She was criticized for failing to prevent the assassination attempt on Trump.
Daaaannnnnng
I was watching some of the congressional hearing yesterday and was astounded by how little information she had to offer. A truly scary display of incompetence. I’m sure there’s details that can’t be shared for the sake of national security but she couldn’t (or chose not to) even answer basic “what color is the sky” questions. Rep. Biggs asked her what the security perimeter was and she responded with “we’re asking those questions”. Huh??
I don’t believe there to be a conspiracy but, having watched her testimony, I certainly would not argue with anyone who believes there to be one. I wouldn’t argue with someone who believes an individual or portion of the USSS intentionally acted in a manner that put lives at risk.
I don’t believe it to be a conspiracy either. Not after this.
https://www.vox.com/2014/9/30/6870841/white-house-crasher-omar-gonzalez-secret-service-explained
A bunch of Secret Service agents got fired over the course of those revelations, but that sort of incompetence and dereliction of duty is systemic.
And that was under Obama. No way it didn’t get even worse under Trump.
Good stuff. Thanks.
No one was fired after Kennedy or Reagan got shot.
No one was trying to be a world famous media congress critter, neither.
Denying the request for more security is the problem here, I think.
There are legitimate reasons for denying increased security. One of them is the Congressional favorite excuse for things not being done that should be, the budget. If there isn’t the budget for increased security, then a denial would be expected. A very vocal portion of Congress loves to talk about their about shrinking the budget all the damned time. One of the consequences of that is not having the budget to react to changing circumstances.
Maybe so, but she is still the one who took the heat for it. And the buck sort of stops with her here.
It does, because that’s what department heads do, they take the fall in situations like this. Even if the root cause wasn’t related to them. It’s an expectation of the position.
The response to those shootings was exactly by the book while the response in Trump’s case was sheer incompetence. You can’t control the shooter, but you can control the readiness and response and those were abysmal this time.
It seems like you’re saying two different things. Isn’t “by the book” almost the opposite of “sheer incompetence”?
I’m not sure if you saw my edit that tries to clarify this point. The two attacks mentioned had secret service handle things by the book and no one got fired. This time with the Trump attack, was the opposite. Sorry for any confusion.
Ah, yeah, that clears things up.
When Raskin got in on telling her how bad it was, I figured she was probably toast. Unlike the Trumpers, the Biden administration still has a sort of baseline political-creature level of accountability. If your job is running the organization tasked with keeping the most famous asshole in the world from getting shot, and the most famous asshole in the world subsequently gets shot, then unless it was some sort of full scale invasion or the Albert Einstein of snipers, you have to resign.
Turn it around, and his diaperness would be cracking jokes about how a little cut on the ear never hurt anybody and that the sniper must have been a loser, but only because he missed.
I know it’s an overgeneralization, but that does seem like the one job that needs a forced exit when a presidential candidate is shot on your watch…
Upvote because of OP’s name
