Trump's Security Issues: Media Conflation or Real Conflict?

In for Glenn Beck, John Cardillo spoke with former NYPD Chief of Intelligence Edmund Hartnett on Monday, covering implications about Donald Trump's private security force conflicting with the U.S. Secret Service.

Cardillo's guest seemed to think this was nothing more than the media doing what the media does best.

"Good security is done almost like the umpire in the baseball game. If it's done right, you don't even see the guy. You don't even hear from the guy," Hartnett said. "So, anything I see being blown up by media like Politico or Salon is ridiculous."

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below.

JOHN: As a former law enforcement guy, when people get stories about security wrong, it's a pet peeve. It irks me. And there's a story in Politico from Ken Vogel. Now, Ken Vogel, you remember this guy, he was the reporter in the WikiLeaks emails, who was sending his stories to the DNC for edit and approval.

So anything this guy writes, I take with a grain of salt. And the story is entitled, Trump private security force playing with fire. And the implication is that Donald Trump is disregarding the Secret Service and fielding his own security force, which is kind of ridiculous. But I wanted to bring somebody in to talk about this, who intimately understands the dynamic of the Secret Service's interaction with private security teams and local police. Very good friend of mine is joining me.

Edmund Hartnett. Ed was chief of intelligence. The NYPD's chief of intelligence on 9/11 went on to be the police commissioner of Yonkers, New York, and is now a global private security expert. He's an expert on terror and global security. Really my go-to guy. Commissioner, thanks for being here. Good morning.

EDMUND: Good morning, John. Merry Christmas to you and your family.

JOHN: Merry Christmas. Long overdue this call.

So there's this article, and basically the implication is that Donald Trump has this private security force that's getting in the way of the Secret Service. I read it differently. Maybe you and I have unique perspectives on this, some of these guys -- one is a retired NYPD guy who left the job in 1999. He's a Navy veteran. He -- I'm sorry -- worked for Trump since '99.

And these guys to me have really just become Donald Trump's aides and body men. They're not interfering with the Secret Service. The rallies I've been to, it seems, like a well choreographed, well oiled machine where they're all working very effectively together.

Now, when you were chief of intelligence -- I'm sure most listeners don't know, but the NYPD intelligence division, is the unit that liaises with the Secret Service, when the president or the first family is in New York City. So you have intimate experience dealing with the private security teams and the staffs of presidents of the United States.

Tell us a little bit about this. Am I downplaying this, or is this a genuine concern?

EDMUND: To me, John, it's not a genuine concern. Anything I've seen, anything I've heard from people I know in the business, in the public sector and the private sector side, describes Donald Trump's security team relationship with the Secret Service as seamless coordination.

The guy we always see on TV with the president-elect, Pete Shiller (phonetic), is the gentleman you referenced. He's retired NYPD. Retired Navy officer. Consummate professional. Everything I've seen and heard about him -- he does not get away. Good security is done. Almost like the umpire in the baseball game.

If it's done right, you don't even see the guy. You don't even hear from the guy. So anything I see being blown up by like Politico or by Salon.com, where they're referring to the president-elect's security team as this private mercenary army, I think, is one of the quotes, is ridiculous. They don't seem to refer to Jay-Z and Beyonce as having a private mercenary army, but they probably have just as much security as Donald Trump does.

JOHN: Maybe more. I mean, we saw that Ivanka Trump and her husband were harassed on a JetBlue flight. They didn't have a phalanx of security officers around them.

And in addition to now being a part of the first family, they're a wealthy couple who could certainly afford it.

If anything, it seems the Trump family was just trying to live a pretty normal life, before being elected. Look, he's a famous guy. And he lives opulently. But with the way the kids, his children and the grandchildren were trying to operate, it seems like they didn't have these armies of security around them, like you so accurately say, Ed. We see celebrities have, with their motorcades.

You know, I read a story. Chris Pine, the actor who is in the Star Wars movies. He plays Kirk. Jeff Bezos had a role on the set of the new film. And Chris Pine didn't know who he was. But he said, "Well, Jeff Bezos is the CEO of Amazon." But he said, "Well, I knew he was someone important when he showed up with like 25 SUVs and a security army." And he said, "You know, the heads of the studios didn't that have."

So you make a great point. So tell us a little bit -- because I know people are interested in this.

How -- for example, Donald Trump is going to be spending a lot of time in New York City. The president-elect is going to be there. It's his second home. His wife and young son are staying there. What's the NYPD's role going to be in all of this? How are they going to interact with the Secret Service and at the same time effectively police the rest of the city?

EDMUND: Again, having firsthand experience, John, nobody -- no place in the country is the relationship between Secret Service and the local police stronger than it is in New York City. Because of -- of the nature of the city and the United Nations being there and every dictator, king, president, ruler, prime minister comes to New York City, sometimes a few times a year -- so that -- that role -- that coordination between the Secret Service and the NYPD is outstanding. It's exemplary. It can't be matched anywhere else in the country.

So the NYPD will coordinate with the Secret Service for everything that involves the Trump family, if there are private security officers involved -- we've had it many times. Again, dignitaries, where they come with their people. It will be seamless.

When the president is sworn in, he will be the -- his security will be run by the Secret Service. They will liaise with his private security people. They'll tap into their knowledge and expertise because they'll need it.

But security for the president of the United States and his immediate family will be run and coordinated by the Secret Service in DC in New York City and wherever the president goes.

JOHN: I'm speaking with Edmund Hartnett, former chief of intelligence of the New York City Police Department and Yonkers police commissioner. Also, very good personal friend of mine. You're always my go-to guy on these issues. You're the most knowledgeable guy on this. And you stay very current.

Let's talk a little bit about the upcoming New Years holiday. Now, we've got the president-elect from New York City. Most of his family living in New York City. We've got New Year's Eve in New York City, arguably the largest gathering of people in the world every year.

Without disclosing operational security, I always want to have the listeners understand what goes into the security protocols. But at the same time, these are always careful segments for me. Because I never want to tell too much of how we do what we do. But insofar as you can tell through your experience, what is NYPD going to do to both protect the family of the president-elect and safeguard the city on New Years Eve, as they would if the president-elect's family didn't live in New York?

EDMUND: Well, first, the planning that goes into this stuff is incredible. It's mind-boggling. They don't just take out last year's folder, dust it off, and set the plan in place. These plans are made months ahead of time. These plans were made with contingencies with either Clinton winning or Mr. Trump winning. So planning those, like I said, is incredible. They'll also tap into anything that's going on in the world right now, no matter where it is. It could be areas of the country we're not familiar with. But there's something happening there. Some hot spot there and maybe there's some connection now to New York City, trust me, the NYPD and their federal partners will be all over it.

The planning that goes into a regular New Years Eve, if there is such a thing, Times Square detail, the -- the -- the back flips that people have to do to get into the pen alone, the screening that goes on overtly and covertly, is incredible. You can't rule out anything. You can't rule out some lone wolf trying to do something.

On the investigative side even, they're looking at various people that may or may not cause problems. And they want to know exactly where they are at any given moment. So, again, the planning that goes into it is incredible. I think people that want to go to New Years Eve should go and have a good time, be safe. But obviously, look around for anything suspicious. But I think it's going to be a great New Year's, as always. And I know I'm prejudiced. But nobody does it as well as the NYPD.

JOHN: No. I happen to agree. And we might get flamed for that. But I don't think it's because it's our alma mater. I think it's out of necessity, right? Out of necessity and sheer size. We've got New York City and all its landmarks. We've got the New York City stock exchange or the hub of banking and finance for the world. The exact targets that terrorists want to hit. They want to destroy capitalism. You're going to hit New York, you're going to hit London. And the NYPD, being the largest, being the most robust, well-funded agency out there. They really didn't have a choice, but to be thrust into the role they were.

And I think with Edmund Hartnett, former chief of intelligence of the NYPD -- and I've got a question for you that might be depressing this holiday season. But I've been talking a lot today about global security, terror, lone wolfs.

What's the situation that keeps you awake at night? You're now with the private firm, Brozlin Rist (phonetic), from -- by another good friend of ours. You guys have state-of-the-art intelligence on the private side. You've seen it up close and personal. You have the highest levels of security clearance. you know how this stuff works. What's the one thing that keeps you awake at night in terms of a terror threat in the United States as we sit here today, December 26th, 2016?

EDMUND: You know, we always talk about various things: Suicide bombers, explosive laden vehicles, and Mumbai-style mass shooting instances.

All of that stuff always concerns me. Kind of a subset of that to me is a group that cannot be cracked, that cannot be infiltrated. And I use an example -- and I hate them, but I use them as an example.

I have brothers in Boston, in the Boston Marathon bombing. You know it's your brother. You know your brother is not an informant. You know your bother's not been flipped. You know your brother is not an undercover FBI agent.

When you get a group like that, that just can't be infiltrated, to me, that's the one -- that's the thing that makes me most fearful, that you get two guys or three guys, family members that have grown up, that have maybe even done bad acts together -- if you've seen someone kill someone, say for example, five years earlier, you pretty much know that that guy is good. He's a good member of your team. He's not been turned. He's not been infiltrated. He's not an agent.

So you get that kind of hard-core group that just can't be cracked. That's what probably concerns me the most. And that kind of group can do a bomb attack. They can do a Mumbai-style attack. They can do the explosive laden vehicle or the truck driver thing like we've seen in Nice and in Berlin.

JOHN: So it really does come down to, for average Americans, if you see something, say something. If that family next door seems to be doing something nefarious, call 911.

I mean, really, American citizens are our best eyes and ears. Because those asymmetrical, low tech attacks that don't require chatter because their family members are friends. I agree with you. They scare me to death. And it really is up to American citizens to tip off law enforcement in the intelligence community, correct?

EDMUND: I think -- and I think hopefully we're seeing society getting away from that a bit. San Bernardino, which resulted in many people getting killed, I think people after that, they wish they had called.

If they had seen something suspicious with that married couple, and they wished they had called. But they didn't want to be branded as bigots. They didn't want to be branded as being prejudiced. I think we're slowly but surely having people come out of that dangerous political correctness that we've seen.

JOHN: You know, I hope you're right. I tend to agree with you, Ed, as I tend to. I hope you're right. You have a great new year, my friend. We're going to be speaking very, very soon. I'm going to have you on air with me often, in 2017. Have a great one.

EDMUND: You're doing a great job. Thanks, John.

JOHN: Thanks. And with Edmund Hartnett. And really is a world expert on this. Former chief of intelligence on 9/11. I'll let him tell his 9/11 story one day. It is absolutely -- absolutely captivating. Real American hero. Understated. Unsung American hero.

Featured Image: Scott Olson/Getty Images

From the moment the 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson arrived at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, he was on the radical side. That caused John Adams to like him immediately. Then the Congress stuck Jefferson and Adams together on the five-man committee to write a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain, and their mutual admiration society began.

Jefferson thought Adams should write the Declaration. But Adams protested, saying, “It can't come from me because I'm obnoxious and disliked." Adams reasoned that Jefferson was not obnoxious or disliked, therefore he should write it. Plus, he flattered Jefferson, by telling him he was a great writer. It was a master class in passing the buck.

So, over the next 17 days, Jefferson holed up in his room, applying his lawyer skills to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He borrowed freely from existing documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He later wrote that “he was not striving for originality of principle or sentiment." Instead, he hoped his words served as “an expression of the American mind."

It's safe to say he achieved his goal.

The five-man committee changed about 25 percent of Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration before submitting it to Congress. Then, Congress altered about one-fifth of that draft. But most of the final Declaration's words are Jefferson's, including the most famous passage — the Preamble — which Congress left intact. The result is nothing less than America's mission statement, the words that ultimately bind the nation together. And words that we desperately need to rediscover because of our boiling partisan rage.

The Declaration is brilliant in structure and purpose. It was designed for multiple audiences: the King of Great Britain, the colonists, and the world. And it was designed for multiple purposes: rallying the troops, gaining foreign allies, and announcing the creation of a new country.

The Declaration is structured in five sections: the Introduction, Preamble, the Body composed of two parts, and the Conclusion. It's basically the most genius breakup letter ever written.

In the Introduction, step 1 is the notificationI think we need to break up. And to be fair, I feel I owe you an explanation...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

The Continental Congress felt they were entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to “dissolve the political bands," but they needed to prove the legitimacy of their cause. They were defying the world's most powerful nation and needed to motivate foreign allies to join the effort. So, they set their struggle within the entire “Course of human events." They're saying, this is no petty political spat — this is a major event in world history.

Step 2 is declaring what you believe in, your standardsHere's what I'm looking for in a healthy relationship...

This is the most famous part of the Declaration; the part school children recite — the Preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's as much as many Americans know of the Declaration. But the Preamble is the DNA of our nation, and it really needs to be taken as a whole:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Preamble takes us through a logical progression: All men are created equal; God gives all humans certain inherent rights that cannot be denied; these include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to protect those rights, we have governments set up; but when a government fails to protect our inherent rights, people have the right to change or replace it.

Government is only there to protect the rights of mankind. They don't have any power unless we give it to them. That was an extraordinarily radical concept then and we're drifting away from it now.

The Preamble is the justification for revolution. But note how they don't mention Great Britain yet. And again, note how they frame it within a universal context. These are fundamental principles, not just squabbling between neighbors. These are the principles that make the Declaration just as relevant today. It's not just a dusty parchment that applied in 1776.

Step 3 is laying out your caseHere's why things didn't work out between us. It's not me, it's you...

This is Part 1 of the Body of the Declaration. It's the section where Jefferson gets to flex his lawyer muscles by listing 27 grievances against the British crown. This is the specific proof of their right to rebellion:

He has obstructed the administration of justice...

For imposing taxes on us without our consent...

For suspending our own legislatures...

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us...

Again, Congress presented these “causes which impel them to separation" in universal terms to appeal to an international audience. It's like they were saying, by joining our fight you'll be joining mankind's overall fight against tyranny.

Step 4 is demonstrating the actions you took I really tried to make this relationship work, and here's how...

This is Part 2 of the Body. It explains how the colonists attempted to plead their case directly to the British people, only to have the door slammed in their face:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury...

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice... We must, therefore... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

This basically wrapped up America's argument for independence — we haven't been treated justly, we tried to talk to you about it, but since you refuse to listen and things are only getting worse, we're done here.

Step 5 is stating your intent — So, I think it's best if we go our separate ways. And my decision is final...

This is the powerful Conclusion. If people know any part of the Declaration besides the Preamble, this is it:

...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...

They left no room for doubt. The relationship was over, and America was going to reboot, on its own, with all the rights of an independent nation.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The message was clear — this was no pitchfork mob. These were serious men who had carefully thought through the issues before taking action. They were putting everything on the line for this cause.

The Declaration of Independence is a landmark in the history of democracy because it was the first formal statement of a people announcing their right to choose their own government. That seems so obvious to us now, but in 1776 it was radical and unprecedented.

In 1825, Jefferson wrote that the purpose of the Declaration was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of… but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm… to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

You're not going to do better than the Declaration of Independence. Sure, it worked as a means of breaking away from Great Britain, but its genius is that its principles of equality, inherent rights, and self-government work for all time — as long as we actually know and pursue those principles.

On June 7, 1776, the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, better known today as Independence Hall. Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion calling for the colonies' independence. The “Lee Resolution" was short and sweet:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Intense debate followed, and the Congress voted 7 to 5 (with New York abstaining) to postpone a vote on Lee's Resolution. They called a recess for three weeks. In the meantime, the delegates felt they needed to explain what they were doing in writing. So, before the recess, they appointed a five-man committee to come up with a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain. They appointed two men from New England — Roger Sherman and John Adams; two from the middle colonies — Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin; and one Southerner — Thomas Jefferson. The responsibility for writing what would become the Declaration of Independence fell to Jefferson.

In the rotunda of the National Archives building in Washington, D.C., there are three original documents on permanent display: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These are the three pillars of the United States, yet America barely seems to know them anymore. We need to get reacquainted — quickly.

In a letter to his friend John Adams in 1816, Jefferson wrote: “I like the dreams of the future, better than the history of the past."

America used to be a forward-looking nation of dreamers. We still are in spots, but the national attitude that we hear broadcast loudest across media is not looking toward the future with optimism and hope. In late 2017, a national poll found 59% of Americans think we are currently at the “lowest point in our nation's history that they can remember."

America spends far too much time looking to the past for blame and excuse. And let's be honest, even the Right is often more concerned with “owning the left" than helping point anyone toward the practical principles of the Declaration of Independence. America has clearly lost touch with who we are as a nation. We have a national identity crisis.

The Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

It is urgent that we get reacquainted with the Declaration of Independence because postmodernism would have us believe that we've evolved beyond the America of our founding documents, and thus they're irrelevant to the present and the future. But the Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

Today, much of the nation is so addicted to partisan indignation that "day-to-day" indignation isn't enough to feed the addiction. So, we're reaching into America's past to help us get our fix. In 2016, Democrats in the Louisiana state legislature tabled a bill that would have required fourth through sixth graders to recite the opening lines of the Declaration. They didn't table it because they thought it would be too difficult or too patriotic. They tabled it because the requirement would include the phrase “all men are created equal" and the progressives in the Louisiana legislature didn't want the children to have to recite a lie. Representative Barbara Norton said, “One thing that I do know is, all men are not created equal. When I think back in 1776, July the fourth, African Americans were slaves. And for you to bring a bill to request that our children will recite the Declaration, I think it's a little bit unfair to us. To ask our children to recite something that's not the truth. And for you to ask those children to repeat the Declaration stating that all men's are free. I think that's unfair."

Remarkable — an elected representative saying it wouldn't be fair for students to have to recite the Declaration because “all men are not created equal." Another Louisiana Democrat explained that the government born out of the Declaration “was used against races of people." I guess they missed that part in school where they might have learned that the same government later made slavery illegal and amended the Constitution to guarantee all men equal protection under the law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were an admission of guilt by the nation regarding slavery, and an effort to right the wrongs.

Yet, the progressive logic goes something like this: many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, including Thomas Jefferson who wrote it, owned slaves; slavery is evil; therefore, the Declaration of Independence is not valid because it was created by evil slave owners.

It's a sad reality that the left has a very hard time appreciating the universal merits of the Declaration of Independence because they're so hung up on the long-dead issue of slavery. And just to be clear — because people love to take things out of context — of course slavery was horrible. Yes, it is a total stain on our history. But defending the Declaration of Independence is not an effort to excuse any aspect of slavery.

Okay then, people might say, how could the Founders approve the phrase “All men are created equal," when many of them owned slaves? How did they miss that?

They didn't miss it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in his first draft of the Declaration. The paragraph blasted King George for condoning slavery and preventing the American Colonies from passing legislation to ban slavery:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights to life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere... Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

We don't say “execrable" that much anymore. It means, utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent — basically very bad.

Jefferson was upset when Georgia and North Carolina threw up the biggest resistance to that paragraph. Ultimately, those two states twisted Congress' arm to delete the paragraph.

Still, how could a man calling the slave trade “execrable" be a slaveowner himself? No doubt about it, Jefferson was a flawed human being. He even had slaves from his estate in Virginia attending him while he was in Philadelphia, in the very apartment where he was writing the Declaration.

Many of the Southern Founders deeply believed in the principles of the Declaration yet couldn't bring themselves to upend the basis of their livelihood. By 1806, Virginia law made it more difficult for slave owners to free their slaves, especially if the owner had significant debts as Jefferson did.

At the same time, the Founders were not idiots. They understood the ramifications of signing on to the principles described so eloquently in the Declaration. They understood that logically, slavery would eventually have to be abolished in America because it was unjust, and the words they were committing to paper said as much. Remember, John Adams was on the committee of five that worked on the Declaration and he later said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free.

Also, the same generation that signed the Declaration started the process of abolition by banning the importation of slaves in 1807. Jefferson was President at the time and he urged Congress to pass the law.

America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough.

The Declaration took a major step toward crippling the institution of slavery. It made the argument for the first time about the fundamental rights of all humans which completely undermined slavery. Planting the seeds to end slavery is not nearly commendable enough for leftist critics, but you can't discount the fact that the seeds were planted. It's like they started an expiration clock for slavery by approving the Declaration. Everything that happened almost a century later to end slavery, and then a century after that with the Civil Rights movement, flowed from the principles voiced in the Declaration.

Ironically for a movement that calls itself progressive, it is obsessed with retrying and judging the past over and over. Progressives consider this a better use of time than actually putting past abuses in the rearview and striving not to be defined by ancestral failures.

It can be very constructive to look to the past, but not when it's used to flog each other in the present. Examining history is useful in providing a road map for the future. And America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough. But it's right there, the original, under glass. The ink is fading, but the words won't die — as long as we continue to discuss them.

'Good Morning Texas' gives exclusive preview of Mercury One museum

Screen shot from Good Morning Texas

Mercury One is holding a special exhibition over the 4th of July weekend, using hundreds of artifacts, documents and augmented reality experiences to showcase the history of slavery — including slavery today — and a path forward. Good Morning Texas reporter Paige McCoy Smith went through the exhibit for an exclusive preview with Mercury One's chief operating officer Michael Little on Tuesday.

Watch the video below to see the full preview.

Click here to purchase tickets to the museum (running from July 4 - 7).

Over the weekend, journalist Andy Ngo and several other apparent right-leaning people were brutally beaten by masked-gangs of Antifa protesters in Portland, Oregon. Short for "antifascist," Antifa claims to be fighting for social justice and tolerance — by forcibly and violently silencing anyone with opposing opinions. Ngo, who was kicked, punched, and sprayed with an unknown substance, is currently still in the hospital with a "brain bleed" as a result of the savage attack. Watch the video to get the details from Glenn.