Trump Assassination: Some Answers Emerging, More Needed

This afternoon I was catching up on videos and news. I listened to Dan Bongino from yesterday: The Secret Service Scandal Keeps Getting Uglier (Ep. 2296) - 07/29/2024. It’s quite good—after all, Bongino knows this protective detail stuff. Some of the issues he raised were addressed, as he predicted, in the testimony of the waste of space who appeared before the Senate today. I was pleased that a few of my own questions were addressed.

If you’ll recall, just a day or two ago I was saying that one of the key issues that needs to be sorted out is: How long has this business of “loose security events” coverage of Trump rallies been going on? It turns out this has been SS standard operating procedure for Trump events for, like, a long time. OK, to be more precise. Trump events that were more than a “drive” from DC—a day’s drive? I dunno—were denied normal resources. Repeatedly denied. Despite Trump’s detail’s persistent requests—over a period of two years. Two years. Think about that. Those denials included the normal counter sniper teams, plus the magnotometer, etc. As Bongino puts it, it was just luck that Trump wasn’t assassinated long ago. The windows of opportunity were created as a matter of policy, but was time running out? As Bongino also points out, Trump had the highest threat profile of anybody who was being “protected” by the SS. What’s with that kind of threat assessment? Where were the resources being assigned if not to Trump?

As I predicted, that decision to deny resources to Trump rallies came right from the top of SS. BUT, that doesn’t necessarily mean that SS made that decision all by their lonesome, without input from Mayorkas or FBI or CIA or … whomever.

My memory proved to be correct in another important respect. SS counter sniper teams normally show up on site 2-3 days ahead of time, to do the site survey. The decision to stop denying Trump counter sniper protection for this event was made one day before the rally. So there wasn’t really time to do an actual site survey or to coordinate with the locals. Or not properly. And remember, the locals were amateurs at this kind of thing. They needed SS input to do a proper job, as events proved.

You can look at that in two ways. You could say that the SS reconsidering the denial of normal resources directive and sending two counter sniper teams (instead of the three teams that would be normal at outdoor events) showed that the top management’s hearts were in the right place—they really did want Trump to survive the rally. OTOH, you might say, Wait a minute. Might they have decided to send the teams at the last minute as a CYA measure—if someone shot Trump and there were no counter snipers present that wouldn’t look great, would it?

One way or another, if you’re an honest investigator you’re going to keep digging. We now know who gave the “loose security for Trump” directive—at least, who in the SS gave that directive. But there were other things that went wrong that day—lots of other things. Like, the decision to send Trump on stage while an identifiable threat was still unaccounted for. Here’s a sample of the kinds of texts that the locals were exchanging:

Local texted with 2 photos of Crooks:

5:38

Kid learning [sic; "lurking"?] around building we are in. AGR building I believe it is. I did see him with range finder looking towards stage. FYI. If you wanna notify SS snipers to look out. I lost sight of him. Also a bike with backpack sitting next to it in rear of building that was not seen earlier.

5:40

Call it in to command and have a uniform check it out.

Yowzers!

We don’t know anything about the SS SAC from Pittsburgh, and he would have been the one who made those non-calls—don’t hold Trump back, don’t shoot Crooks, etc. Is the FBI holding the SAC more or less incommunicado, while they question him? I can certainly understand that, but if that’s the case that tells you a lot about the investigation—the investigators see issues that need to be resolved. Issues that could imply criminal wrongdoing. Even a conspiracy.

Now, here are some excerpts from Susan Crabtree’s pretty good reporting on what came out of the testimony today. These are excerpts, so follow the link for the rest—which includes reminders of things we already know. You can also see that there’s some gaslighting going on.

Acting Secret-Service Chief Played Key Role In Limiting Resources For Trump

Authored by Susan Crabtree via RealClearPolitics,

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.

Rowe succeeded former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle, who resigned last week ... both Rowe and Cheatle were directly involved in decisions denying requests for more magnetometers, additional agents, and other resources to help screen rallygoers at large, outdoor Trump campaign gatherings.

It was Rowe’s decision alone to deny counter sniper teams to any Trump event outside of driving distance from D.C., these sources asserted.

...

The Secret Service has not responded to several questions from RCP about decisions to deny or limit security resources and personnel, including counter snipers, to Trump’s events.

At first, the Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania had no Secret Service sniper teams assigned to it, but at the last minute, agency officials reversed course and decided to add two snipers to the outdoor event. ...

So far, there has been no explanation as to why agency officials made the late counter sniper assignments to the Butler event, though it could be in response to the increased threat level Trump has faced in recent weeks. The Secret Service has said the agency increased security for Trump for an unknown time period before the Butler rally in response to an Iranian plot against the former president.

…

Sen. Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, told RCP that Rowe told senators during the briefing that Crooks was hiding behind the lip of the edge of the building, and the Secret Service counter sniper shot and killed him as soon as he could detect his forehead above that lip on the building’s roof edge.

OK, I’m gonna say that that last bit is flatly untrue, or misleading. Crooks took 8 shots in about 6 seconds. The first shot that Crooks took—you know, the “shrapnel” one that hit Trump—while it was doable, was by no means a piece of cake, given the rig that Crooks was working with. To come that close on a target that was moving a bit, Crooks had to have been working on his sight picture for some period of time. Clearly, no attempt to shoot Crooks was made until after his shots were fired. Did he duck down after the 8, and then pop up again? Dunno. But the picture being painted of everything that could’ve been done having been done is not accurate.

So, there’s got to be more to come. The good news is that at least some people are on the right track here. We need to know, for starters, whether SS—Cheatle and Rowe—received input about what kind of protection to provide to Trump from persons outside SS. We also need to know what communications the SAC had with anyone in the chain of command.