The Attempted Assassination of President Donald J. Trump

Over the course of the last two days, I have watched a torrent of misleading social media posts on the attempted assassination of the 45th President Donald J. Trump. They are maligning the men and women of the United States Secret Service, and I feel compelled to address them.

As some of you are aware, I spent a number of years assigned to the NYPD’s Intelligence Division and part of my role was dignitary protection. In this capacity, I performed countless protection assignments, working hand in hand with the USSS, Capitol Police, and State Department Diplomatic Security. I was the principal architect of the NYPD protective security detail for both the planned visit of Saint Pope John Paul II at Shea Stadium and the actual visit at the Aqueduct Racetrack. I also did the security detail for President Bill Clinton’s visit to Shea Stadium for the Jackie Robinson Memorial. So I am extremely well versed in the planning and implementation of security details.

What happened in Butler, Pa. was an aberration and something I am still trying to wrap my head around. I do not have all the details, but what I will say is that there was clearly a breakdown. A full investigation of this incident needs to be conducted, preferably at the Congressional level and under oath, and swift action should be taken if warranted.

With this in mind, I will give you my thoughts, based on my experience, and what I would have done if this was my site.

To be successful, protection details involve the coordinated efforts of both the US Secret Service and members of state and local police agencies. The USSS simply does not have the manpower resources to provide 100% independent coverage, so they rely heavily on local law enforcement to augment their numbers. In NYC, the USSS was able to count on the men and women of the Intelligence Division which had decades of experience in protection assignments.

Since the building where the shooter was located was in the external perimeter, it was most likely allocated to be secured by local law enforcement by the advance team doing the security survey. Clearly, something happened, and that roof was left uncovered. The question of why this occurred is of paramount importance. Even though this rooftop was in the external perimeter, the fact that it was so close, and had a line of sight to the protectee, would make it a priority. If this had been my site, I would have had a post-stander assigned and would have personally ensured that they were in place before the protectee arrived for the event.

There are reports that civilians attempted to alert law enforcement to the threat prior to the shooting. I have seen nothing that counters this assertion, so I will take it as fact. If someone was notified and or assigned to this post, then we need to know why they failed to identify the threat and take action.

The next question that comes to mind is what the communication setup was. There can be a significant delay in relaying information if there is not a dedicated interagency communication hub. Was the information coming in from local authorities being properly relayed to their USSS counterparts? One personal story that comes to mind is the time we were transporting a dignitary via a secondary motorcade route. I was in the helicopter, doing a quick advance survey on the route, ahead of the motorcade, when we observed a bridge in the upright position on a maritime navigation route. The last thing you want is a protectee’s motorcade coming to a full stop. Fortunately, me and my USSS partner were able to alert the motorcade in time to slow it down, so that it never fully stopped, while a Highway Patrol car was able to get the bridge put down right before the motorcade arrived. It is an inconvenient truth, but despite the best planning, mistakes can and do happen and you have to respond accordingly.

I am also hearing widely disseminated reports that the Counter Sniper Teams (CST) in place were local law enforcement and I must take issue with this. The CST I saw in the news coverage is the USSS CST. A lot of time has passed since I did protection, but I cannot imagine a high-threat protective detail using the local law enforcement as the primary CST within the inner perimeter. I can only assume that this was a mistake in the rush to get information out. I back up this statement with the fact that the CST shown in media footage is wearing a USSS back patch on his BDUs.

What concerns me more regarding this is the lack of immediate action once the threat was recognized. The USSS CST is considered one of the best, for obvious reasons, and the distance between them and the shooter was ridiculously close. What I want to know is what the rules of engagement were? Was CST given the green light to take the shot, once the threat was identified, or were they advised to stand down? If they were told to stand down, what was the reasoning for this? Again, this is something that needs to be investigated fully.

I also want to address an issue that sickens me. Far too many people are disparaging the females assigned to the detail. The response from the protection detail was immediate and swift. In two seconds, they had secured President Trump, providing physical coverage and assessing his injuries. That Trump was not immediately evacuated has caused many to criticize the USSS, but this is unfair and speaks volumes about the lack of knowledge concerning protection. This is seconds after the shots have been fired, your protectee is hit, and you don’t know the extent of the injuries or if there are other threats. Do you exit stage left or stage right? The limo is a hardened location, but are you running into an ambush? These are the questions going through your mind and you need an answer from those ahead of you before you make things worse.

You had two CSTs providing over-watch, along with USSS Counter Assault and local tactical units providing close support. Additionally, there were other protective measures nearby that I will not mention for security reasons. The detail did what they were trained to do. Once it was made clear that there were no other threats, they evacuated. Each of them, including the female agent on the stage, willingly put themselves in the line of fire, using their bodies as cover for the protectee. If you have never done this, perhaps you should sit this one out on providing morning after commentary.

This also cannot be compared to the attempted assassination of President Reagan. In that incident, they were adjacent to the limo when the shooting occurred and therefore it was the only logical place to go.

Many are also attacking the one female agent for not being able to holster her weapon. In the aftermath of a shooting, when adrenaline is flowing freely and you are scanning for secondary threats, nitpicking on a topic like this is ridiculous. Making comments that disparage female agents says more about you than it does about them. I have over two decades in law enforcement and I can tell you that I have worked with females who were absolute beasts when it came to doing their jobs and ones I would gladly go into battle with. Yet I cannot say the same for some males I worked with. Remember the old adage: It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog.

In the end, mistakes and failures will be identified and presumably heads will roll. Congress needs to find out whether there was adequate coverage of the former president, considering the unprecedented threat level against him, and this starts with having both DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and USSS Director Kimberly Cheatle testify under oath. Until we have definitive answers, everything is just speculation, and I urge people to exercise caution until all the facts are known.

The level of vitriol, from politicians, pundits, celebrities, and social media personalities, and the repeated personal attacks against the former president, which have been going on since the day he first announced that he was running for President, reached their natural conclusion in this assassination attempt. As someone who had to deal with threats, I can tell you that this constant barrage of negativity serves as the foundation for warped minds to de-humanize a person and justify such actions. You can have a difference of opinion and you can hold different political views, but that is what we have a ballot box for. I am reminded of a scene in a British comedy show called ‘The Mitchell and Webb Look.’ During one particular scene, they portray two German SS officers and one asks the other: "Hans, are we the baddies?" Today, a lot of people, including the majority of the media, need to be asking themselves this same question.

In closing, I will say this: When you engage in 24/7 attacks, identifying your opponent as: ‘Hitler,’ a fascist, a threat to democracy, and other such inflammatory rhetoric, you are tacitly encouraging this sort of behavior. Anyone who has done this needs to have a ‘Come to Jesus' moment and take a long, hard look at yourself. If you are gleeful that there was an attempt, or saddened that the shooter missed, you need serious help. Corey Comperatore, an innocent husband and father, lost his life protecting his family, others were seriously wounded, and a former President of the United States was almost assassinated. Acceptance and encouragement of this type of action is the real threat to democracy, and it is time for everyone to wake up.

Interview with Sgt. Betsy Brantner Smith (National Police Association)

I had the absolute pleasure of being interviewed by retired sergeant, Betsy Brantner Smith, for the podcast she does for the National Police Association.

Some of you might be familiar with Betsy, as she has appeared on a number of news shows, including Newsmax, and Fox.

Despite some minor technical glitches (rural internet being what it is), we managed to have a great time. Betsy is an awesome interviewer and we touched on a number of topics, including my career with the NYPD, my transition to author, and the state of policing.

I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

Click on the photo below or the link provided at the botom.

or CLICK HERE: https://www.thefirsttv.com/watch/npa-report-andrew-g-nelson

Banned: 1984 Is Here

Breaking News: “Social media platform suspends Greek philosopher Aristotle for perpetuating the dangerous belief that the world is round, risking the lives of countless sailors.”

If you read that article today, you’d think it was from The Onion, yet the sad reality is that we are living through events future historians will judge harshly. As of yesterday, Twitter has suspended the President of the United States. Some may bemoan this while others cheer, but I see it as the start of a terrible precedent.

The reason I am writing this is that I am an author and I feel the need to take a stand against the insanity that seems to rage around us in the form of cancel culture and censorship. In a way, I feel that I am fortunate that I am on the back end of life, because those who are just starting out will have a bleak future if this madness continues.

I grew up reading in one form or another; comic books, magazines, and books littered my room. Okay, truth is they were all neatly arranged in chronological or alphabet order, but that is a topic for a different day. The point is, I read a lot. In fact, many of the books I read in school are now being banned. Classic reads such as To Kill a Mocking Bird, Of Mice and Men, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Catcher in the Rye, and Animal Farm. The latter I can appreciate, as it is a warning of the dystopian times we currently live in and we can’t risk people waking up to their own demise.

How long before The Great Gatsby, Catch-22, or 1984 make the list?

Oops, just checked and 1984 is banned. Life comes at you fast.

As an author, I am appalled at the growing calls for censorship, especially when it comes from those in my field.  At what point do we wake up and see the folly of our actions, or will we? When the mob gets done with the low hanging fruit, those things we seem to find easily objectionable, will they then pursue loftier goals? Will orders come from on high that quantify what we as authors can write? Will authors who write about a different gender, race, or creed be ostracized for having the audacity to write outside their lane?

Don’t think this will happen? Think again. I belong to several substantive industry groups, and this subject has already reared its ugly head on several occasions. Heated debate has risen on what some authors should and shouldn’t do. It seems farcical, but how long before it gains traction and becomes mainstream thinking?

My principal character in the James Maguire series is a man of Irish descent and a member of the NYPD. I should be safe with him, but what about Alex Taylor? Will I be banned from writing any future stories because she is a female and I don’t meet the gender threshold? How about Angelo Antonucci, since I’m not Italian? I guess I’m really screwed with my latest book, Awakening, which is a vampire saga.

The point is, censorship, in any form, is wrong.

Years ago, I read Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. I did so as a historian who wanted to understand the inner workings of the man who brought so much pain and death into the world. You can also add Otto Skorzeny, Reinhard Heydrich, Heinrich Himmler, and others. I’ve also read books on several American luminaries such as Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt. Complex men who may invoke equally complex feelings depending on what side of an issue you find yourself on, but isn’t that what a book should do? To make you think?

As an author, I feel it is my obligation to make you feel something when you read my books. I want to take you to a place that causes you to think. One of the greatest compliments I ever received was when a reader told me she had cried over a character. What’s that you say? You cry over characters all the time? That’s awesome, but did I forget to mention that this character was a terrorist?

Life is complicated and we do ourselves a terrible disservice when we try to sanitize it. Echo chambers are not healthy, nor do they stimulate thought and reason.

The actions being taken today, under the seemingly benign guise of tolerance and diversity, do not differ from what the aforementioned Hitler did. It’s ironic that those screaming ‘fascist’ the loudest are engaging in the same fascist actions they apparently abhor.

Mark Twain famously said, “It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open your mouth and remove all doubt.” I would argue that it is better to open one’s mouth, and let others judge you for the content of your argument, than it is to keep your mouth shut just to appease the intellectually stunted.

Sadly, many in my field disagree with that sentiment, and that should worry you.

We often take the literary genre of Satire for granted.  Historically, it has satisfied a need to debunk or ridicule those in politics, religion, and other figures of power. Some of you may have even read the book ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes,’ by Danish author Hans Christian Andersen, but did you know he wrote another book called ‘The Swineherd’? Both of the aforementioned books were satirical. The former pointed to the courtly pride and intellectual vanity of the king who’d been fooled by two weavers that gave him invisible clothes. Everyone went along with the charade, because he was the king, except for a young boy who could see he had no clothes. In the latter, a poor prince is rebuffed by a princess and takes a role as a commoner who provides the princess beautiful gifts in exchange for kisses. When her father the king finds out she is kissing a commoner, he throws her out. The prince then washes his face, puts on his royal attire, and spurns her. In both instances, the high and mighty receive their comeuppance, but there is more to the story.

After writing those satirical works, Anderson purportedly received a gift of a ruby and diamond ring from the Danish king.  After receiving the ring, he never wrote another satirical story. In fact, he went on to pen The Ugly Duckling, a transformative story that many consider to be analogous to Andersen himself. Some suggest the ring was a successful attempt to curb Andersen’s political satire and successfully bring him into the royal fold.

Is that what we are seeing today? I believe so.

Those in the creative arts, whether writers, actors, comedians, have always been at the vanguard of not only entertaining us, but making us uncomfortable at times.  Lately, this group seems to grow more angry and inclined to demand that you conform to their world views. If you do not, you subject yourself to cancel culture. This is a very scary place to be. If we can’t write what we are motivated to, what is the point?

Consider what happened to literary titan, J. K. Rowling, last summer. Ms. Rowling tweeted something which was deemed to be anti ‘LGBT’ and the cancel culture mob immediately descended on her. Interestingly enough, two of the people leading the charge were Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson, the two actors who achieved incredible success playing characters from Ms. Rowling’s books. Let me say at the outset that I am not a fan of Ms. Rowling, and I have found myself in disagreement with her positions in the past, however I respect her work as an author. I feel no need to cheer for her opponents and no desire to cancel her for her opinions. It’s called being an adult. If I find something to be distasteful to me, or something that goes against my beliefs, I simply do not support it, but I certainly don’t go out to the village square and demand that everyone else conform to my positions or else. Yet that is what we are currently seeing in our society.

I am merely an entertainer; my opinions and positions are no greater, nor any less, than yours.

Yes, my books contain positions and topics that often coincide with my own, but they also contain elements that go against some of my beliefs.  I push myself as often as I hope I push you. I will never write what is safe. For me to do that, I would simply have three blank chapters in every book: The Beginning, Things Happened, The End; and you would be left to fill in what you preferred to read. Not exactly an edge-of-your-seat thriller.

Maybe it’s time that we all just go back to being examples of courtesy and respect, instead of being harbingers of our own demise.

GLASS CASTLE - Pre-Order

The release date for the latest James Maguire NYPD novel: GLASS CASTLE, is officially set for Friday, August 23rd,  2019.

The pre-order option is now available on my Amazon webpage.

If you haven’t had the chance to catch up on the series you still have plenty of time. All my books are available over at Amazon.

GLASS CASTLE picks up nearly a year after Knight Fall (and roughly 6 months since Brooklyn Bounce, for those reading my books in order). Maguire has grudgingly accepted his new role as NYPD Police Commissioner, but soon finds himself questioning his decision when he is thrust into the middle of an investigation that threatens the very underpinnings of the city. As the case heats up, Maguire soon finds himself wondering who he can trust and reaching out to his past for help, but will that help come at a price?

If you are looking to sink your teeth into a great police procedural series, and would like to find out the order in which to read them, you can find the chronological listing HERE.

I want to thank all of you who have been so patient with this process; I know that it took a long time and I hope that you will enjoy the latest continuation of the Maguire series.

Please remember to sign-up for my FREE monthly Newsletter to stay up to date on the latest information.

GLASS CASTLE - Cover Reveal

GLASS CASTLE

When a young woman is found dead in her Midtown Manhattan apartment, all signs point to a tragic suicide, but the detectives of the NYPD have grown accustomed to the fact that things are rarely what they appear to be. The trail of clues leads them into a world of sex, lies and politics.

James Maguire has grudgingly accepted his new role as NYPD Police Commissioner, but soon finds himself questioning his decision when he is thrust into the middle of an investigation that threatens the very underpinnings of the city. While Maguire treads carefully through the political minefield, his fiancée, Melody Anderson, is facing her own dilemma; a job offer from Eliza Cook, the woman that many believe will be the next President of the United States.

As the investigation heats up, Maguire soon finds himself wondering who he can trust and reaching out to his past for help, but will that help come at too high of a personal price?

Please remember to sign-up for my FREE monthly Newsletter to stay up to date on the latest information.