PA - Assassination attempt, shooting injures former POTUS Donald Trump, leaves 1 spectator deceased two in critical condition, 13 July 2024 #3

[Betty P]

I am familiar with internal investigations, and I respectfully disagree that she should be forthcoming on these details at this point. She's under oath before a congressional committee. If she gets anything wrong or allows herself to open lines of inquiry into questions that have not been completely investigated, she gives the politicos another stick to beat her with. If there is any disciplinary action to be taken against SS staff, the employees involved have a right to due process. If anything she says suggests she has reached conclusions prematurely, she screws up the discipline process. She has these and other reasons to be circumspect in these hearings.

All the committee members know this, and they also know most of the public has no clue. They are using her as a political punching bag, to show the public they share our fears and concerns and impatience. They are playing us, in the most cynical way, by suggesting that it's a realistic expectation that the answers we seek should be available today, when they know that is not a realistic expectation.

All MOO, and with great respect for the very real concerns we all have about the safety and security of our public officials.

Excellent explanation of the situation. Thanks!

 

[Simply Southern]

She isn't going to be impeached.

That's makes me very sad and disappointed in our leaders. To allow and condone incompetency, without consequences, goes against the core of our nature.
Moo...

 

[layer]

That is what ss was created for, counterfeiting.

To Live And Die In LA, fun movie showing SS in both roles.
I am astounded to learn that they still have no idea how he got onto the roof.

 

[Ruminations]

It's productive because there's a bipartisan movement to get KC fired ASAP.
This is where Biden comes in, sooooo ?

I can't say that I see a bipartisan movement to get KC fired ASAP. Certainly, I don't support firing anyone ASAP. Especially someone who can help us determine what went right and wrong.

I do see some people using this situation to try to to ask the most retweetable profanity-laced questions. But they are fringe representatives.

For the most part, I see a bipartisan effort to get the facts and take reasonable, productive action. Maybe I have rose colored glasses? But that's what should be happening IMO, and mostly it is what is happening.

If anyone needs to be fired, it should be done productively. The point is not to satisfy an angry mob (to whom some fringe, curse mouthed representatives seem to be talking). The point is to build a better SS, because a better SS is essential to a democratic nation. A mob mentality is appropriate for a different non-democratic kind of government, like Russia's. We don't have that here.

MOO

 

[Chimera]

It's productive because there's a bipartisan movement to get KC fired ASAP.
This is where Biden comes in, sooooo ?

Bbm.
Agreed.
However, it's doubtful.
She won't be fired, or forced to resign; imo.
That might make it look like she was hired as a favor ... and not for quality or merit ?
Omo.

Secret Service director says Trump assassination attempt was biggest agency 'failure' in decades

Cheatle acknowledges the agency was told about a suspicious person “between two and five times” before the assassination attempt of the former president.

www.10tv.com

"...Yet, Cheatle gave no indication she intends to resign even as she said she takes “full responsibility” for any security lapses at the Pennsylvania rally. Cheatle vowed to “move heaven and earth” to ensure that nothing like it ever happens again.

Cheatle acknowledged that Crooks had been seen by local law enforcement before the shooting with a rangefinder, a small device resembling binoculars that hunters use to measure distance from a target.
She said the Secret Service would have paused the rally if agents had been told there was an “actual threat," but she said there's a difference between someone identified as suspicious and someone identified as a true threat..."
Red bolding mine.

First bolded : "Moving heaven and earth..."; does not mean deflecting answers or refusing to answer.
The congressmen and women are right to press Ms. Cheatle for answers; as the head of the secret service "the buck really does stop" with her, as she put it :

ABC Exclusive: Trump rally shooting 'unacceptable,' Secret Service director says

In her first network interview since the assassination attempt on Trump, Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle said the Pennsylvania rally shooting was "unacceptable."

abcnews.go.com

Moreover, this assassination attempt could happen to them or anyone the SS is protecting if they don't make some changes or fix what is broken in their organization.

Second bolded : How is an "actual threat" any less dangerous than a "true threat" ?
This makes little sense and sounds like a word salad or a deflection.
An armed man crawling on a roof and getting himself into firing position is not an actual threat ?
If the secret service see someone who is not LE and was not supposed to be on that roof-- then you have an 'actual threat' and a 'real threat' all at once.
Imo.
Omo.

 

[Betty P]

She takes accountability by making sure a thorough investigation is conducted before any actions are taken, including her own decision to resign. She takes accountability by assuring the actions takes will have integrity to the facts, whether they are politically satisfying or not.

Moreover, it is entirely possible that the report will highlight the failure of Congress adequately to fund the agency, and that the resulting resource constraints played a big role in this particular failure. Cheatie is not inclined to give them the easy political out: "She's the problem. We forced her resignation. Another problem solved quickly and cheaply by your heroic congressman." I say, good for her.

IMO, she's getting the bum's rush from a cynical congress. I am disappointed but not surprised that members of the public are playing into it.

MOO.

It will be interesting to see if budget cuts played a role. Cutting funds and "doing more with less" has consequences. Sometimes it's harmful to the public.

 

[fred&edna]

I am familiar with internal investigations, and I respectfully disagree that she should be forthcoming on these details at this point. She's under oath before a congressional committee. If she gets anything wrong or allows herself to open lines of inquiry into questions that have not been completely investigated, she gives the politicos another stick to beat her with. If there is any disciplinary action to be taken against SS staff, the employees involved have a right to due process. If anything she says suggests she has reached conclusions prematurely, she screws up the discipline process. She has these and other reasons to be circumspect in these hearings.

All the committee members know this, and they also know most of the public has no clue. They are using her as a political punching bag, to show the public they share our fears and concerns and impatience. They are playing us, in the most cynical way, by suggesting that it's a realistic expectation that the answers we seek should be available today, when they know that is not a realistic expectation.

All MOO, and with great respect for the very real concerns we all have about the safety and security of our public officials.

I understand what you're explaining. However, it would be reassurance to anyone listening that specific due process/es ARE actually taking place. The obvious place to begin would be those overseeing the strategic planning of coverage for this event, and if I recall the only information we have about that came from news agency blurbs. I'd feel better if she had said this (the planning) is OUR initial focus, then we are looking at x,y, z... and so forth. She didn't have to publicly divulge the names of specific individuals working at the US SS. LOGICAL answers would have been better than evasion of questions. jmo

ETA: It seems there were already enough sticks provided in this disastrous failure. What's she got left to protect??

 

[layer]

It will be interesting to see if budget cuts played a role.

Seems like money is not the problem in any way.

 

[Betty P]

I understand what you're explaining. However, it would be reassurance to anyone listening that specific due process/es ARE actually taking place. The obvious place to begin would be those overseeing the strategic planning of coverage for this event, and if I recall the only information we have about that came from news agency blurbs. I'd feel better if she had said this (the planning) is OUR initial focus, then we are looking at x,y, z... and so forth. She didn't have to publicly divulge the names of specific individuals working at the US SS. LOGICAL answers would have been better than evasion of questions. jmo

ETA: It seems there were already enough sticks provided in this disastrous failure. What's she got left to protect??

If I understand Waxahachie, she's obligated to protect the rights to due process of the SS employees and others who worked on this event.

 

[Betty P]

Seems like money is not the problem in any way.

We'll see. That's one member's interpretation.

 

[fred&edna]

If I understand Waxahachie, she's obligated to protect the rights to due process of the SS employees and others who worked on this event.

That's the point... we have NO reassurance she did (or will continue) following her obligations after this major failure of her employees and others who worked on this event.

jmo

 

[layer]

We'll see. That's one member's interpretation.

Did any members suggest budget cuts were to blame?

 

[shotgun09]

If I understand Waxahachie, she's obligated to protect the rights to due process of the SS employees and others who worked on this event.

At whose expense though?

 

[Ruminations]

Seems like money is not the problem in any way.

The questioner put into her question the statement that the budget has increased, and "clearly" budget was not the issue, so what was?

But, she didn't ask. She just stated in her own question that budget is not the issue and asked what the problem was on July 13 since, to the questioner, it was "clearly" not budget. We see lawyers do this in court with testimonial questions.

So, we can't use that clip as information about budget. At best, that clip gives one interviewer's opinion that budget is not the issue, thus she explicitly wants a non-budget answer to her question.

She basically asked, "We know it's not money, so what went wrong?"

MOO

 

[Betty P]

At whose expense though?

At no one's expense.

Her obligation is to not discuss details of the event until the investigation is complete. Answering questions about the event that aren't yet established as fact can be harmful to the people working that day, especially if the final results of the investigation show something different.

Who is going to be harmed by conducting a complete investigation?

 

[RANCH]

I can't say that I see a bipartisan movement to get KC fired ASAP. Certainly, I don't support firing anyone ASAP. Especially someone who can help us determine what went right and wrong.

SBM

Director Cheatle repeatedly said the FBI is conducting the investigation and that she couldn't answer many of the questions given to her because their investigation is not complete. She even refused to answer questions where she had been given the information from the FBI like the number of shell casing recovered.

It appears that to me she is not helping in the investigation at all. Instead she seems to feel it's the job of the FBI.

She's totally incompetent and needs to resign or be fired.

JMO.

 

[Ruminations]

At whose expense though?

At nobody's expense! We all benefit from a careful, thorough investigation.

It's rushing to judgement that causes errors.

MOO

 

[layer]

Anyone else remember where they were when Kennedy was shot? Boy, I do. And I remember reading Rush To Judgement when it came out. If you think the JFK assassination was a conspiracy lover's dream just wait ten years to see where this thing is.
I mean a drone? A ladder? The countersniper waited a full 5 seconds after the assassin quit firing? An agency head that can't confirm or deny that she is a brunette? A bomb in his car? A bicycle? A second bomb near a gas line? Foreign encoded accounts? Sanitized social media presence? A range finder? And that watertower lurking over everything.
Trust me, this is conspiracy gold.

 

[rockthecasbah]

An agency head that can't confirm or deny that she is a brunette?

A second bomb near a gas line?.

Can you explain these two? I hadn't heard them before

 

[shotgun09]

At nobody's expense! We all benefit from a careful, thorough investigation.

It's rushing to judgement that causes errors.

MOO

The Comperatore family would definitely disagree with you there. IMO