SS director resigns

[tvc184]

And just like that, Kimberly Cheatle can go back to guarding Cheetos. 

[LumRaiderFan]

Poor cheetos.

[baddog]

From what I now understand (see, I wait for more info) there were 7 shots. She was asked how many shell casings were found on the roof. She even said she talked with the FBI and they told her the number of casings. She refused to answer. If that’s not a cover up, I guess I don’t know what one is. Resigning from her job is not enough for me.

[BS Wildcats]

Another DEI failure.  When will the stupid, liberal Dims learn these types of policies don’t work!

[LumRaiderFan]

19 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

Another DEI failure.  When will the stupid, liberal Dims learn these types of policies don’t work!

Never, they are incapable of introspection.

[Reagan]

The DEI head of the SS said she never went to the assassination attempt spot.  Why?!

[tvc184]

8 hours ago, baddog said:

From what I now understand (see, I wait for more info) there were 7 shots. She was asked how many shell casings were found on the roof. She even said she talked with the FBI and they told her the number of casings. She refused to answer. If that’s not a cover up, I guess I don’t know what one is. Resigning from her job is not enough for me.

That isn’t a cover up. I have been to thousands of crime scenes and probably 150 murder scenes, written likely 200 press releases and that information is not generally released for investigation purposes. It sure isn’t for a worldwide live television audience. 

A cover up would be to know that 10 shots were fired but in an official report say that it was 5 or worse, do away with the evidence.

If not answering a question is a cover up then 95% of police officers are guilty of cover ups from 95% of crime scenes. 

[baddog]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

That isn’t a cover up. I have been to thousands of crime scenes and probably 150 murder scenes, written likely 200 press releases and that information is not generally released for investigation purposes. It sure isn’t for a worldwide live television audience. 

A cover up would be to know that 10 shots were fired but in an official report say that it was 5 or worse, do away with the evidence.

If not answering a question is a cover up then 95% of police officers are guilty of cover ups from 95% of crime scenes. 

Thanks for the clarification. You can see how that can be misinterpreted.

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, baddog said:

Thanks for the clarification. You can see how that can be misinterpreted.

You are correct, a lot of things can be misinterpreted or easily misunderstood. 

I believe that like much of the Biden administration, she was hired as a box checker. Was she really the best person? That is always subjective but was she such an outstanding agent that she had to be brought back from retirement or was it because she wanted to hire a more diversified agency? 

I think that she was probably incompetent and/or a bad organizer but that is more on the guy who hired her. A person is only as good as he/she is but if the boss puts him/her in that position, that’s on the boss.

 I didn’t watch much of the hearing but the little that I did see live, I thought a couple of questions were out of order and I would not have answered them either. I think some of them were gotcha questions and they probably knew that she wouldn’t or couldn’t answer.

There were plenty of her actions or lack thereof to be angry at her. Asking how many shell cases were found on a roof seems irrelevant.

This wasn’t a committee determining the case like the Warren Commission on the JFK assassination. This was a competency hearing and how many shell cases were found is completely irrelevant. The hearing should have been focused on the events that led up to the failure say the scene, not the after the fact FBI investigation. 

How many agents were assigned to the advanced detail, aren’t rooftops usually covered, who was the agent in charge at the event, what communications and protocol was set up with local law enforcement, etc., was certainly very important. Crime scene details after the fact aren’t.

In my opinion. 

[baddog]

13 hours ago, tvc184 said:

You are correct, a lot of things can be misinterpreted or easily misunderstood. 

I believe that like much of the Biden administration, she was hired as a box checker. Was she really the best person? That is always subjective but was she such an outstanding agent that she had to be brought back from retirement or was it because she wanted to hire a more diversified agency? 

I think that she was probably incompetent and/or a bad organizer but that is more on the guy who hired her. A person is only as good as he/she is but if the boss puts him/her in that position, that’s on the boss.

 I didn’t watch much of the hearing but the little that I did see live, I thought a couple of questions were out of order and I would not have answered them either. I think some of them were gotcha questions and they probably knew that she wouldn’t or couldn’t answer.

There were plenty of her actions or lack thereof to be angry at her. Asking how many shell cases were found on a roof seems irrelevant.

This wasn’t a committee determining the case like the Warren Commission on the JFK assassination. This was a competency hearing and how many shell cases were found is completely irrelevant. The hearing should have been focused on the events that led up to the failure say the scene, not the after the fact FBI investigation. 

How many agents were assigned to the advanced detail, aren’t rooftops usually covered, who was the agent in charge at the event, what communications and protocol was set up with local law enforcement, etc., was certainly very important. Crime scene details after the fact aren’t.

In my opinion. 

So when does the transparency kick in? Do we have to wait for the internal investigation to close? I think the American people deserve to know what happened. I hope they don’t treat us like the JFK files which have been kept secret for 60+ years. 

[tvc184]

5 hours ago, baddog said:

So when does the transparency kick in? Do we have to wait for the internal investigation to close? I think the American people deserve to know what happened. I hope they don’t treat us like the JFK files which have been kept secret for 60+ years. 

With the federal government, who knows the time frame.

Look at the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO. The US DOJ stepped in to what was a local incident and took almost 7 months and millions of dollars to conclude that they could not prove wrongdoing by the officer. That was with dozens of witnesses and virtually all of the facts known shortly after the incident. How many shots fired, distances and injuries to Brown and the officer were known almost immediately. There was no issues of governmental operations like with the SS or any conspiracies to look into. It was a straightforward interaction between two people, and it took the federal government over half a year to draw a conclusion.

 What is transparency and how much do we really expect? Will every detail ever be made public? I doubt it. Just like some of the questions they were asking in the hearing a couple of days ago. I saw questions like or similar to, how far does the Secret Service extended the perimeter or safety zones?

Should that be public information? Like, yes we go out to 500 meters but we don’t concentrate beyond that. 

Uhhhh….. no.

Should we eventually know if anyone else was involved? Yes. How far did the planning and incompetence go from the federal to the state and local level? Yes.

We might get tidbits of information but I don’t think that a conclusion will be made public anytime soon and then it might never be a complete recounting of all facts. Even if the final investigation was released next week, how many people would believe it?