Really, you were able to tell that when no useful information was given in testimony?
Please post here the exact parts of testimony that made it clear to you.
BTW - I think like you, that they definitely were involved, but I did not hear anything in the testimony today that either strengthened or weakened my belief..
Well let’s see, when she refused to answer how many shell casings were found on the roof. And she refused to answer basic questions. But she vehemently denied there was another shooter, and the question if the sniper was told to stand down she denied it.
The Secret Service specifically ignored the single most obvious threat point on top of the building. They also classified the kid with a range find as suspicious rather than a threat on multiple encounters. She said he was only suspicious when caught with the range finder in the high threat area. Then again only suspicious during a second encounter in the same area. Finally, she said a man crawling around on the roof is only suspicious and not a threat and that is why the secret service did not interrupt the rally.
That was kind of really being stupid in that they didn't consider someone crawling on a roof not being a threat and yet if they looked a little harder that might have seen the rifle he was also carrying as he was crawling on roof.
I think ATF needs some questioning. Who was the mysterious ATF Agent Ron Johnson said had "gone dark" and why were the crime scene photos sent to him? ATF has been at the root of some serious evil in the past.
I was going to add the same, even with a spray foam on the backside, a metal / tin roof is going to resonate some noise. He belly crawled supposedly, but between the fact that this was the roof of the snipers nest, you would think that overhead surveillance from a drone or rotary winged craft would have picked this up. Now, there are stories with the cell phones that have been linked to his house, his work and DC, multiple times. The "Patsy" theory is proving out.
OP forgot to insert "it is clear to me the secret service was complicit".
It puts out an assertion which is the OP's belief and presents it as a fact.
This is not critical thinking, or empirical data. It's opinion.
Even worse, OP claims "The secret service was complicit" as if the Secret Service as an organization (the entire entity, group and organization) WAS complicit. As if the Secret Service from top to bottom is all in on it, instead of asserting that certain people, individuals or elements of the SS were complicit, which would actually make sense.
I dunno. In this case, I think it's important to more clearly define where blame is being assigned. Because one could easily read the OP's assertion (opinion) and come away thinking that the OP blames all the SS on the field that day, in the offices and everyone else.
In fact, in his/her comments OP appears to think so (i.e. that the SS at the Trump Rally itself were in on the assassination and/or somehow cooperated in it).
OK. Maybe the OP actually means that the SS every dog man of them, are corrupt and are complicit.
Seems exceedingly sloppy to me. Particularly on such an emotional issue, I personally think frogs should take more care. But then, that's MY opinion.
Really, you were able to tell that when no useful information was given in testimony?
Please post here the exact parts of testimony that made it clear to you.
BTW - I think like you, that they definitely were involved, but I did not hear anything in the testimony today that either strengthened or weakened my belief..
Well let’s see, when she refused to answer how many shell casings were found on the roof. And she refused to answer basic questions. But she vehemently denied there was another shooter, and the question if the sniper was told to stand down she denied it.
Shell casings on the roof is the "tell" for sure.
The Secret Service specifically ignored the single most obvious threat point on top of the building. They also classified the kid with a range find as suspicious rather than a threat on multiple encounters. She said he was only suspicious when caught with the range finder in the high threat area. Then again only suspicious during a second encounter in the same area. Finally, she said a man crawling around on the roof is only suspicious and not a threat and that is why the secret service did not interrupt the rally.
That was kind of really being stupid in that they didn't consider someone crawling on a roof not being a threat and yet if they looked a little harder that might have seen the rifle he was also carrying as he was crawling on roof.
I think ATF needs some questioning. Who was the mysterious ATF Agent Ron Johnson said had "gone dark" and why were the crime scene photos sent to him? ATF has been at the root of some serious evil in the past.
Let's add on to that with the fact that the building in question housed secret service / police / security (sharp shooters).
Yeppers. They had the same line of fire as the shooter/patsy.
Get a Miitary Sniper to take her out . Then state there will be more executions
They would have heard him clomping around on the metal roof.
They were there to protect the SHOOTERS, not Trump
I was going to add the same, even with a spray foam on the backside, a metal / tin roof is going to resonate some noise. He belly crawled supposedly, but between the fact that this was the roof of the snipers nest, you would think that overhead surveillance from a drone or rotary winged craft would have picked this up. Now, there are stories with the cell phones that have been linked to his house, his work and DC, multiple times. The "Patsy" theory is proving out.
😂and she said the latter with such serious. Are you fucking kidding me? A man on his belly on the roof is suspicious! 😂😂😂.
She is suspicious but also a threat to this nation.
OP forgot to insert "it is clear to me the secret service was complicit".
It puts out an assertion which is the OP's belief and presents it as a fact.
This is not critical thinking, or empirical data. It's opinion.
Even worse, OP claims "The secret service was complicit" as if the Secret Service as an organization (the entire entity, group and organization) WAS complicit. As if the Secret Service from top to bottom is all in on it, instead of asserting that certain people, individuals or elements of the SS were complicit, which would actually make sense.
Agree, thanks.
The same standard we apply to the local police is also applied to the SS and other agencies as well.
I dunno. In this case, I think it's important to more clearly define where blame is being assigned. Because one could easily read the OP's assertion (opinion) and come away thinking that the OP blames all the SS on the field that day, in the offices and everyone else.
In fact, in his/her comments OP appears to think so (i.e. that the SS at the Trump Rally itself were in on the assassination and/or somehow cooperated in it).
OK. Maybe the OP actually means that the SS every dog man of them, are corrupt and are complicit.
Seems exceedingly sloppy to me. Particularly on such an emotional issue, I personally think frogs should take more care. But then, that's MY opinion.