The Trump Assassination: Drones, No Drones; All Hell To Break Loose

Yesterday Sen. Josh Hawley sent a letter to Mayorkas at DHS, the Department in which Secret Service finds itself. It’s fairly self explanatory. The local LE offered to supply drones with which to surveil the venue at Butler, PA—presumably after learning that SS was not going to deploy drones. SS turned the offer down, but there’s more to it than just declining an offer. SS is in total control of protection details. “Declining” the offer amounted to ordering the locals to cease and desist with the drone stuff. Which is exactly how the locals took it, but not without pushing back—according to the whistleblower quoted by Hawley (i.e., according to the locals), the offer was repeatedly denied. Meaning, the locals were totally flummoxed by the Secret Service’s refusal to deploy drones on their own or provided by other LE agencies. It doesn’t take much, if any, reading between the lines to realize that the SS’s refusal made no sense at all to the locals.

Josh Hawley @HawleyMO

NEW - Whistleblower tells me local law enforcement partners & suppliers offered drones to Secret Service BEFORE the rally - but Secret Service declined

11:20 AM · Jul 25, 2024

But AFTER the assassination, with Crooks dead and Trump wounded, the SS changed its tune and asked the locals to deploy the drones.

This incident has to be understood within the context of Secret Service designating the Trump rally a “loose security event”. That designation could not have been applied simply because of a lack of resources. If that had been the case the SS would have accepted the additional, very basic, security resources that were repeatedly offered to them by the locals. This is a clear indication that Secret Service insisted upon this Trump rally being a “loose security event” and would brook no assistance from the locals that would spoil—or tighten up—the looseness of the security being provided. I’m going to assert that this type of decision could only have come from the very top of Secret Service, and probably from Mayorkas and even the White House.

There’s another bit of context to be considered. That context is the repeated requests by the Trump campaign for more security. What I would like to know are two related things: 1) Did the Trump campaign’s requests for more security occur in the context of other rallies also being designated as “loose security events”? and 2) How many “loose security” Trump events took place, and was there a pattern to them—all in open air venues that would be user friendly for long range shooters?

I raise these questions because, as I’ve repeatedly stated, the cumulative effect of treating this—and potentially other—Trump rallies as “loose security events” was to deny Trump what are, and for years have been, standard, basic forms of security. In short, this withdrawal of security under the rubric of a “loose security event” created a window of opportunity for Crooks or any other long range shooters.

A number of additional questions follow from these considerations. For example, if there were multiple such “loose security events” prior to the Butler one, we might consider whether it was Secret Service policy to create windows of opportunity for assassinating their “protectee” on a serial basis as a type of speculative effort. Something like, ‘If we leave enough venues unsecured, maybe some assassin will take advantage of the window of opportunity that we’re offering.’ This approach would leave a significant element of chance.

On the other hand, if the Butler venue was the only such “loose security event”, we should want to consider whether the presence of an assassin was coincidence or whether it was part of a specific plan tailored for this venue. If it was part of a plan, the adamant refusal by Secret Service to incorporate drone surveillance—a standard procedure—into the security at the rally makes sense. On the positive side, much of the element of chance is excluded with a coordinated plan . However, the existence of a specific plan also complicates matters significantly. Crooks then looks like a patsy, so the questions of finding and recruiting the patsy arises, as well as support and training. The logistical considerations that would be involved in handling an assassin also mean that mistakes could be made that would point normal suspicions in more specific directions.

---

I came across this DDB interview. Since the principle that “it’s the economy, stupid!” will definitely factor into the 2024 election, DDB’s reflections should be very interesting for those who are interested in such matters.

All hell has already broken loose in domestic politics, bids fair to do so in foreign affairs (Russia, Middle East, China), and now the economy. Should be fun.