President Donald J. Trump—Part ll

[jhu72]

CNN reported earlier today that the Secret Service has said they delegated responsibility for securing that rooftop to local law enforcement. Didn’t say precisely which local law enforcement agency.

Regardless, one would think the Secret Service agent in charge would take a look to see whether that roof had been secured before Trump was allowed up on the podium. When he saw it wasn’t, he should not have allowed Trump on the stage.

Yeah, I know, I have zero training and experience in law-enforcement, but that’s what I think about the situation.

That should not be very difficult to verify. The security plan would have gone into great detail what responsibility of each law enforcement agency was. Someone certainly in the leadership level of secret service would have had to approve it and sign off on it.

... someone from Trump's campaign would have to signoff as well, the SS is not putting their neck on the line without the client. They should never have picked that site. That was Trump's team's fault. I would guess the SS warned against the site when they saw it.

Secret service gets antsy at any open air venue. It complicates the security protocols. At the end of the day providing security is their mission in life. Trying to pass the blame onto trumps team is nonsensical.

... I forgot King Trump is infallible, and he should get what he wants no matter the reality -- he can always blame his mistakes on someone else. The SS didn't pick that site, whoever did made a mistake. The SS protocol was clearly not able to handle that open of a site. They clearly didn't have the manpower necessary. That was clearly Joe Biden's fault, because he schedules the SS.

The secret service had ample time to come up with a security plan. If they needed more people all they needed to do was request them. All of these hearings that will soon take place should be able to identify the security shortcomings. The secret service may be uncomfortable with the task at hand. They sure as hell are never going to tell higher ups they are incapable of handling the security assignment handed to them. Failure is not an option has evolved into whiny people griping that they can't do their job.

....

Trump campaign were told / warned. This will come out in the hearings. The SS won't take the fall by themselves for the site, and their higher ups will support them if the Trump campaign was warned and signed off, ie., if the SS followed process.

PS -- the SS is massively understaffed. Has been for years.

My son applied for a position with the secret service. The deal breaker for him was having no choice where you would be assigned to. They are massively understaffed because the training is very intense and the washout rate is high. Dedicating more funding will get you more candidates. If you don't have the right stuff to begin with your not going to make. It does not matter where the location is or what party is having the event. The secret service is tasked to provide security and make it happen. Whatever the security plan was it was arranged and organized by the secret service. No way in hell the secret service will ever admit they are incapable of doing the job they are assigned to so. They may not like the assignment but there job is to make it happen.

They normally perform this mission flawlessly. This past Saturday they dropped the ball for reasons that will soon be looked into with a fine tooth comb. There are many tough questions that will be asked and the higher ups at the secret service had better have answers ready.

cradle,
The SS has limited resources and is tasked with many events, with varying levels of resources applied to such. They do not have the manpower themselves to control all situations, especially if a candidate wishes to relax elements of the security for the purposes of the campaign. Which is more typical than not. So, they coordinate with local and state police to augment what they can and provide expertise that a local police force may not have for such.

Clearly there were security lapses in this event. Surely the SS will be implicated to some extent in those lapses, at least in managing the overall execution, but there are very likely other players involved, both local policing and the campaign.

Let's let this play out before rushing to any conclusions other than there was indeed a lapse.

I'm 100% for letting the investigation and the investigators come to their own conclusions. What I disagree with vehemently is the suggestion that the secret service is too woefully understaffed to do the job they are tasked to do. When needed there are plenty of highly qualified federal law enforcement agencies that can augment the secret service when and if needed. There is the FBI, The US Marshall service, The Federal Air Marshall service and a variety of law enforcement agencies that train extensively for high profile security assignments.

When my son was a FAM he was once attached to the secret service for a security detail in DC that involved added security at Reagan International. If the secret service felt they needed additional high level security officers all they had to do was ask. If their request was denied then you document and take note of who shot your request down. One thing I guarantee you will not hear at any congressional investigation will be the director of the secret service admitting they didn't have the personnel to do their job.

There was an expression I heard a 1000 times when I was in the army... The maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters. I'm sure that holds true for the secret service. I have no doubt they are understaffed. That doesn't change the fact they have to adapt and overcome and successfully complete the mission assigned to them. To coin another cliche...failure is not an option.

... Frank Figliuzzi, explained SS manpower levels within 24 hours of the event. They are highly understaffed according to him. They are using the auxiliary organizations available to them and they are still understaffed! This event happened when a lot of staff was in downtown Milwaukee, drawing down even more staff than usual. No rah rah slogans are going to change the facts.

[MDlaxfan76]

I wonder what the explanation is for not getting him off the stage as soon as the call went out about a possible shooter...did the immediate detail know but not act?

It was reported that the escape vehicle was not yet in place. The protocol was to make a human bunker until verified that shooter(s) were neutralized & escape vehicle in place.

"not yet in place"?

Ok, then the question is why not?...and what's the protocol when a shooter is spotted but has not yet pulled the trigger and not neutralized? Surely it isn't to blithely go along with a speech, right? You at least pull him from the stage, surround him with the "human bunker" until you have confirmation of safety...right? All fine, return to speech...

So, why did that not even begin to happen if they had minutes between spotting the shooting threat and the actual shots?

These seem to me to be fair questions, no conclusions.

Apparently they park it away from the stage & have to back it up to a loading spot just off the stairway -- the spot where they loaded it.

Apparently the protocol is to stay down, maintain the human bunker, until the command center verifies that the shooter is down & clears them to get up, move to the escape vehicle & drive away.

Obviously, the agents protecting Trump were not notified that there was a shooter until after the first shots were fired.

Did the command center determine that there was a possible shooter before the first shots were fired, or were they just looking for a suspicious person ?

They allowed him to be out of the human bunker protection protocol not once but twice for his fist pumps and fight expressions likely before a confirmation that they were no other shooters

Did you listen to the audio with the video ? Trump did not get up on his own. The SS decided when to get him up & move him to the vehicle. You could hear the "shooter down" call before they stood him up & began moving.

But that doesn't mean there isn't a second shooter, right? Not that I have an issue with them moving him at that point.

I'm not so sure why you think it's obvious that the detail didn't know about the threat before the shots. If not, why not, if others knew?

If the protective detail had any reason to believe there was a shooter present, they would have immediately provided cover.

If others knew there was a shooter, it obviously was not communicated to the protective detail before shots were fired, or they would have acted sooner..

yes, that's one scenario...but not the only one.

Seems to me that a guy with a gun crabbing across a rooftop is a threat, if not already a "shooter".

...maybe none of the police saw him in time to communicate it to the command center in time to verify it & then alert the protective detail.

It's possible that the report from the crowd, was not related to the police, in time to report it to the command center to inform the counter-sniper team on overwatch to check that roof, or maybe the overwatch could not yet see the shooter behind the peak of the roof.

There needed to be continual overwatch on all roofs & elevated potential firing positions within range of the target.

Right, but that means that an imminent threat, a man with a long gun on a roof 150 yards away, known for more than two minutes, was not relayed to the protective detail...they were unconnected to whatever chatter existed about the threat? We understand that a police officer went up toward the threat but backed off when saw gunman...surely at that moment, the threat should have been 'verified'...

Could a command center really not have informed the protective detail that a threat was being investigated?

You're not telling us anything we don't already know. 86 sec is not a long time when multiple radio calls have to be made & verification has to take place. The investigation will lay out what happened & identify the breakdown(s). Let the investigators do their job before second guessing with partial information. You'll find a way to blame Trump.

Nah, the only way Trump would have any 'blame' would be if he asked for the protocol to be to absolutely verify a threat before taking any protective action that his fans could see that would make him 'look weak'. At least at this point, I can't see any other way Trump could have any fault in this.

I'm merely asking questions at this point that seem to me need answers. 86 seconds is a lifetime if there's knowledge of a potential shooter on a rooftop. Get off the podium, immediately, certainly seems to me to be key to the necessary protocol.

I agree that there are likely multiple "breakdowns" in security.

Have you ever played the telephone game ?
Multi-party comms, on separate radio freqs &/or nets is a lot like that.
It's a major cause of friendly fire incidents.

Sure...but "shooter threat" should be more than enough to move to safety. It's not as if there hadn't been prior notice that a guy looked fishy, rangefinder, etc. If the protective detail didn't have a clue, then that's a major failure in communication given the amount of time that seems to have elapsed. By the time a cop is going up a ladder, Trump should have been getting moved off-stage...or earlier. The candidate might not like that, but that should be the protocol.

Heck, we're now learning that there's been intel on an Iranian threat, which the Campaign certainly should have known about, so heightened caution certainly seems reasonable. So, any plausible threat notice, get off stage until the "verification" is no threat...not "verify the threat".

Is it a shooter threat before a gun is visible ? Range finders look like binoculars. Was it seen by a police officer or civilian ?

How do you know the campaign did not know about the Iranian threat ? Pompeo's been talking about it for weeks.

I said, or certainly intended to say, that the Campaign very likely knew of the Iranian threat, so all the more reason to be just fine with getting off the stage if a whiff of a threat. If threat is then "verified" as all clear, then go back on stage...the crowd will wait...

Reportedly, range finder was seen by police. Gun and crabbing "bear walking" seen by civilian for sure, well before shooting, being pointed out by civilian to police...

As I don't know the exact tick tock, I'm just asking how that sense of threat isn't setting off alarm bells at the level of the close-in protective detail. Maybe they had no idea...a failure to tell them...maybe there was a protocol problem and they did know of a threat, but needed "verification"...interesting questions at the very least.

[youthathletics]

Reportedly, range finder was seen by police. Gun and crabbing "bear walking" seen by civilian for sure, well before shooting, being pointed out by civilian to police..

I have not seen, or maybe I missed it, footage indicating he had a gun by civilians. Seeing the shooter definitely. Are you certain?

[MDlaxfan76]

Reportedly, range finder was seen by police. Gun and crabbing "bear walking" seen by civilian for sure, well before shooting, being pointed out by civilian to police..

I have not seen, or maybe I missed it, footage indicating he had a gun by civilians. Seeing the shooter definitely. Are you certain?

I'm not certain of anything, nor should any of us be.

But yeah, pretty sure I saw reporting that a civilian or civilians in the crowd had spotted the gunman "bear walking" with a gun on the roof. Pointed it out to officials frantically.

But that could well be fog of war reporting.

Listen to this one..

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4v7v2g5l1o

He was seen from multiple angles, multiple people.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6x4ayoI ... BiNWFlZA==

[cradleandshoot]

Reportedly, range finder was seen by police. Gun and crabbing "bear walking" seen by civilian for sure, well before shooting, being pointed out by civilian to police..

I have not seen, or maybe I missed it, footage indicating he had a gun by civilians. Seeing the shooter definitely. Are you certain?

I'm not certain of anything, nor should any of us be.

But yeah, pretty sure I saw reporting that a civilian or civilians in the crowd had spotted the gunman "bear walking" with a gun on the roof. Pointed it out to officials frantically.

But that could well be fog of war reporting.

Listen to this one..

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4v7v2g5l1o

He was seen from multiple angles, multiple people.

This is Monday morning quarterbacking I know but... the officer who backed down the ladder when the shooter pointed his rifle at him could have fired some shots in the air. I believe that would have directed the attention of the snipers on the roof towards the shots where they would have finally noticed the shooter. To quote the warden in Cool Hand Luke...what we have here is a failure to communicate.

[Kismet]

Reportedly, range finder was seen by police. Gun and crabbing "bear walking" seen by civilian for sure, well before shooting, being pointed out by civilian to police..

I have not seen, or maybe I missed it, footage indicating he had a gun by civilians. Seeing the shooter definitely. Are you certain?

I'm not certain of anything, nor should any of us be.

But yeah, pretty sure I saw reporting that a civilian or civilians in the crowd had spotted the gunman "bear walking" with a gun on the roof. Pointed it out to officials frantically.

But that could well be fog of war reporting.

Listen to this one..

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4v7v2g5l1o

He was seen from multiple angles, multiple people.

This is Monday morning quarterbacking I know but... the officer who backed down the ladder when the shooter pointed his rifle at him could have fired some shots in the air. I believe that would have directed the attention of the snipers on the roof towards the shots where they would have finally noticed the shooter. To quote the warden in Cool Hand Luke...what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Don't believe that officer was on a ladder - reports mentioned that his hand were occupied pulling himself onto the roof and as such he did not have access to a weapon - which is why he dropped out of sight after the shooting pointed the rifle at him

The strange thing is that the local police sniper teams was located inside that same building. This video summary is informative

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politi ... tempt.html

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

. The strange thing is that the local police sniper teams was located inside that same building. This video summary is informative

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politi ... tempt.html

That is indeed excellent, and seems to explain why the counter sniper who popped his head up, looked down, jerked his tripod and appeared to point his rifle down was not the one who killed the Crooks.

The NY Times article below, updated a short while ago, starts to piece together motive. Three takeaways from my standpoint are 1) Likely depression/mental health issues present. 2) The "he was a Republican / he was one of yours" take loses momentum and ideological horsepower and 3) there were early warning signs.

If you don't have access:

Glenn Thrush and Luke Broadwater reported from Washington.

Published July 17, 2024
Updated July 18, 2024, 7:01 a.m. ET

F.B.I. officials told members of Congress on Wednesday that the gunman who tried to kill former President Donald J. Trump used his cellphone and other devices to search for images of Mr. Trump and President Biden, along with an array of public figures.

The 20-year-old gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks of Bethel Park, Pa., also looked up dates of Mr. Trump’s appearances and the Democratic National Convention, according to people on two conference calls held to answer lawmakers’ questions.

And, at least once, his browsing history signaled concerns about his own mental state. He also seems to have previewed his attack on Steam, a gaming platform he frequented, telling fellow gamers he planned to make his “premiere” on July 13, the day of the shooting.

The disclosures, made during private briefings to lawmakers by the F.B.I. and the head of the embattled Secret Service, offered the most complete portrait so far of a would-be assassin with no criminal history, or even clearly discernible political beliefs, who came close to killing Mr. Trump. Still, no clear motive for the attack has emerged.

The official assessment aligned with recollections of people who knew him. Several former classmates have said they never heard the gunman express any particular political ideology. But Vincent Taormina, a former classmate who said he attended middle school and high school with the gunman, said in an interview that Mr. Crooks showed a general disdain for politicians in both parties.

He recalled one instance when the two were in seventh grade. During a classroom political debate, Mr. Taormina voiced his support for Mr. Trump. Mr. Crooks seemed incredulous.

“He says, ‘Aren’t you Hispanic? And you like Trump?’” Mr. Taormina said. “He said, ‘That’s a little stupid.’”

Mr. Taormina brushed off the encounter, and had few other interactions with Mr. Crooks. But he disputed other classmates’ accounts that the gunman had been bullied or had been a loner, saying that he was intelligent and had his own small group of friends.

“I did not know him personally or as a friend, but he was not bullied, he was not a recluse,” Mr. Taormina said.

The F.B.I. has been scouring Mr. Crooks’s possessions since the shooting on Saturday — including two phones and at least one laptop — for clues about his motive. So far, they have found no indication that Mr. Crooks, who was a registered Republican, had strong partisan political views one way or another, bureau officials told lawmakers.

Nor have they uncovered any evidence of co-conspirators or connections to foreign actors, two top bureau officials said during the tense calls in which members of the House and Senate demanded answers about a nearly catastrophic failure to safeguard Mr. Trump.

The officials told lawmakers that there was some indication that the gunman, who led a quiet life and worked at a nursing home near his house, might have been struggling with depression.

Officials singled out some of the searches on one of his cellphones, saying that he had looked up “major depressive disorder,” according to a person on the calls and another briefed on its contents.

Mr. Crooks seems to have been on good terms with his parents, who are both counselors, but they were not closely involved in the day-to-day details of his life, officials said.

Over the last several months, the gunman received multiple packages, including several that were marked “hazardous material,” according to a federal law enforcement memo obtained by The New York Times. Federal officials reviewed his shipping history after they discovered three explosive devices connected to him, the memo said. One device was found in his home, and two others were found in his car parked near the rally.

Investigators discovered two improvised explosive devices in the would-be assassin’s car that used a radio-controlled initiation system intended for commercial fireworks demonstrations.

While the briefing on Wednesday filled in some blanks, it left many questions unanswered. Federal law enforcement officials are puzzled and exasperated by the lack of evidence on the gunman’s two phones, one found by his body on the roof of a warehouse outside the security perimeter of the rally, the other discovered during a search of his house.

F.B.I. officials, speaking on the calls, suggested that his search history indicated he was broadly interested in powerful and famous people, without any obvious ideological or partisan pattern.

Among the other prominent figures the gunman searched for using one of his phones, besides Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, were the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray; Attorney General Merrick B. Garland; and a member of the British royal family, according to two officials with knowledge of the situation, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter publicly.

Mr. Wray, who was also on the calls, went out of his way to caution that the investigation was still in its early stages.

But the absence of “any political or ideological information” at the house Mr. Crooks shared with his mother and father was “notable” because most people who carry out acts of political violence tend to leave a discernible trail of political views, a top bureau official told lawmakers.

Kimberly A. Cheatle, the director of the Secret Service, admitted that her agency made serious “mistakes” during one of the calls, and provided new information about Mr. Crooks’s movements during the shooting. She is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee on Monday.

During the briefing with senators, officials ran through a timeline of events, noting that law enforcement officers had identified the gunman as suspicious about an hour before the shooting but then lost track of him, according to two people familiar with the contents of the briefing.

About 20 minutes before the shooting, a sniper spotted him again, the people said.

Some senators left their call angry with the Secret Service after learning that officers did not intervene before he opened fire.

“He had a rangefinder and a backpack. The Secret Service lost sight of him. No one has taken responsibility,” Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, said in a statement, adding, “The head of the Secret Service needs to go.”

Senator Rick Scott, Republican of Florida, called on federal law enforcement agencies to publicly release the same details shared with lawmakers.

“The Biden administration has got to start being open with Americans about what happened, who is being held accountable and how we make sure it never happens again,” he said.

[cradleandshoot]

Reportedly, range finder was seen by police. Gun and crabbing "bear walking" seen by civilian for sure, well before shooting, being pointed out by civilian to police..

I have not seen, or maybe I missed it, footage indicating he had a gun by civilians. Seeing the shooter definitely. Are you certain?

I'm not certain of anything, nor should any of us be.

But yeah, pretty sure I saw reporting that a civilian or civilians in the crowd had spotted the gunman "bear walking" with a gun on the roof. Pointed it out to officials frantically.

But that could well be fog of war reporting.

Listen to this one..

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4v7v2g5l1o

He was seen from multiple angles, multiple people.

This is Monday morning quarterbacking I know but... the officer who backed down the ladder when the shooter pointed his rifle at him could have fired some shots in the air. I believe that would have directed the attention of the snipers on the roof towards the shots where they would have finally noticed the shooter. To quote the warden in Cool Hand Luke...what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Don't believe that officer was on a ladder - reports mentioned that his hand were occupied pulling himself onto the roof and as such he did not have access to a weapon - which is why he dropped out of sight after the shooting pointed the rifle at him

The strange thing is that the local police sniper teams was located inside that same building. This video summary is informative

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politi ... tempt.html

My point was the officer clearly saw a threat on the roof with a rifle. Sending a signal and getting someones attention was imperative at that moment. I don't know what SOP should have been in that scenario. Three shots fired in the air would have gotten somebody's attention.

[Kismet]

Reportedly, range finder was seen by police. Gun and crabbing "bear walking" seen by civilian for sure, well before shooting, being pointed out by civilian to police..

I have not seen, or maybe I missed it, footage indicating he had a gun by civilians. Seeing the shooter definitely. Are you certain?

I'm not certain of anything, nor should any of us be.

But yeah, pretty sure I saw reporting that a civilian or civilians in the crowd had spotted the gunman "bear walking" with a gun on the roof. Pointed it out to officials frantically.

But that could well be fog of war reporting.

Listen to this one..

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4v7v2g5l1o

He was seen from multiple angles, multiple people.

This is Monday morning quarterbacking I know but... the officer who backed down the ladder when the shooter pointed his rifle at him could have fired some shots in the air. I believe that would have directed the attention of the snipers on the roof towards the shots where they would have finally noticed the shooter. To quote the warden in Cool Hand Luke...what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Don't believe that officer was on a ladder - reports mentioned that his hand were occupied pulling himself onto the roof and as such he did not have access to a weapon - which is why he dropped out of sight after the shooting pointed the rifle at him

The strange thing is that the local police sniper teams was located inside that same building. This video summary is informative

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politi ... tempt.html

My point was the officer clearly saw a threat on the roof with a rifle. Sending a signal and getting someones attention was imperative at that moment. I don't know what SOP should have been in that scenario. Three shots fired in the air would have gotten somebody's attention.

Agreed. And there was a local police sniper unit inside the same building where the shooter was on the roof.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

My point was the officer clearly saw a threat on the roof with a rifle. Sending a signal and getting someones attention was imperative at that moment. I don't know what SOP should have been in that scenario. Three shots fired in the air would have gotten somebody's attention.

100% with you on this. The tactical vests worn by law enforcement should have some sort of mini air compressed or digital sound maker that can create a loud/shrill "something's wrong / get the protectee preventatively down!" warning. My daughter has a key ring thing where she pulls a loop, and the device starts emitting bursts of shrill "attention getting sound". $9 on Amazon.

Surprising there isn't some sort of protocol in place at the Secret Service Protection Detail level.

[old salt]

Latest report is that the local sniper team was in a different building in the came complex with the building the sniper used.

That sniper team was a pickup team made up of members from several different jurisdictions for this event.

[Kismet]

Latest report is that the local sniper team was in a different building in the came complex with the building the sniper used.

That sniper team was a pickup team made up of members from several different jurisdictions for this event.

OK - still in the same complex/area - why weren't they alerted/deployed to deal with a potential threat to one of their own officers?
Encourage folks to view the comprehensive NYT video

[tech37]

My point was the officer clearly saw a threat on the roof with a rifle. Sending a signal and getting someones attention was imperative at that moment. I don't know what SOP should have been in that scenario. Three shots fired in the air would have gotten somebody's attention.

100% with you on this. The tactical vests worn by law enforcement should have some sort of mini air compressed or digital sound maker that can create a loud/shrill "something's wrong / get the protectee preventatively down!" warning. My daughter has a key ring thing where she pulls a loop, and the device starts emitting bursts of shrill "attention getting sound". $9 on Amazon.

Surprising there isn't some sort of protocol in place at the Secret Service Protection Detail level.

It was also reported that the (local) officer hanging from the roof (he was apparently boosted up to the 8ft ledge by another officer) got hurt when he fell after shooter's gun was trained on him.

Perhaps attention to his injury used up critical seconds, even if one of the officers would have thought to fire a signal?

My question: where the F was the alleged ladder the shooter used? Why didn't the officers just use the ladder?

Nothing adding up.

[cradleandshoot]

My point was the officer clearly saw a threat on the roof with a rifle. Sending a signal and getting someones attention was imperative at that moment. I don't know what SOP should have been in that scenario. Three shots fired in the air would have gotten somebody's attention.

100% with you on this. The tactical vests worn by law enforcement should have some sort of mini air compressed or digital sound maker that can create a loud/shrill "something's wrong / get the protectee preventatively down!" warning. My daughter has a key ring thing where she pulls a loop, and the device starts emitting bursts of shrill "attention getting sound". $9 on Amazon.

Surprising there isn't some sort of protocol in place at the Secret Service Protection Detail level.

I couldn't agree more. This entire debacle will be investigated with a fine tooth comb. I don't see how the director of the secret service keeps her job. She is suppose to be in the hot seat next week. She will face alot of very tough questions from both sides. I doubt she will have any answers that will satisfy anyone.

[cradleandshoot]

My point was the officer clearly saw a threat on the roof with a rifle. Sending a signal and getting someones attention was imperative at that moment. I don't know what SOP should have been in that scenario. Three shots fired in the air would have gotten somebody's attention.

100% with you on this. The tactical vests worn by law enforcement should have some sort of mini air compressed or digital sound maker that can create a loud/shrill "something's wrong / get the protectee preventatively down!" warning. My daughter has a key ring thing where she pulls a loop, and the device starts emitting bursts of shrill "attention getting sound". $9 on Amazon.

Surprising there isn't some sort of protocol in place at the Secret Service Protection Detail level.

It was also reported that the (local) officer hanging from the roof (he was apparently boosted up to the 8ft ledge by another officer) got hurt when he fell after shooter's gun was trained on him.

Perhaps attention to his injury used up critical seconds, even if one of the officers would have thought to fire a signal?

My question: where the F was the alleged ladder the shooter used? Why didn't the officers just use the ladder?

Nothing adding up.

It is sadly devolving into a keystone cops slapstick routine. IMO complacency has crept into how security at these high profile events have been handled. The people in charge of security forget what happens when things turn to chit..

[cradleandshoot]

This was mentioned by one of the security experts on TV a few days ago...why no drones? That seems to me a very reasonable question. The technology is there for the using, why wasn't it used. As each day passes by there are more legitimate questions raised than there are answers for.

[runrussellrun]

CNN reported earlier today that the Secret Service has said they delegated responsibility for securing that rooftop to local law enforcement. Didn’t say precisely which local law enforcement agency.

Regardless, one would think the Secret Service agent in charge would take a look to see whether that roof had been secured before Trump was allowed up on the podium. When he saw it wasn’t, he should not have allowed Trump on the stage.

Yeah, I know, I have zero training and experience in law-enforcement, but that’s what I think about the situation.

That should not be very difficult to verify. The security plan would have gone into great detail what responsibility of each law enforcement agency was. Someone certainly in the leadership level of secret service would have had to approve it and sign off on it.

... someone from Trump's campaign would have to signoff as well, the SS is not putting their neck on the line without the client. They should never have picked that site. That was Trump's team's fault. I would guess the SS warned against the site when they saw it.

Secret service gets antsy at any open air venue. It complicates the security protocols. At the end of the day providing security is their mission in life. Trying to pass the blame onto trumps team is nonsensical.

... I forgot King Trump is infallible, and he should get what he wants no matter the reality -- he can always blame his mistakes on someone else. The SS didn't pick that site, whoever did made a mistake. The SS protocol was clearly not able to handle that open of a site. They clearly didn't have the manpower necessary. That was clearly Joe Biden's fault, because he schedules the SS.

The secret service had ample time to come up with a security plan. If they needed more people all they needed to do was request them. All of these hearings that will soon take place should be able to identify the security shortcomings. The secret service may be uncomfortable with the task at hand. They sure as hell are never going to tell higher ups they are incapable of handling the security assignment handed to them. Failure is not an option has evolved into whiny people griping that they can't do their job.

....

Trump campaign were told / warned. This will come out in the hearings. The SS won't take the fall by themselves for the site, and their higher ups will support them if the Trump campaign was warned and signed off, ie., if the SS followed process.

PS -- the SS is massively understaffed. Has been for years.

My son applied for a position with the secret service. The deal breaker for him was having no choice where you would be assigned to. They are massively understaffed because the training is very intense and the washout rate is high. Dedicating more funding will get you more candidates. If you don't have the right stuff to begin with your not going to make. It does not matter where the location is or what party is having the event. The secret service is tasked to provide security and make it happen. Whatever the security plan was it was arranged and organized by the secret service. No way in hell the secret service will ever admit they are incapable of doing the job they are assigned to so. They may not like the assignment but there job is to make it happen.

They normally perform this mission flawlessly. This past Saturday they dropped the ball for reasons that will soon be looked into with a fine tooth comb. There are many tough questions that will be asked and the higher ups at the secret service had better have answers ready.

cradle,
The SS has limited resources and is tasked with many events, with varying levels of resources applied to such. They do not have the manpower themselves to control all situations, especially if a candidate wishes to relax elements of the security for the purposes of the campaign. Which is more typical than not. So, they coordinate with local and state police to augment what they can and provide expertise that a local police force may not have for such.

Clearly there were security lapses in this event. Surely the SS will be implicated to some extent in those lapses, at least in managing the overall execution, but there are very likely other players involved, both local policing and the campaign.

Let's let this play out before rushing to any conclusions other than there was indeed a lapse.

I'm 100% for letting the investigation and the investigators come to their own conclusions. What I disagree with vehemently is the suggestion that the secret service is too woefully understaffed to do the job they are tasked to do. When needed there are plenty of highly qualified federal law enforcement agencies that can augment the secret service when and if needed. There is the FBI, The US Marshall service, The Federal Air Marshall service and a variety of law enforcement agencies that train extensively for high profile security assignments.

When my son was a FAM he was once attached to the secret service for a security detail in DC that involved added security at Reagan International. If the secret service felt they needed additional high level security officers all they had to do was ask. If their request was denied then you document and take note of who shot your request down. One thing I guarantee you will not hear at any congressional investigation will be the director of the secret service admitting they didn't have the personnel to do their job.

There was an expression I heard a 1000 times when I was in the army... The maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters. I'm sure that holds true for the secret service. I have no doubt they are understaffed. That doesn't change the fact they have to adapt and overcome and successfully complete the mission assigned to them. To coin another cliche...failure is not an option.

... Frank Figliuzzi, explained SS manpower levels within 24 hours of the event. They are highly understaffed according to him. They are using the auxiliary organizations available to them and they are still understaffed! This event happened when a lot of staff was in downtown Milwaukee, drawing down even more staff than usual. No rah rah slogans are going to change the facts.

this is awesome…

how many publicized Secret Service are there for Trump?

40?

60?

300 SS over three shifts in the 24 hour period?

no clue in what the budget is but sucks will certainly look at the $4 trillion care act and see how much of it was appropriated for the Secret Service and then get back to you all

don't forget that so many intrusive laws were passed during the bush/Cheney administration

PREP act comes to mind

[runrussellrun]

glad sucks joe for oil donations, hiding in your plain sight dummy fundraiser for RFK Junior, to fund his security

Well, now that the Bush Cheney administrations, creative created department called "Homeland security" I guess this is a cabinet position now AnyWho this person suddenly offered up a presidential candidate some "protection"


RFK Junior, please say no, and we will gladly donate more money to joe for oil

y'all weren't wrong about the bush, Cheney administration, yet somehow you completely are forgetting how right you were

[cradleandshoot]

CNN reported earlier today that the Secret Service has said they delegated responsibility for securing that rooftop to local law enforcement. Didn’t say precisely which local law enforcement agency.

Regardless, one would think the Secret Service agent in charge would take a look to see whether that roof had been secured before Trump was allowed up on the podium. When he saw it wasn’t, he should not have allowed Trump on the stage.

Yeah, I know, I have zero training and experience in law-enforcement, but that’s what I think about the situation.

That should not be very difficult to verify. The security plan would have gone into great detail what responsibility of each law enforcement agency was. Someone certainly in the leadership level of secret service would have had to approve it and sign off on it.

... someone from Trump's campaign would have to signoff as well, the SS is not putting their neck on the line without the client. They should never have picked that site. That was Trump's team's fault. I would guess the SS warned against the site when they saw it.

Secret service gets antsy at any open air venue. It complicates the security protocols. At the end of the day providing security is their mission in life. Trying to pass the blame onto trumps team is nonsensical.

... I forgot King Trump is infallible, and he should get what he wants no matter the reality -- he can always blame his mistakes on someone else. The SS didn't pick that site, whoever did made a mistake. The SS protocol was clearly not able to handle that open of a site. They clearly didn't have the manpower necessary. That was clearly Joe Biden's fault, because he schedules the SS.

The secret service had ample time to come up with a security plan. If they needed more people all they needed to do was request them. All of these hearings that will soon take place should be able to identify the security shortcomings. The secret service may be uncomfortable with the task at hand. They sure as hell are never going to tell higher ups they are incapable of handling the security assignment handed to them. Failure is not an option has evolved into whiny people griping that they can't do their job.

....

Trump campaign were told / warned. This will come out in the hearings. The SS won't take the fall by themselves for the site, and their higher ups will support them if the Trump campaign was warned and signed off, ie., if the SS followed process.

PS -- the SS is massively understaffed. Has been for years.

My son applied for a position with the secret service. The deal breaker for him was having no choice where you would be assigned to. They are massively understaffed because the training is very intense and the washout rate is high. Dedicating more funding will get you more candidates. If you don't have the right stuff to begin with your not going to make. It does not matter where the location is or what party is having the event. The secret service is tasked to provide security and make it happen. Whatever the security plan was it was arranged and organized by the secret service. No way in hell the secret service will ever admit they are incapable of doing the job they are assigned to so. They may not like the assignment but there job is to make it happen.

They normally perform this mission flawlessly. This past Saturday they dropped the ball for reasons that will soon be looked into with a fine tooth comb. There are many tough questions that will be asked and the higher ups at the secret service had better have answers ready.

cradle,
The SS has limited resources and is tasked with many events, with varying levels of resources applied to such. They do not have the manpower themselves to control all situations, especially if a candidate wishes to relax elements of the security for the purposes of the campaign. Which is more typical than not. So, they coordinate with local and state police to augment what they can and provide expertise that a local police force may not have for such.

Clearly there were security lapses in this event. Surely the SS will be implicated to some extent in those lapses, at least in managing the overall execution, but there are very likely other players involved, both local policing and the campaign.

Let's let this play out before rushing to any conclusions other than there was indeed a lapse.

I'm 100% for letting the investigation and the investigators come to their own conclusions. What I disagree with vehemently is the suggestion that the secret service is too woefully understaffed to do the job they are tasked to do. When needed there are plenty of highly qualified federal law enforcement agencies that can augment the secret service when and if needed. There is the FBI, The US Marshall service, The Federal Air Marshall service and a variety of law enforcement agencies that train extensively for high profile security assignments.

When my son was a FAM he was once attached to the secret service for a security detail in DC that involved added security at Reagan International. If the secret service felt they needed additional high level security officers all they had to do was ask. If their request was denied then you document and take note of who shot your request down. One thing I guarantee you will not hear at any congressional investigation will be the director of the secret service admitting they didn't have the personnel to do their job.

There was an expression I heard a 1000 times when I was in the army... The maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters. I'm sure that holds true for the secret service. I have no doubt they are understaffed. That doesn't change the fact they have to adapt and overcome and successfully complete the mission assigned to them. To coin another cliche...failure is not an option.

... Frank Figliuzzi, explained SS manpower levels within 24 hours of the event. They are highly understaffed according to him. They are using the auxiliary organizations available to them and they are still understaffed! This event happened when a lot of staff was in downtown Milwaukee, drawing down even more staff than usual. No rah rah slogans are going to change the facts.

this is awesome…

how many publicized Secret Service are there for Trump?

40?

60?

300 SS over three shifts in the 24 hour period?

no clue in what the budget is but sucks will certainly look at the $4 trillion care act and see how much of it was appropriated for the Secret Service and then get back to you all

don't forget that so many intrusive laws were passed during the bush/Cheney administration

PREP act comes to mind

The government found money to hire 80 thousand new IRS agents. There must not have been any money left in the budget to dedicate to hiring more secret service. There are a few folks on this forum who have pointed out how woefully understaffed the secret service is. I wonder why the problem was ignored if it was common knowledge? IMO the situation was ignored long enough for it to come back and bite the secret service in the butt.