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..
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.
The Secret Service specifically ignored the single most obvious threat point on top of the building.
Question: can we leap to the conclusion that the SS specifically ignored this threat point? On what basis? What if they were deliberately under-staffed, undermanned, making it impractical or impossible to adequately cover this threat point?
Personally, I think it is more likely that the SS detail was deliberately understaffed to make the rally situation as unsafe as possible, which would make penetration by an assassin easier and less preventable.
Reportedly, they had only one day (ONE DAY!) to review the location and prepare. Moreover, all of the detail bar one were temporary assignments.
Am I missing something here? On what basis are you claiming that the SS deliberately ignored the threat point. I appreciate that this is your opinion, but to figure out the entire puzzle, we need facts, evidence, and not mere opinion (obviously).
Temporary assignments from other agencies. Some may actually have been paper pushers, or perhaps placed to ensure Trump was less than adequately protected.
An easily concievable allegory comes to mind. Vice president of a bank is scheming to steal from the bank and he hires a crew of bank robbers to execute his plan. Then, he tells them the bank schedule, when it is least protected, when perhaps a safety drill might be planned (so that any alarm is treated as benign by outside police forces), and then even arranges to have only 2 guards on that night, instead of the usual 4 marching the perimeter.
It doesn't mean the guards were in on it, or the police were in on it. Rather, the situation has been orchestrated by someone in a position to do it to make the conditions for a successful heist to be at their maximum.
I think OP simply takes one line of reasoning, probably playing in to OPs biases, and goes full steam on that, instead of considering alternative possibilities.
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..
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.
Question: can we leap to the conclusion that the SS specifically ignored this threat point? On what basis? What if they were deliberately under-staffed, undermanned, making it impractical or impossible to adequately cover this threat point?
Personally, I think it is more likely that the SS detail was deliberately understaffed to make the rally situation as unsafe as possible, which would make penetration by an assassin easier and less preventable.
Reportedly, they had only one day (ONE DAY!) to review the location and prepare. Moreover, all of the detail bar one were temporary assignments.
Am I missing something here? On what basis are you claiming that the SS deliberately ignored the threat point. I appreciate that this is your opinion, but to figure out the entire puzzle, we need facts, evidence, and not mere opinion (obviously).
Temporary assignments from other agencies. Some may actually have been paper pushers, or perhaps placed to ensure Trump was less than adequately protected.
I think that is very likely the case.
An easily concievable allegory comes to mind. Vice president of a bank is scheming to steal from the bank and he hires a crew of bank robbers to execute his plan. Then, he tells them the bank schedule, when it is least protected, when perhaps a safety drill might be planned (so that any alarm is treated as benign by outside police forces), and then even arranges to have only 2 guards on that night, instead of the usual 4 marching the perimeter.
It doesn't mean the guards were in on it, or the police were in on it. Rather, the situation has been orchestrated by someone in a position to do it to make the conditions for a successful heist to be at their maximum.
I think OP simply takes one line of reasoning, probably playing in to OPs biases, and goes full steam on that, instead of considering alternative possibilities.