223zlvi]

Your inattention is showing:

1. You appropriated my screen name for your last post.

2. In my original post I did not indicate that the couple entered, left, and re-entered the White House.

I referred to the White House Complex as a single entity. The premise is that once they gained access to the White House Complex through the artifice of having an appointment with a staffer (one, incidentally, who was attending the State Dinner) it would be relatively easy to move from one area of the complex to another WITH THE STAFFER and go unchallenged since they were with the staffer and appropriately dressed for the State Dinner. There was no reference in the scenario to them leaving after the appointment.

3. I never said this was HOW it happened; it was merely a likely scenario. And since Desiree Rogers refuses to testify before the Congressional Homeland Security Committee about the incident it is a reasonable inference that she has some complicity in the security failure. I'm puzzled about your objection to this as a possible scenario. Perhaps you would propose one of your own.

Sorry, I misappropriated your name. I am aware that your scenario does not have the couple leaving the WH after visiting a WH staffer, but the facts reveal that they entered the WH for the state dinner through an outside entrance, thus they must have departed the WH after your alledged visit with the WH staffer prior to crashing the state dinner. That is the facts given to the public as we now know them to be. Now maybe you know something that no one else is privy to, if so, let us know. As I stated it would make no sense to depart the WH once inside to visit a WH staffer, to go outside and have to go thru various checkpoints to again gain entrance.

I don't know why you are so hung up on this issue. Everyone who visits the White House Complex enters through an outside gate.

Let's say that the State Dinner guests entered through the East Exec checkpoint, which is the main magnetometer site. when the couple was delayed there for not being on the list, suppose that a staffer who has an office in the East Wing comes out and tells the UD Officers that they are there to see her and she takes them on in, ostensibly to her office.

From there on it's easy sailing to meander on up to the reception area for the State Dinner --- in the company and under the escort of a staffer who is also dressed for the dinner because she is attending it.

The point of this scenario is that a staffer defeated the security measures. If the truth is ever told, it will be some variation of the above.

IF....................

:roll:

I don't know why you are so hung up on this issue. Everyone who visits the White House Complex enters through an outside gate.

Let's say that the State Dinner guests entered through the East Exec checkpoint, which is the main magnetometer site. when the couple was delayed there for not being on the list, suppose that a staffer who has an office in the East Wing comes out and tells the UD Officers that they are there to see her and she takes them on in, ostensibly to her office.

From there on it's easy sailing to meander on up to the reception area for the State Dinner --- in the company and under the escort of a staffer who is also dressed for the dinner because she is attending it.

The point of this scenario is that a staffer defeated the security measures. If the truth is ever told, it will be some variation of the above.

IF....................

:roll:

For the second time, I will state that I too beleive that some WH staffer was involved in assisting the two to gain access to the state dinner. But the facts just don't fit your scenario. #1 Visitors to a WH staffer's office would not be dressed to the nines like guests to a state dinner. #2 If your scenario is correct then the USSS director threw the three UD officers under the bus at the congressional hearing unless he is lying. Any former agents that have worked in the WH know that WH staffers are often involved in assisting univited persons into the WH. The part of your "likely scenario I don't agree with is that the two crashers entered the WH under the pretense of visiting a WH staffer and not to attend the WH state dinner.The known facts just don't support that theory. You have your scenario and others have theirs.

For the second time, I will state that I too beleive that some WH staffer was involved in assisting the two to gain access to the state dinner. But the facts just don't fit your scenario. #1 Visitors to a WH staffer's office would not be dressed to the nines like guests to a state dinner. #2 If your scenario is correct then the USSS director threw the three UD officers under the bus at the congressional hearing unless he is lying. Any former agents that have worked in the WH know that WH staffers are often involved in assisting univited persons into the WH. The part of your "likely scenario I don't agree with is that the two crashers entered the WH under the pretense of visiting a WH staffer and not to attend the WH state dinner.The known facts just don't support that that. You have your scenario and others have theirs.

" #2 If your scenario is correct then the USSS director threw the three UD officers under the bus at the congressional hearing unless he is lying."

OF COURSE!

My scenario was just for speculation. I still don't understand your intense objections. Am still waiting for your scenario.

...........................

We are all spectulating. My objections are not intense. It is simply my belief that your "likely scenario" simply does not fit the facts as we know them to be. If the facts change, as we presently know them, perhaps your "likely scenario" will no longer be speculation. Don't for one minute think that the USSS Director is not capable of throwing the three UD officers under the bus to protect his position.

Don't for one minute think that the USSS Director is not capable of throwing the three UD officers under the bus to protect his position.

Yep, that's what I said in my last post.
8)

[quote="Unlikely Scenario":1edwgyib] Don't for one minute think that the USSS Director is not capable of throwing the three UD officers under the bus to protect his position.

Yep, that's what I said in my last post
8)[/quote:1edwgyib]

At least we agree on something.

[Silverstar]

I worked many state dinners and other large social events at the WH while assigned to PPD some years ago and on several later occasions when accompanying foreign heads of state or after having been selected for a temporary assignment back to PPD. I cannot conceive of a scenario where UD personnel would admit anyone without all screening procedures being completed and without the specific authorization by a member of the staff. Although I am now retired and no longer residing in the DC area, I have frequent contact with more than one source that have reported that the officers made several phone calls, to whom it is not known, prior to admitting the Salahis. I was also unable to determine if the Salahis were escorted from the security checkpoint to the function and by whom.

Two things of some concern to me is that the Service admitted responsibility and suspended the two officers one or two days prior to the interview of the Salahis and the fact that the administration refused to allow the appropriate staff member to testify before congress - can you imagine the uproar if a republican administration did the same thing?

At this point, it is apparent that the press in not interested in pursuing the truth and it is therefore unlikely that we will ever know exactly what happened. Sorry for the bad news but I've seen it all before. There is always the chance that someone in the know will post a truthful account on this forum.