[cherry]

I agree....have not been happy with the SS for a couple of decades now...

they are to protect the prez or the candidates....

they are not there to change history by protecting the image of the candidate...

[Gaffer]

Dignified perseverance in their pursuit of near-sacred duties is NOT full license to protect nor condone corruption and deceit. Had these people actually took their chartered duties, this would not be happening.

[Pollster1]

they are not there to change history by protecting the image of the candidate...

My understanding is they had to agree to cover for sleaze to stop the protectees from dodging their security teams. That almost makes sense, in terms of not talking about Bill Clinton's dalliances. It's entirely different when it comes to hiding events that occur in public at a time when there is no real security threat to be covered.