Last year, the agency’s director promised it would promote more women. Videos of female agents fumbling after Donald Trump was shot haven’t helped her cause.
MS. Cheatle mentioned the reason there was not agent placed on the roof: fall of the roof concern. The fact that she even considered this valid justification is astonishing. Really? Special agent is in danger of falling of the roof? this safety precaution worth risking failure of mission? The super soldiers of Secret Service are that vulnerable? Shame on her and the whole Secret Service. You made our country the laughingstock of the world.
Today's reveleation: the police had a counter-sniper team inside the building that Crooks scaled. In fact, a member of the team took a picture, out the window, of Crooks using a range-finder while sitting next to the building.
While the police were trying to upload the photo to some database somewhere, Crooks left and returned with his gun. At which point they lost sight of him, even though by that time rally attenders were screaming for their attention.
When they finally got their collective you-know-what together and decided Crooks was a threat and decided to try and secure the roof of the building, Crooks was already dead, but had taken five shots at the president.
I wish I were making this up. Keystone State Kops, I guess, under the direction of the Secret Service.
OK - We have a VERY big problem here. I just saw an interview with a Butler police supervisor. His take on the peeping cop was that, in response to all the people screaming about a shooter on the roof, an officer stood on the shoulders of another and, grabbing the edge of the roof with both hands, pulled himself to look over.
Allegedly, the shooter saw him and pointed his rifle at the officer, who - since both hands were occupied hanging onto the roof's edge, couldn't access his firearm and very reasonably ducked his head back down, falling off the shoulders of his fellow cop in the process.
So far, so good. All very reasonable.
But since the people on the ground could see the shooter, even well enough to take a picture of him, the cop - now on the ground - should have been able to see him, too, over his pistol sights.
But what did he do? "Called for backup." Are you f'ing kidding me?
Failing a direct shot, he and his fellow officers could have fired through the upper corner of the building. Hit the guy? Maybe, maybe not, but it would have destroyed his composure and spoiled his aim at the least. This is called "suppressive fire." The gunfire sounds would have triggered the the Pantywaist Secret Service (PSSies) to drag Trump off the stage, so whether the shooter was hit or not is moot.
And/or - an officer could have run inside the building, guessed where the shooter was located, and fired up directly through a SINGLE LAYER of metal - maybe striking the shooter, maybe not - but raising more hell than a jackass in a tin barn - and once again, getting Trump dragged off the stage.
No, these people all need to be dismissed forthwith. Right before they are horsewhipped.
Just to add, when Cheatle was asked why that counter-sniper team decided to secure the inside of the building rather than the outside of the building, her answer was that the roof was sloped, and presumably too dangerous to scale and use to get a sight-line on the stage.
Huh? And if it were raining, would it be too dangerous to go outside at all, since officers could get wet or maybe even slip in the wet grass? Or maybe since the weather was close to 90 outside, they had to stay in the building because they ran out of sun screen?
Since there was apparently a heightened threat because of chatter from Iran, maybe they decided not to do anything at all since Iran is clearly outside their perimeter, and thus not their responsibility at all?
Sorry to rant. I just can't believe the Secret Service has come to this.
Two points. First, the video shows male agents also adjusting their glasses and jackets. Watch the burly guy in the back. So maybe it's agency practice to look unruffled, or maybe they're like a lot of people and prefer that their glasses not obstruct their vision.
Second, re the agency's goal of women accounting for 30% of its agents by 2030, that's consistent with dozens of local, state, federal and university law enforcement agencies that have signed the "30x30 pledge" for women to represent 30% of their officers by 2030. They include ATF and the Waco, Texas, Police Dept. Did you not learn that in your reporting?
But the fact that agent was short does not mean she’s a DEI hire. It could mean an administrative error…and if the job includes being a human shield….then yeah it makes sense for the agents assigned to Trump’s detail to be at least as tall as the subject you’re protecting. Maybe she should be on Melania’s detail.
Not saying secret service doesn’t have anything to answer for. This was a breach with capital B. And DEI is a huge problem generally. But to focus on a short agent and another bad apple to shoehorn the issue of DEI into the discussion here is pretty weak stuff.
Did you miss the part where the Director flat out told CBS that she was preferentially hiring females? Administrative error? You don't just shrug that off if the job is important. You fix the error.
That's a goal to which scores of law enforcement agencies at all levels and throughout the country have pledged themselves, consistent with the "30x30 pledge." Sometimes it helps to do minimal research on a subject before opining on it. https://30x30initiative.org/
Any quota system flies in the face of a merit based system. And that’s foolhardy.
But was it a woman or a DEI hire who lead the advance team that scouted and cleared the rally site? Was it a woman or a DEI hire who decided NOT to secure the building that the shooter accessed? Was it a woman or DEI hire who assigned that short female agent to trumps personal detail?
You can rail against DEI. Like I’ve said, I’m no fan of DEI. But to rail against DEI using this shooting as an exemplar, but only via focussing on a female agent who happens to be short, or some other female agents who fumbled with their sunglasses or weapons a bit, is dumb.
And if the author wanted to take a swipe at DEI, this was a lame effort.
Imagine a world where the execs actually sit down and come up with 30x30. In my whole professional career, I never saw anyone propose changing our hiring practice from the best available to someone who meets a given social profile. Being that stupid would get you fired. And to the surprise of no one, those in DC and govt wonder what all the fuss is about.
That they “preferentially hire females” does not automatically mean the females they do hire are incompetent. The problem is if they hire incompetent females rather than, or at the expense of, competent males. The author has not made that case. As I said, I’m no fan of DEI. I’m also no fan of crappy or lazy arguments.
It’s not the short female agent’s fault if she’s been assigned to a taller subject. It’s the fault of the person who assigned her. That’s what I mean by admin error.
DEI needs to DIE. Meritocracy is the only viable policy. Firemen...because when an adult needs saving from a burning house, the person picking them up should be as large and masculine as possible.
DEI comes in many forms, from sex to skin color to mental aptitude. It is equal opportunity BS.
The ladies protecting Trump were not the right people for the job they were assigned to. At the very least, one was too short. If the SS officers are supposed to use their bodies to shield Trump, why is a short person assigned to that detail?
One other woman agent appeared to be incompetent with her weapon, yet she was also assigned to Trumps detail. Both issues stem from leadership issues that need addressed.
Outcome based hiring is nothing short of a joke and a disaster waiting to happen. The fire department I work for hired several female firefighters that are very short and they have trouble raising ladders. I feel those two women struggle primarily due to a lack of upper body strength more so than being short. As the incident commander, I have to assign the crew with those females to a job other than ladder work. This is unacceptable to me due to the nature of firefighting where time is essential in most of what we do. Life safety/rescue is #1 at every fire scene we respond to. Delaying a rescue because the female crew is incompetent is what my city’s management has made as their top priority.
Equity is disastrous in every situation.
Both our former chief and current HR director love to parade those ladies around and tell everyone that those ladies are the token girls on the department. They don’t say those words but the message is loud and clear, to the point where several of the women have sternly scolded the HR director and asked if they were hired because they were women or because they were competent. Damage control ensued and double speak smoothed it over. It’s like the HR director purposely called attention to their quota hiring practices.
Not so ironically, only females work in HR at my employer…
I don’t think it is fair to claim that the female agents who were surrounding Trump were to blame here when Trump himself refused to submit to the instructions given by the agents and instead Trump focused on the optics, thus creating vulnerabilities that endangered himself and the agents.
However, the failure to secure the rooftop prior to the rally as well as the failure to heed the alarms raised by observers during the rally, is unforgivable. For that reason alone the head of the secret service should be fired.
Oh, for Keerist's sake, look at the video. No one claims that short-in-stature agent working to get Trump off the stage was incompetent. She did her job and folks have commended her bravery.
But she was TOO F'n SHORT. Trump was full exposed above her head. It is not discriminatory to point that out. It is a fact readily observable. She is brave, but not the right person to be doing that job.
There were female agents on the ground by the SUV into which Trump was put to head to the hospital. They were fumbling with weapons, struggling to put their Men In Black sunglasses on. Looking confused and scared. Certainly not the posture of strength needed in that circumstance.
Pretty clearly, your TDS interferes with your ability to deal in objective reality. You are a perfect example of the DEI mindset.
Nope I’m just a short woman who can kick ass, your’s included Burning Man. Trump’s posturing and his insistence that he be allowed to stand tall and raise his fist by the agents was clearly the problem in the video linked to the article.
Oh, for god's sake. You are incredibly idiotic. Trump had just been shot. Blood on his cheek. He ducked BEFORE the agents were on him. When he stood he made a gesture to demonstrate to the crowd of supporters that he was not afraid.
Whatever your stature, missy, you could not do shit to me. That is truth. But I suspect you are actually a trans identifying male. You couldn't kick you way out of a wet paper bag.
DEI and putting women of midget status in place where true male strength and stature - to say nothing of boldness and composure - is damaging the country.
Every time you write you prove your lack of sense.
When did open discrimination become "okay?" Accepted. Even mandated.
In 1981 I was working in the Press & Marketing Department of a well-established off-Broadway theater company (that still exists today). I was part of the Marketing half. We were looking for a Press Director. My boss, who was a woman (I think she still is) was interviewing candidates. One woman came out of her interview and with great composure and maturity came over to me and said, "Just so you know: your boss just told me to my face that she really wants to hire a man for this job... and she can't do that."
Thank goodness this woman didn't sue. She probably realized that she didn't want to work for an organization that would disqualify her simply for not having a penis.
But now it's 45 years later (!) and we're blithely discriminating in hiring against people because of their race and/or gender. What's next? Will this current "nostalgia craze" bring back Redlining?
This nonsense must stop. We can't expect a gaggle of tiny women to form a Meat Pyramid around a huge, tall, broad man. Case closed.
But now it's time for Cheatle to be replaced, since she obviously cannot handle the responsibilities of the job. She doesn't even understand the responsibilities, or she would resign.
The more we learn about the shooting, and the more she deflects blame onto the local police, the more obvious it becomes that the USSS is not what it once was.
This is why I subscribed to Free Press. The nytimes ideology, for example, does not permit examination of , or comments on, the possibility that emphasis on DEI hiring and promotion at the Secret Service lowers competency standards. This is an example of how the nytimes and other media censor topics by omission.
MS. Cheatle mentioned the reason there was not agent placed on the roof: fall of the roof concern. The fact that she even considered this valid justification is astonishing. Really? Special agent is in danger of falling of the roof? this safety precaution worth risking failure of mission? The super soldiers of Secret Service are that vulnerable? Shame on her and the whole Secret Service. You made our country the laughingstock of the world.
I think there should at the minimum be a height requirement. It is only practical.
Today's reveleation: the police had a counter-sniper team inside the building that Crooks scaled. In fact, a member of the team took a picture, out the window, of Crooks using a range-finder while sitting next to the building.
While the police were trying to upload the photo to some database somewhere, Crooks left and returned with his gun. At which point they lost sight of him, even though by that time rally attenders were screaming for their attention.
When they finally got their collective you-know-what together and decided Crooks was a threat and decided to try and secure the roof of the building, Crooks was already dead, but had taken five shots at the president.
I wish I were making this up. Keystone State Kops, I guess, under the direction of the Secret Service.
Meanwhile, Cheatle is still employed.
OK - We have a VERY big problem here. I just saw an interview with a Butler police supervisor. His take on the peeping cop was that, in response to all the people screaming about a shooter on the roof, an officer stood on the shoulders of another and, grabbing the edge of the roof with both hands, pulled himself to look over.
Allegedly, the shooter saw him and pointed his rifle at the officer, who - since both hands were occupied hanging onto the roof's edge, couldn't access his firearm and very reasonably ducked his head back down, falling off the shoulders of his fellow cop in the process.
So far, so good. All very reasonable.
But since the people on the ground could see the shooter, even well enough to take a picture of him, the cop - now on the ground - should have been able to see him, too, over his pistol sights.
But what did he do? "Called for backup." Are you f'ing kidding me?
Failing a direct shot, he and his fellow officers could have fired through the upper corner of the building. Hit the guy? Maybe, maybe not, but it would have destroyed his composure and spoiled his aim at the least. This is called "suppressive fire." The gunfire sounds would have triggered the the Pantywaist Secret Service (PSSies) to drag Trump off the stage, so whether the shooter was hit or not is moot.
And/or - an officer could have run inside the building, guessed where the shooter was located, and fired up directly through a SINGLE LAYER of metal - maybe striking the shooter, maybe not - but raising more hell than a jackass in a tin barn - and once again, getting Trump dragged off the stage.
No, these people all need to be dismissed forthwith. Right before they are horsewhipped.
Just to add, when Cheatle was asked why that counter-sniper team decided to secure the inside of the building rather than the outside of the building, her answer was that the roof was sloped, and presumably too dangerous to scale and use to get a sight-line on the stage.
Huh? And if it were raining, would it be too dangerous to go outside at all, since officers could get wet or maybe even slip in the wet grass? Or maybe since the weather was close to 90 outside, they had to stay in the building because they ran out of sun screen?
Since there was apparently a heightened threat because of chatter from Iran, maybe they decided not to do anything at all since Iran is clearly outside their perimeter, and thus not their responsibility at all?
Sorry to rant. I just can't believe the Secret Service has come to this.
Two points. First, the video shows male agents also adjusting their glasses and jackets. Watch the burly guy in the back. So maybe it's agency practice to look unruffled, or maybe they're like a lot of people and prefer that their glasses not obstruct their vision.
Second, re the agency's goal of women accounting for 30% of its agents by 2030, that's consistent with dozens of local, state, federal and university law enforcement agencies that have signed the "30x30 pledge" for women to represent 30% of their officers by 2030. They include ATF and the Waco, Texas, Police Dept. Did you not learn that in your reporting?
Reagan Shooter, John Hinckley, Joins Morning Joe
https://www.dickondemand.tv/p/morning-joe-trump-assassination
Hysterical
Perhaps another agency that should be privatized.
Trump should hire the same firm at Elon Musk, His security team aborted two attempts on his life this year.
The woke simulation has has been exhibiting a cascade of glitches.
There’s no room for DEI.
But the fact that agent was short does not mean she’s a DEI hire. It could mean an administrative error…and if the job includes being a human shield….then yeah it makes sense for the agents assigned to Trump’s detail to be at least as tall as the subject you’re protecting. Maybe she should be on Melania’s detail.
Not saying secret service doesn’t have anything to answer for. This was a breach with capital B. And DEI is a huge problem generally. But to focus on a short agent and another bad apple to shoehorn the issue of DEI into the discussion here is pretty weak stuff.
Did you miss the part where the Director flat out told CBS that she was preferentially hiring females? Administrative error? You don't just shrug that off if the job is important. You fix the error.
That's a goal to which scores of law enforcement agencies at all levels and throughout the country have pledged themselves, consistent with the "30x30 pledge." Sometimes it helps to do minimal research on a subject before opining on it. https://30x30initiative.org/
Any quota system flies in the face of a merit based system. And that’s foolhardy.
But was it a woman or a DEI hire who lead the advance team that scouted and cleared the rally site? Was it a woman or a DEI hire who decided NOT to secure the building that the shooter accessed? Was it a woman or DEI hire who assigned that short female agent to trumps personal detail?
You can rail against DEI. Like I’ve said, I’m no fan of DEI. But to rail against DEI using this shooting as an exemplar, but only via focussing on a female agent who happens to be short, or some other female agents who fumbled with their sunglasses or weapons a bit, is dumb.
And if the author wanted to take a swipe at DEI, this was a lame effort.
Imagine a world where the execs actually sit down and come up with 30x30. In my whole professional career, I never saw anyone propose changing our hiring practice from the best available to someone who meets a given social profile. Being that stupid would get you fired. And to the surprise of no one, those in DC and govt wonder what all the fuss is about.
That they “preferentially hire females” does not automatically mean the females they do hire are incompetent. The problem is if they hire incompetent females rather than, or at the expense of, competent males. The author has not made that case. As I said, I’m no fan of DEI. I’m also no fan of crappy or lazy arguments.
It’s not the short female agent’s fault if she’s been assigned to a taller subject. It’s the fault of the person who assigned her. That’s what I mean by admin error.
This piece reminds me of a Joe Rogan standup piece ~8 years ago on the topic of women in the secret service...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVWi74v6_L0&list=PL8Xj9c0KkohEVtzHX3OX0LKqY2y08-K_5&index=3
"Most men can't do the jobs men do." -- brilliant
DEI needs to DIE. Meritocracy is the only viable policy. Firemen...because when an adult needs saving from a burning house, the person picking them up should be as large and masculine as possible.
DEI comes in many forms, from sex to skin color to mental aptitude. It is equal opportunity BS.
The ladies protecting Trump were not the right people for the job they were assigned to. At the very least, one was too short. If the SS officers are supposed to use their bodies to shield Trump, why is a short person assigned to that detail?
One other woman agent appeared to be incompetent with her weapon, yet she was also assigned to Trumps detail. Both issues stem from leadership issues that need addressed.
Outcome based hiring is nothing short of a joke and a disaster waiting to happen. The fire department I work for hired several female firefighters that are very short and they have trouble raising ladders. I feel those two women struggle primarily due to a lack of upper body strength more so than being short. As the incident commander, I have to assign the crew with those females to a job other than ladder work. This is unacceptable to me due to the nature of firefighting where time is essential in most of what we do. Life safety/rescue is #1 at every fire scene we respond to. Delaying a rescue because the female crew is incompetent is what my city’s management has made as their top priority.
Equity is disastrous in every situation.
Both our former chief and current HR director love to parade those ladies around and tell everyone that those ladies are the token girls on the department. They don’t say those words but the message is loud and clear, to the point where several of the women have sternly scolded the HR director and asked if they were hired because they were women or because they were competent. Damage control ensued and double speak smoothed it over. It’s like the HR director purposely called attention to their quota hiring practices.
Not so ironically, only females work in HR at my employer…
I don’t think it is fair to claim that the female agents who were surrounding Trump were to blame here when Trump himself refused to submit to the instructions given by the agents and instead Trump focused on the optics, thus creating vulnerabilities that endangered himself and the agents.
However, the failure to secure the rooftop prior to the rally as well as the failure to heed the alarms raised by observers during the rally, is unforgivable. For that reason alone the head of the secret service should be fired.
Oh, for Keerist's sake, look at the video. No one claims that short-in-stature agent working to get Trump off the stage was incompetent. She did her job and folks have commended her bravery.
But she was TOO F'n SHORT. Trump was full exposed above her head. It is not discriminatory to point that out. It is a fact readily observable. She is brave, but not the right person to be doing that job.
There were female agents on the ground by the SUV into which Trump was put to head to the hospital. They were fumbling with weapons, struggling to put their Men In Black sunglasses on. Looking confused and scared. Certainly not the posture of strength needed in that circumstance.
Pretty clearly, your TDS interferes with your ability to deal in objective reality. You are a perfect example of the DEI mindset.
Nope I’m just a short woman who can kick ass, your’s included Burning Man. Trump’s posturing and his insistence that he be allowed to stand tall and raise his fist by the agents was clearly the problem in the video linked to the article.
Watch the Joe Rogan video link above. He describes you perfectly.
You’re cuckoo crazy
Oh, for god's sake. You are incredibly idiotic. Trump had just been shot. Blood on his cheek. He ducked BEFORE the agents were on him. When he stood he made a gesture to demonstrate to the crowd of supporters that he was not afraid.
Whatever your stature, missy, you could not do shit to me. That is truth. But I suspect you are actually a trans identifying male. You couldn't kick you way out of a wet paper bag.
DEI and putting women of midget status in place where true male strength and stature - to say nothing of boldness and composure - is damaging the country.
Every time you write you prove your lack of sense.
Shambolically. Great word.
When did open discrimination become "okay?" Accepted. Even mandated.
In 1981 I was working in the Press & Marketing Department of a well-established off-Broadway theater company (that still exists today). I was part of the Marketing half. We were looking for a Press Director. My boss, who was a woman (I think she still is) was interviewing candidates. One woman came out of her interview and with great composure and maturity came over to me and said, "Just so you know: your boss just told me to my face that she really wants to hire a man for this job... and she can't do that."
Thank goodness this woman didn't sue. She probably realized that she didn't want to work for an organization that would disqualify her simply for not having a penis.
But now it's 45 years later (!) and we're blithely discriminating in hiring against people because of their race and/or gender. What's next? Will this current "nostalgia craze" bring back Redlining?
This nonsense must stop. We can't expect a gaggle of tiny women to form a Meat Pyramid around a huge, tall, broad man. Case closed.
It seems that the secret is out.
But now it's time for Cheatle to be replaced, since she obviously cannot handle the responsibilities of the job. She doesn't even understand the responsibilities, or she would resign.
The more we learn about the shooting, and the more she deflects blame onto the local police, the more obvious it becomes that the USSS is not what it once was.
This is why I subscribed to Free Press. The nytimes ideology, for example, does not permit examination of , or comments on, the possibility that emphasis on DEI hiring and promotion at the Secret Service lowers competency standards. This is an example of how the nytimes and other media censor topics by omission.