Incompetence or intent?

[gatomontes99]

We are being led to believe that the USSS made a series of mistakes that led to DJT being shot once and nearly shot a second time. Here are some of the mistakes they made:

Quote

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/07/30/acting_secret_service_chief_played_key_role_in_limiting_resources_for_trump_151352.html

Acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe was directly involved in denying additional security resources and personnel, including counter snipers, to former President Trump’s rallies and events – despite repeated requests by the agents assigned to Trump’s detail in the two years leading up to his July 13 attempted assassination, according to several sources familiar with the decision-making.

Quote

https://www.fox4news.com/news/secret-service-press-conference-trump-assassination-attempt

Secret Service declined offer for drone surveillance at Trump rally

Quote

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/acting-secret-service-chief-retaliated-against-agents-who-had-security-concerns-at-trump-event-whistleblower-claims/ar-BB1r5rB8

Acting Secret Service Chief ‘Retaliated Against’ Agents Who Had Security Concerns At Trump Event, Whistleblower Claims

Quote

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/25/politics/trump-shooting-butler-senate-report-secret-service/

Iran threat wasn’t conveyed

Information about that threat was not relayed to senior officials in the Pittsburgh field office or other Secret Service personnel on the ground who subsequently told the committee it was something they “absolutely” should have been made aware of prior to the event so they could request additional resources that may have helped prevent the shooting from taking place.

Quote

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/25/politics/trump-shooting-butler-senate-report-secret-service/

 The lead USSS advance agent told the committee she was not aware of any discussions to request counter surveillance teams for Trump, stating, “It’s not a typical asset for an advance for a former president that I had worked at that time.”

Meanwhile, the first lady regularly receives counter surveillance teams, including at her event on July 13.

Security around a protectee is typically layered to prevent attack from close range, long range, air or ground. When assets are not present that help mitigate those types of threats, that creates a whole in the protection.

Trump has some of the highest threat levels. Iran and the left are trying to kill him and have actively threatened assasination. Trump should have had the entire threat mitigation package.

Ron Rowe denied drones, counter surveillance, and counter snipers while threatening agents that questioned that judgement. He knew that those denials created wholes in the security plan. He knew the threats that were associated with those wholes.

Ron Rowe has served in the USSS for far to long to not know the consequences of his actions. This isn't ignorance. This is intent.

If you get drunk, drive and kill someone in an accident, your actions are assumed to be intentional. You put all the factors in play that caused the accident.

Ron Rowe put all the factors in play that caused Trump to get shot and Corey to be killed. Ron Rowe should be removed from his position, immediately.

[User]

43 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

If you get drunk, drive and kill someone in an accident, your actions are assumed to be intentional. You put all the factors in play that caused the accident.

Um... no. 

Drunk driving is an awful, preventable tragedy that the drunk driver is 100% at fault for... but that doesn't mean someone got drunk and drove home intending to kill a family in a minivan. 

 

[Nationalist]

46 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

We are being led to believe that the USSS made a series of mistakes that led to DJT being shot once and nearly shot a second time. Here are some of the mistakes they made:

Security around a protectee is typically layered to prevent attack from close range, long range, air or ground. When assets are not present that help mitigate those types of threats, that creates a whole in the protection.

Trump has some of the highest threat levels. Iran and the left are trying to kill him and have actively threatened assasination. Trump should have had the entire threat mitigation package.

Ron Rowe denied drones, counter surveillance, and counter snipers while threatening agents that questioned that judgement. He knew that those denials created wholes in the security plan. He knew the threats that were associated with those wholes.

Ron Rowe has served in the USSS for far to long to not know the consequences of his actions. This isn't ignorance. This is intent.

If you get drunk, drive and kill someone in an accident, your actions are assumed to be intentional. You put all the factors in play that caused the accident.

Ron Rowe put all the factors in play that caused Trump to get shot and Corey to be killed. Ron Rowe should be removed from his position, immediately.

If it's not Ronny...it'll be some other limp noodle. 

[gatomontes99]

12 minutes ago, User said:

Um... no. 

Drunk driving is an awful, preventable tragedy that the drunk driver is 100% at fault for... but that doesn't mean someone got drunk and drove home intending to kill a family in a minivan. 

 

No. If you create conditions that caused the problem with the knowledge that it will cause the problem, you had intent.

[User]

14 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

No. If you create conditions that caused the problem with the knowledge that it will cause the problem, you had intent.

No, that is nowhere near the meaning of intent at all. If this is the kind of bad argument you are making, then you also agree Trump intended for January 6th to happen. 

 

 

[gatomontes99]

3 minutes ago, User said:

No, that is nowhere near the meaning of intent at all. If this is the kind of bad argument you are making, then you also agree Trump intended for January 6th to happen. 

 

 

You would have to actually show DJT did something incompetent to create the conditions.

The drunk driver was incompetent in drinking and driving. Ron Rowe was incompetent in denying all thise services. Trump was not incompetent in talking about election results.

Saying Trump caused J6, if we stick to the driving example, is like saying the guy that got rear ended caused the accident. Trump did not do anything that would knowingly cause just like someone stopped in traffic didn't cause a rear end collision. We all drive, daily, in traffic and we don't cause or even expect an accident. Politicians talk about election results, fight for x,  and all kinds of inflammatory things to create action (aka voting). Trump making statements didn't cause J6.

[robosmith]

8 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

You would have to actually show DJT did something incompetent to create the conditions.

The drunk driver was incompetent in drinking and driving. Ron Rowe was incompetent in denying all thise services. Trump was not incompetent in talking about election results.

Saying Trump caused J6, if we stick to the driving example, is like saying the guy that got rear ended caused the accident. Trump did not do anything that would knowingly cause just like someone stopped in traffic didn't cause a rear end collision. We all drive, daily, in traffic and we don't cause or even expect an accident. Politicians talk about election results, fight for x,  and all kinds of inflammatory things to create action (aka voting). Trump making statements didn't cause J6.

He CERTAINLY DID CAUSE IT. He PLANNED IT for over a month.

There is STRONG RECORD of that of which YOU ARE IGNORANT.

And PROMISING PARDONS PROVES they did EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTED.

Of course, he wants his goons back on the street to THREATEN HIS ENEMIES AGAIN. AKA you are a FOOL.

[User]

8 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

You would have to actually show DJT did something incompetent to create the conditions.

The drunk driver was incompetent in drinking and driving. Ron Rowe was incompetent in denying all thise services. Trump was not incompetent in talking about election results.

Saying Trump caused J6, if we stick to the driving example, is like saying the guy that got rear ended caused the accident. Trump did not do anything that would knowingly cause just like someone stopped in traffic didn't cause a rear end collision. We all drive, daily, in traffic and we don't cause or even expect an accident. Politicians talk about election results, fight for x,  and all kinds of inflammatory things to create action (aka voting). Trump making statements didn't cause J6.

"knowingly cause"

The SS did not "knowingly" cause any of this either. Incompetence is incompetence. 

And yes, by your same bad argument here, Trump was incompetent in his response to what unfolded on J6 as well as his claims regarding the election. 

Yes... leadership in the SS makes decisions every day regarding what amount of protection is reasonable, warranted, or how they will deploy resources and they are not causing assassination attempts nor are they expecting them because of their actions. 

 

[Fluffypants]

24 minutes ago, User said:

"knowingly cause"

The SS did not "knowingly" cause any of this either. Incompetence is incompetence. 

And yes, by your same bad argument here, Trump was incompetent in his response to what unfolded on J6 as well as his claims regarding the election. 

Yes... leadership in the SS makes decisions every day regarding what amount of protection is reasonable, warranted, or how they will deploy resources and they are not causing assassination attempts nor are they expecting them because of their actions. 

 

I don't know, after the DOJ released the letter from the second shooter not redacting the part that say he was willing to pay 150k to someone who takes out Trump makes me think they want him dead.

[gatomontes99]

25 minutes ago, User said:

"knowingly cause"

The SS did not "knowingly" cause any of this either. Incompetence is incompetence. 

And yes, by your same bad argument here, Trump was incompetent in his response to what unfolded on J6 as well as his claims regarding the election. 

Yes... leadership in the SS makes decisions every day regarding what amount of protection is reasonable, warranted, or how they will deploy resources and they are not causing assassination attempts nor are they expecting them because of their actions. 

 

Oh, but they left the holes knowing what those holes could cause. Incompetence is intent.

Do you really think he didn't know the consequences of his actions?

[User]

5 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Oh, but they left the holes knowing what those holes could cause. Incompetence is intent.

Do you really think he didn't know the consequences of his actions?

This is absurd... ANY decision made in protection *could cause* a failure... literally EVERY decision made is one based on risk vs cost. 

Why didn't they surround Trump with 1 Million men?! OMG, if they decided only to use 900,000, they knew that could reduce his security and lead to an assassination!!!! *GASP*

Your argument is absurd nonsense. 

 

[Rebound]

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

We are being led to believe that the USSS made a series of mistakes that led to DJT being shot once and nearly shot a second time. Here are some of the mistakes they made:

Security around a protectee is typically layered to prevent attack from close range, long range, air or ground. When assets are not present that help mitigate those types of threats, that creates a whole in the protection.

Trump has some of the highest threat levels. Iran and the left are trying to kill him and have actively threatened assasination. Trump should have had the entire threat mitigation package.

Ron Rowe denied drones, counter surveillance, and counter snipers while threatening agents that questioned that judgement. He knew that those denials created wholes in the security plan. He knew the threats that were associated with those wholes.

Ron Rowe has served in the USSS for far to long to not know the consequences of his actions. This isn't ignorance. This is intent.

If you get drunk, drive and kill someone in an accident, your actions are assumed to be intentional. You put all the factors in play that caused the accident.

Ron Rowe put all the factors in play that caused Trump to get shot and Corey to be killed. Ron Rowe should be removed from his position, immediately.

Why should American taxpayers foot the bill for his campaign rally’s and golf excursions?  
 

I saw the motorcade when he had to go to trial in New York. It was enormous, they closed off streets, etc.  If the guy wants protection he can’t keep going to enormous outdoor spaces day after day, demanding to have an infinitely expensive protection detail. 

[User]

5 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Why should American taxpayers foot the bill for his campaign rally’s and golf excursions?  
 

I saw the motorcade when he had to go to trial in New York. It was enormous, they closed off streets, etc.  If the guy wants protection he can’t keep going to enormous outdoor spaces day after day, demanding to have an infinitely expensive protection detail. 

Oh, this dumb game... so you think Biden should lose all his SS coverage when he goes home on vacation? to the Beach? When Harris is out campaigning, should she lose all her SS coverage?

 

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, User said:

This is absurd... ANY decision made in protection *could cause* a failure... literally EVERY decision made is one based on risk vs cost. 

Why didn't they surround Trump with 1 Million men?! OMG, if they decided only to use 900,000, they knew that could reduce his security and lead to an assassination!!!! *GASP*

Your argument is absurd nonsense. 

 

Well, let's just be absurd.

Decisions that are intended to improve Security but don't work aren't intent. When the decision weakens security, that's a different story.

The first lady got counter surveillance teams. She has a very low threat level. DJT had active foreign threats (5 Iranian teams as a start) that needed mitigation. A handful of agents is all that it takes to have a counter surveillance teams. It is an even smaller group to have a counter sniper team. And yet even smaller to have an infrared drone.

We aren't talking about 1 million people as protective detail. We are talking about the bare minimum to secure long and short rang threats as well as airborne threats. Rowe, intentionally, reduced DJT's detail to less than the bare minimum.

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Why should American taxpayers foot the bill for his campaign rally’s and golf excursions?  
 

I saw the motorcade when he had to go to trial in New York. It was enormous, they closed off streets, etc.  If the guy wants protection he can’t keep going to enormous outdoor spaces day after day, demanding to have an infinitely expensive protection detail. 

He earned it when he won the Presidency. I'd be more incensed at the illegals that are murderers and rapists that are getting welfare benefits.

Edited September 29, 2024 by gatomontes99

[User]

3 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Decisions that are intended to improve Security but don't work aren't intent. When the decision weakens security, that's a different story.

Oh... no, its not.

Decisions are made every day to weaken or strengthen security based on risk and costs and resources. 

5 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

We aren't talking about 1 million people as protective detail.

We are talking about the nature of your bad argument. Large numbers are used to demonstrate that. 

[gatomontes99]

2 minutes ago, User said:

Oh... no, its not.

Decisions are made every day to weaken or strengthen security based on risk and costs and resources. 

We are talking about the nature of your bad argument. Large numbers are used to demonstrate that. 

So it is your argument that several decisions to deny requests in the face of known threats was nothing more than incompetence? What if I told you that layered incompetence is intent?

One bad decision is one bad decision. But there was a systematic failure here. Those failures came from people that did know better. To say it was incompetence is to ignore their qualifications and expertise. How could people that have all the information, training and experience make so many bad decisions?

Intent.

[User]

Just now, gatomontes99 said:

So it is your argument that several decisions to deny requests in the face of known threats was nothing more than incompetence? What if I told you that layered incompetence is intent?

One bad decision is one bad decision. But there was a systematic failure here. Those failures came from people that did know better. To say it was incompetence is to ignore their qualifications and expertise. How could people that have all the information, training and experience make so many bad decisions?

Intent.

No, it is my argument that there is no "intent" to see Trump harmed by decisions on security coverage. 

There was no known threat that some guy was going to scale the roof and try to shoot him that day... 

Intent is a mindset you have to prove, you are just assuming it. That is not how criminal law or good argument works. You have to prove the intent. You have not done that at all. It is an awful argument you are making here and clearly a biased one that you only apply in this circumstance to make this bogus argument. 

 

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, User said:

Oh, this dumb game... so you think Biden should lose all his SS coverage when he goes home on vacation? to the Beach? When Harris is out campaigning, should she lose all her SS coverage?

 

Clinton, Bush, and Obama all have secret service protection too.  
 

Yes, Trump needs a bigger detail because he’s campaigning, but he has to cooperate as well.  I remember when that guy shot at him, Trump was too much of a jackass to duck down and stay down, so frankly, if he’s going to be a fool, it’s his own fault. 

[User]

4 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Clinton, Bush, and Obama all have secret service protection too.  

This doesn't answer the question... so you want to take their SS protection too?

You were the one presenting this as a why are we paying for this only in regards to Trump. 

5 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Yes, Trump needs a bigger detail because he’s campaigning, but he has to cooperate as well.  I remember when that guy shot at him, Trump was too much of a jackass to duck down and stay down, so frankly, if he’s going to be a fool, it’s his own fault. 

Make up your mind, you just got done complaining about why we were paying, now you say he needs a bigger detail. 

Pointing out how Trump responded AFTER the failings of security to stop the threat before he got a shot off is not Trumps fault for the failings BEFORE. 

 

[Rebound]

3 minutes ago, User said:

This doesn't answer the question... so you want to take their SS protection too?

You were the one presenting this as a why are we paying for this only in regards to Trump. 

Make up your mind, you just got done complaining about why we were paying, now you say he needs a bigger detail. 

Pointing out how Trump responded AFTER the failings of security to stop the threat before he got a shot off is not Trumps fault for the failings BEFORE. 

 

I did not say that Trump should not have Secret Service protection. I also don’t think the Secret Service failed to protect him — they stopped shooters twice that we know of.  
 

I don’t honestly know enough about security to know how much it costs to protect an entire golf course from someone climbing a fence and hiding in shrubs. There are sniper rifles which claim to be effective at one mile, and thanks to the gun lobby, these weapons are easily obtained in America.  (Not that anyone needs a mile of range to defend themselves or their home, but there you have it). 
 

So… yeah, it seems impossible to have 100% protection of someone who wants to be outdoors in the open at predictable locations from all threats of a one mile radius.  Monday morning quarterbacking is great and all, but that’s all it is.  
 

Bottom line is that if Trump wants 100% protection, he needs to follow the recommendations of his protection detail and stop thinking he’s entitled to go everywhere he wants and get perfect protection. Cause it’s impossible.  

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, User said:

No, it is my argument that there is no "intent" to see Trump harmed by decisions on security coverage. 

There was no known threat that some guy was going to scale the roof and try to shoot him that day... 

Intent is a mindset you have to prove, you are just assuming it. That is not how criminal law or good argument works. You have to prove the intent. You have not done that at all. It is an awful argument you are making here and clearly a biased one that you only apply in this circumstance to make this bogus argument. 

 

There was intelligence that 5 Iranian teams were recruiting people to kill Trump. And the day before, Rowe reversed his decision to not provide counter snipers teams.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

I did not say that Trump should not have Secret Service protection. I also don’t think the Secret Service failed to protect him — they stopped shooters twice that we know of.  

Once before he shot, so very clearly not a failure there.  Success and job well done. 

But one time after he shot and killed people, and struck the president. From an unconcealed position that should have been covered.  That was definitely a failure. 

[User]

4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

There was intelligence that 5 Iranian teams were recruiting people to kill Trump. And the day before, Rowe reversed his decision to not provide counter snipers teams.

I am not following you here... so, you are giving me an example for how they provided more security when you have been arguing the opposite?

[User]

5 hours ago, Rebound said:

I did not say that Trump should not have Secret Service protection. I also don’t think the Secret Service failed to protect him — they stopped shooters twice that we know of.  

Sigh... I swear, why you folks play this dumb game. Yes, you were clearly arguing about paying for him to have protection:

"Why should American taxpayers foot the bill for his campaign rally’s and golf excursions?  "

And yes, they clearly failed to protect him. The fact that a bullet grazed his hear is not a testament to the SS being great, it is just dumb luck that Trump moved his head at the last moment. The shooter was not stopped. The shooter was able to get into a firing position and take a shot that hit the President. 

You just are not a serious person interested in any kind of honest discussion when you say garbage like this. 

5 hours ago, Rebound said:

So… yeah, it seems impossible to have 100% protection of someone who wants to be outdoors in the open at predictable locations from all threats of a one mile radius.  Monday morning quarterbacking is great and all, but that’s all it is.  

We were not quibbling about 100% protection. I worked in private security for a living, including executive protection. There is no such thing as 100% protection; there is only risk mitigation analysis. 

5 hours ago, Rebound said:

Bottom line is that if Trump wants 100% protection, he needs to follow the recommendations of his protection detail and stop thinking he’s entitled to go everywhere he wants and get perfect protection. Cause it’s impossible.  

We were not quibbling about 100% protection.