US Secret Service director admits it 'failed' in mission to protect Donald Trump (www.thejournal.ie)

submitted 4 months ago by Beaver@lemmy.ca to c/politics@lemmy.world

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] TipRing@lemmy.world 42 points 4 months ago

It's completely reasonable to hold the Secret Service to account for a near-assassination of a former president and current candidate. It's not reasonable to attack the director for being a woman. Even when they have a legitimate grievance, conservatives find a way to be their worst selves.

[-] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago

This isn’t the first time I’ve heard the Secret Services’ mission described as “zero-failure.” I’ve heard discussions of their work that go something like “most people have wiggle-room in their job. If you make a mistake, it’s usually no big deal, you fix it and move on. The Secret Service doesn’t have that option, when they fail people die.” I’m not sure I completely agree with that characterization, but going along with it for a moment, how can the director not resign? She failed at her zero-failure job. It doesn’t mean she’s personally responsible for the shooting, but she is absolutely responsible for the agency’s failure to stop it.

Harris 2024! (phew that feels good to say)

[-] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

putting my personal feelings aside, from what's been publicly released so far about the timeline of events, this clearly appears to be a series of colossal failures from everyone involved in the security of the event, from the Secret Service detail to the police tasked with support services. As the Director, Cheatle should accept ultimate responsibility and resign, however there are a lot of other people who should also be held accountable, and I really want to hear that they will be, too.

[-] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

To play devil's advocate here, he didn't have to have his rally in an open field. He could have done it indoors where everyone going in / out is being screened, and all the windows are guarded by USSS. I'm sure he did it in a field to save money.

[-] tacosplease@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

My thoughts exactly. The campaign was warned several times about doing events outside like this. The failure was that the USSS allowed events they couldn't secure.

I would say from here on the USSS offers security where it can and is not responsible for security should someone choose an unapproved venue.

[-] OopsAllTwix@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 4 months ago

There are many ways of seeing what was happening on that roof. A drone, another spotter next to the sniper, blocking any and all access to the roof. Trump sucks, but they definitely failed at their job.

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 6 points 4 months ago

They failed the nation by reacting as quickly as they did.

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

In their defense, he's been damaged his whole life.

[-] p5yk0t1km1r4ge@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024

86 points (94.8% liked)

politics

19145 readers

2256 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News