These Hill reporters ask why Trump wasn’t protected by a bulletproof shield. Apparently the shield is only provided for incumbent presidents, not for other candidates.
The rule must have been different in previous decades. In 1968, as part of a stupid hippie group, I attended a George Wallace speech in Toledo. I was impressed by the bulletproof shield, which I’d never seen before.
Wallace was even more of a pariah than Trump, so the SS would have deprotected him if they had the choice. When Wallace ran again in ’72, Deepstate succeeded in shooting him. Did the rule change between ’68 and ’72? I halfway recall that Wallace wasn’t a fully official candidate in ’72. He was on the ballot everywhere in ’68 and won several of the sane states. I think he was less formalized in ’72, which might have been the difference.
Footnote for fairness: My 2016 remembrance of the Wallace speech was right about Wallace vs my hippie group, but turned out to be wildly wrong about Trump. At that time I still wanted to believe his rhetoric. After the election he IMMEDIATELY converged to standard Deepstate, enriching the rich and ruining the poor. Then in 2020 he helped Deepstate to commit the most evil crime in history.
Polistra's Mill 