After watching this entire video, I can't help but be angry.
That idiot kept saying the legislation he presented says something that was demonstrated more than once does not say.
You can't reason with unreasonable people.
Whether or not he intended the bill to strip Trump of protection whether or not he is sentenced to prison, or to continue that removal of his protection detail after being released, is not the point. The point is what's in the text of the bill.
He stated over and over that any protectee who commits a felony doesn't DESERVE protection. That's his intent, clear as day. He wants to further punish Trump (or any protectee) who's convicted of a felony by removing their protection detail forever. Period. End of the bill.
Since no other president in US history has been so convicted, and it's unlikely any other will be in the realtively near future, this bill obviously only applies to Trump.
If it does apply to anyone else with a security detail, I'd have to see if they, too, would have been included. But, from memory, I can't remember anyone high enough in the government to receive routine security details being convicted of a felony. They get impeached or they resign, but i don't see them being convicted.
I guess since Trump was impeached with no actual crime charged in any court of law, he could have been convicted by the Senate and removed, but would that even constitute a felony? "High crimes and misdemeanors" seems to not be the same as a felony.