Resignation of Secret Service director

1. 74

   Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

   The congressmen/women who got their way in getting the director to resign (in the middle of an attempted assassination investigation) accomplished what they set out to do.
   
   They showed their ignorance of security measures - not to mention their backsides.  It was way too soon to be calling the director into their inquisition chambers. They had to know that she would not be able to answer their questions due to the ongoing investigation. But they could not let the chance to promote themselves over the need to protect an ongoing investigation.
   
   The Secret Service director when President Kennedy was killed - KILLED - not just grazed in the ear i- KILLED - continued to serve through a total of three administrations. The Warren Commission convened on December 5, 1963 and didn't finish until September 24, 1964. They took months to draw conclusions - not days.
   
   But this congress rushed to judgement, impaired the investigation, but got what they wanted: sound bites.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I try to be fair about these things. There was a dereliction of duty the way I see it and whoever was in charge has to take responsibility. There should have been Secret Service operations that assured that any tall building within an effective range of a rifle were secure prior to Trump going to the podium. Trump could have  just as easily been killed, it is the luck of the Irish or is it German that he missed death by a matter of millimeters.
      
      Kennedy said that he did not want the bubble top as he wanted to be closer to his adoring crowds. It simply was difficult to protect him through the all the buildings and possible assassination perches in such an environment. The situation with Trump was much more preventable, in my opinion.

      replyreport
   2. 83

      GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      After watching her in the hearing I think her resignation, now—even in the middle of an investigation, is appropriate. She refused to answer questions when she knew the answers—even when the answers would not impact the FBI's investigation.
      
      I think the anger and frustration of the questioners was justified. I also think too many of them were jerks that fit your description.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

         For the most part I disagree.  There were far too many questions of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?  Yes or NO!" type.  I would not sit through that garbage either.
         
         Frustrated, yes, but at the wrong person.  Until that investigation is completed (why not be frustrated at the independent investigator?) keep a reign on it.  Keep your mouth shut and quit grandstanding. There were just too many people demanding answers and a total explanation within minutes of the event.  And more demanding a goat to sacrifice, which they found.  Both are stupid beyond reproach.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            I would agree with you if it hadn't been for the last twenty minutes (or so) of the hearing. The questioners were mostly jerks grandstanding with 'righteous' anger.  And, many of their demands were just as you describe.
            
            Her responses were mostly BS that she couldn't speak to the answers because some other entity had those (or was pursuing) answers.
            
            And then . . . the fact that she had spoken with the FBI and knew some of the answers came out. For instance; when asked about shell casings she said that was something in the FBI's investigation — the implication that she didn't know so couldn't confidently answer. She addressed hours of questions like that.
            
            Then we find out she did know (much more then implied) but didn't think she should answer.
            
            Nope, she earned her resignation at that hearing. I wasn't thinking that way until the last twenty minutes of her hearing performance.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

               You may well be right - I got disgusted at the stupidity and turned it off.

               replyreport
               1. 74

                  Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  Wilderness: Again, risking the space/time continuum by agreeing with you. Do Congressmen/women not get security training of any type? It's one thing for someone else to leak information. It's another for it to come from you as director of the secret service. If she confirmed leaked information, then the media had their two sources and would have free reign to call it fact. It's been a matter of days. That hearing should never have been held. Those members showed their ignorance. She showed her training.

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                     "Do Congressmen/women not get security training of any type?" 
                     
                     As near as I can tell they are trained only on how to paint a verbal picture that is believable but does not reflect reality.  That, and how NOT to answer questions themselves.

                     replyreport
                     1. 91

                        MizBejabbersposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                        OMG, Wilderness, it's been a long time, but for once you and I agree on something. Let's celebrate!

                        replyreport
                  2. 96

                     wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                     It appears that your risk was not well thought out.  The news is saying Yellowstone Park blew up today! 

                     replyreport
   3. 70

      Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      That doesn't make it right.
      
      What was done then, what occurred in the 60s in general, the assassinations, the cover ups, the corruption...
      
      Much of those lies have led us to the world we live in today... the failure to expose and accept the truth of what occurred then, even today, that denial, the decision to continue to accept the lies rather than confront the truth...
      
      I would imagine this is why trust in our government is so low today... why conspiracy theories abound...
      
      And as we continue to force people to accept more and more lies as truths, force them to deny what they see, we have a society where no one is coming at the world from the same set of facts.
      
      That is not a 6'5 270 pound man you see there... that is a woman.
      
      That is not a robbery you see occurring in CVS... that is a oppressed person taking what should be rightfully his from the store due to his being a victim of an inherently racist system.
      
      Yup...

      replyreport
2. 91

   MizBejabbersposted 2 months ago

   What bugs me the most, and maybe I missed it in the news, is what happened to the secret service who were on detail and were told by a couple of attendees that there was a person on that roof with a rifle? They were ignored. Those agents blew them off. The news media interviewed two of the men who had seen the shooter there minutes before the shooting, and they were complaining loudly to the media. I don't know who else carried the interview, but I saw it on CNN.
   
   Perhaps if she had immediately called them in and fired them for dereliction of duty, she wouldn't have been the sitting duck. Or did she and I missed it? She probably would have still come under fire, but perhaps not so severely so soon.

   replyreport