In advance of acting Secret Service director Ronald Rose testimony this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, real Clear politics dot com's, Susan Crabtree reported on a whistleblower email a secret service counter sniper sent to the entire uniform division calling for accountability at the supervisory level for the agency's July 13th, failure to protect Trump and his rally attendees. Saying among other things, and I'm quoting the email,
sadly, we have fallen short for years. We just look good doing it. I've conveyed these thoughts not only to supervisors, but to those responsible for training us only to be brushed off as those with less experience somehow knew more than me. This synonymous counter cipher went on to conclude quoting again the motto of the United States Secret Service CYA and every supervisor is doing it right now. That email turned out to be quite prescient. Given the
subsequent testimony of acting director Roe. One particular exchange must be shared in a bit of an extended format in order to fully appreciate how the permanent government operates to obfuscate Stonewall and Enron accountability here, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, interrogates director Roe over the decision makers and the decisions they made on July 13th to echo the counter sniper's email and paraphrase, the permanent government's 2020 ADT Prop ROE'S
testimony has all the classic earmarks of a cover your ass operation. Watch.
Let me ask you this, who is the lead site agent who made the decision to leave the A GR building completely outside of the security perimeter? Who was that
Senator? I cannot give you that name. This person is operational. They're still doing investigations, they're still doing protective visits.
Have they been relieved of duty,
Senator? They have not been relieved duty. I
Know relieved their name by the The way duty. Why? Why have they not been relieved of duty?
They are still cooperating, not only being interviewed by the FBI, but also by our office of professional responsibility and we will let the facts of the mission assurance and any further investigations play out. isn.
It isn't the fact that a former president was shot, that a good American is dead, that other Americans were critically wounded. Isn't that enough mission failure for you to say that the person who decided that that building should not mean the security perimeter probably ought to be stepped down.
Senator, I think you're using the word decided and I think we need to allow the the investigation play out.
Who did make the decision then if it wasn't the lead site agent who made the decision not to put that in the security permit?
Senator, you're zeroing in on one particular agent. I want to find out exactly. Yeah, what was the entire decision process. So I think, yeah, I want to be neutral and make sure that we get to the bottom of it and interview everybody in order to determine if there was more than one person who perhaps exercised bad judgment. Well,
Sure. My question is why don't you relieve everybody of duty who made bad judgment? So yeah, you're right. I am zeroing in on somebody. I'm trying to find somebody who's accountable here and we will. So you're telling me that the person who made the decision not to include this in the perimeter has not been relieved of duty. What about the person who's in charge of the interoperability of radio frequencies between local law enforcement and
and secret service? Has that person been relieved of duty?
No, Senator, because interoperability is a challenge, is a greater challenge than just one person on that day. We had a counterpart system, it failed.
Spectacular. As the person who decided, who made the decision to send Donald Trump onto stage knowing that you had a security situation, has that person been relieved of duty?
No sir. They haven't because
Has the person who decided not to pull the former president off of stage when you knew that in your words the locals were working a serious security situation, has that person been relieved of duty?
No sir. Again, I refer you back to my original answer that we are investigating this through a mission assurance and as opposed to zeroing in on one, what more do
You need? Two individuals wanna to investigate to know, wanna
Find out exactly what the decision making
Process was, what you need to investigate to know that there were critical enough failures that some individuals ought to be held accountable. I mean, what more do you need to know?
What I need to know is exactly what happened and I need my investigators to do their job and I cannot, A lot of people didn't do their jobs. I cannot put my thumb on the scale otherwise.
What do you mean put your thumb on the scale? The
Objective, the object. You're asking me, Senator, to completely make a rush to judgment about somebody failing. I acknowledge this was a failure of this.
Is it not prima fascia that somebody has failed? A former president was shot.
Sir, this could have been our Texas school book depository. I have lost sleep over that for the last 17 days. Been just like
You have fire somebody and will you, Senator,
Ill, I will tell you, Senator, that I will not rush to judgment that people will be held accountable and I will do so with integrity and not rush to judgment and put people I can't believe unfair,
Persecuted believe you are I unfairly persecuted unfairly, sir,
We've who are dead. We have to be able to have a proper investigation into this Senator. No
One is individually responsible because everyone is collectively responsible. The agency did it. It's accountability theater, pinning the whole thing as an agency. Failure protects all of the individual shock callers because the former director was already offered up as the sacrificial lamb. Yes, the lead site agent had responsibility for the sloped roof from which
the assassin fired. But let's not rush to judgment. Yes. An agent had the responsibility to ensure the interoperability of the communication systems between secret service and local law enforcement. Rather than interoperable, the comms were inoperable, but let's not rush to judgment. Yes. Secret Service was alerted to a security issue of an individual with a rage finder and decided not to pull Trump off stage. But say it with me, let's not rush to
judgment. Yes. Local law enforcement offered the use of drones as part of the security coverage for that day. Secret Service didn't take them up on it. An acting director Row said the agency probably should have, but that's not rush to judgment. He even suggests anyone lose their job is to persecute the good men and women of the Secret Service and acting director Row won't have it. You see the sentinels of the permanent government really dig in when it comes to
protecting their posts. They are significantly less zealous when it comes to protecting the people or their president. Nearly three weeks after Trump was almost assassinated, we now know the following. Number one, Trump was shot. Number two, the Secret Service failed. In other words, we know no more than we did on July 13th. The Secret Service is part of the Department of
Homeland Security. Just as the FBI is part of the Department of Justice, when we have a Republican president they're in, when we have a Democrat president, they're in, they're always in with the awesome police power at their disposal and the job security of a Chicago public school teacher. These agencies have outsized influence on the DC political culture.
So when they don't move with alacrity to gather evidence to establish a credible official story and present that case, including the supporting evidence for public scrutiny, they destabilize our constitutional republic more so than can any politician's rhetoric or even assassin's. Bullet. I'm Dan Proft with a counterculture commentary. Please like this video and subscribe to this channel if you haven't already, and please leave a comment in the comment section. We'd love to hear your thoughts.