Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, Tailgate said:

She allowed a 20-year-old kid to almost take out a protected target.

Did she, though? Why is this on her and not on the subordinates?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Tailgate said:

1. She has zero answers to 99.9% of questions of what went down that day. That’s not the FBI’s job. Her job is complete responsibility for everyone assigned to protect the former president/anyone under SS protection.

2. She hasn’t even visited the site.

3. She admitted she didn’t talk to SS detail at the event until 72 hours later.

This was the biggest breach in decades. Please enlighten me as to why you believe she should lead this agency.

She’s taken responsibility, but she’s not going to announce her resignation during this hearing. I’d wager she will resign once the investigations conclude. It’s not the director’s job to review security plans so honestly this isn’t her fault, but she must resign for the sake of public trust in the secret service. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, B00M said:

She’s taken responsibility, but she’s not going to announce her resignation during this hearing. I’d wager she will resign once the investigations conclude. It’s not the director’s job to review security plans so honestly this isn’t her fault, but she must resign for the sake of public trust in the secret service. 

 

Agree with that.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Harping on the AR15 is so transparently political. It’s embarrassing how both sides are using this to try to score points. We’re lucky he had an iron sighted AR15 instead of a well used hunting rifle.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, B00M said:

Harping on the AR15 is so transparently political. It’s embarrassing how both sides are using this to try to score points. We’re lucky he had an iron sighted AR15 instead of a well used hunting rifle.

He shouldn’t have had the opportunity to own that weapon. No one should. Given Republican gun policy it would’ve served them right if the kid had a bump stock.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

He shouldn’t have had the opportunity to own that weapon. No one should. Given Republican gun policy it would’ve served them right if the kid had a bump stock.

It was the father's rifle, but please feel free to continue running your cockwasher when you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

Edited by Chad
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 4
Posted
13 minutes ago, Chad said:

It was the father's rifle, but please feel free to continue running your cockwasher when you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

The father should not have been able to purchase an AR-15. There is that better?

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

Did she, though? Why is this on her and not on the subordinates?

This whole thing is good, but he gets to your question at 1:33.

 

Edited by TexasHooch
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, Chad said:

It was the father's rifle, but please feel free to continue running your cockwasher when you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

Then he shouldn’t have had access to it. I dunno if you’re aware but there’s a gun control problem in this country. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Then he shouldn’t have had access to it. I dunno if you’re aware but there’s a gun control problem in this country. 

Will the father face charges for failing to secure his firearm? 

Edited by B00M
Genuine question. I think he should.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

What exactly did you think she was going to say?

"I don't know until the investigation is completed whether it will call for that, but Yes.  I am absolutely prepared to fire individuals who it is determined to have made critical mistakes."

 

 

Posted
32 minutes ago, Chad said:

It was the father's rifle, but please feel free to continue running your cockwasher when you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

Fucking moron, read what I said. No one should be able to own that weapon. It doesn’t matter that his dad bought the gun.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

"I don't know until the investigation is completed whether it will call for that, but Yes.  I am absolutely prepared to fire individuals who it is determined to have made critical mistakes."

 

 

She was in the process of saying something along the lines of that. Seems a little strange to call for firing before she knows the facts.

Posted

I'll grant you that he cut her off- so neither of us can know for sure, but I disagree that she was going anywhere near a real answer.  She said, "I'm prepared to take the actions necessary" which is absolutely a non-answer answer.  He didn't ask her if she was planning to fire people. He asked if she was prepared to.  The easy answer is "yes, if I determine..."

Posted
1 minute ago, TexasHooch said:

I'll grant you that he cut her off- so neither of us can know for sure, but I disagree that she was going anywhere near a real answer.  She said, "I'm prepared to take the actions necessary" which is absolutely a non-answer answer.  He didn't ask her if she was planning to fire people. He asked if she was prepared to.  The easy answer is "yes, if I determine..."

Thats grasping at straws.

Posted
1 minute ago, Chad said:

The founding fathers had a better idea of what was up than some faggot ass incel soy boy on a message board.

I feel like this is a parody post, but please clarify. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Chad said:

The founding fathers had a better idea of what was up than some faggot ass incel soy boy on a message board.

lol wut? The founding fathers knew about AR15s? You seem smart 

Posted
8 minutes ago, Chad said:

The founding fathers had a better idea of what was up than some faggot ass incel soy boy on a message board.

We got a real tough guy over here

jgVjEBMquPx0P81u.jpg:large

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
1 hour ago, TexasHooch said:

This whole thing is good, but he gets to your question at 1:33.

 

This doesn't really answer my question. Moskowitz was grandstanding with a bunch of hypothetical scenarios, but I still don't know what she needed to have done differently that would have prevented a persistent, dedicated person from accomplishing what Crooks did that day. There's performative "accountability" and then there's a concrete reason why this happened. I'm sure there are concrete reasons, but I'm less sure that any of those concrete reasons have anything to do with Cheatle.

I feel pretty confident that if you look at every person who has had her job title over the past 50 years, the same thing would have happened regardless who was in charge. It's a scary, hard to swallow pill, I know, but the real takeaway here is that we can never truly ensure any person's safety under all circumstances. She was just unlucky enough to be the one behind the wheel when it finally happened. Fortunately (for Trump) it was a superficial injury but unfortunately Crooks was not neutralized before bystanders were killed and injured.

Posted
1 hour ago, Ted Lange said:

 

 

No, "we" all did not condemn political violence and it was pointed out here. Only one of the two major parties' presidential candidates at the time, Joe Biden, condemned it. Multiple times. Donald Trump hasn't and likely never will being that is a major attraction for his Rambo fantasy-having base. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 hour ago, TexEx15 said:

This is a fantastic question.

I think she was the first to criticize the 60 day timeline for the secret service report. In general, AOC stood out as one of the most rational, intelligent people allowed to ask questions … so of course everyone is shocked because fox has managed to convince us all that she’s just a dumb (hot) waitress. 

Posted
2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Fucking moron, read what I said. No one should be able to own that weapon.


So what weapons are the plebeians allowed to own, sire? 
 

Posted

As much as it might come down to luck, there's an argument that the Secret Service had a successful deterrence in this assassination attempt. A bloody nick to the ear is much better than what we saw with Reagan or JFK. Obviously the death and more serious injuries of this attempt should not be taken lightly even though the Secret Service doesn't take responsibility to protect everyone in close proximity. 

List of attempts

I expected this list to include the shoe throw/dodge incident with GWB but it didn't.

Posted
29 minutes ago, B00M said:

I think she was the first to criticize the 60 day timeline for the secret service report. In general, AOC stood out as one of the most rational, intelligent people allowed to ask questions … so of course everyone is shocked because fox has managed to convince us all that she’s just a dumb (hot) waitress. 

She’s not hot?

Posted (edited)

12 members of the committee visited the Butler rally site before the hearing today.

 

They all got up on the roof. Including a 70 year old, walking around up on the roof of the building the shooter made his attempt from. Dems and GOP members. Rep Crane spoke at the site with them all together nodding their heads that he noticed the water tower either in or just outside the perimeter and he was baffled as to why SS wasn’t on the tower with that kind of view of the rally.

at the end of the day, if this were a fictitious plot of a movie called Bad Day in Butler. I have no doubt that if y’all saw it you’d be on the Movies & TV thread saying the assassination attempt was bullshit. No way someone gets on the roof like that and gets off at least 3 rounds. You’d be saying the plot was crap. Unbelievable. 

the Director has not visited the site. This came out earlier in the questioning. Many of the 12 or so congressmen who went to Butler went hard on her bc wtf? 

Edited by Nicole44
Posted
1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

The SS doesn’t have the audio from the communications that day.  Un-fucking-believable.

They normally have audio. Just not that day. I know Cheatle referred to the fbi for the investigation but damn:

how many shell casings on the roof? Ask the FBI.  

Was there a second shooter? She said ask FBI.

Were there people in the building? Yes. Why didn’t any of them hear the shooter on the roof? Said to ask FBI.

Can you give us a timeline of the events? Yes. I have one with me. Can you breakdown what happened that day? My timeline is not specific. 

The oversight committee isn’t exactly a committee that “gets along.” About anything. They were all in agreement on this. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, F250 said:

Theatrics, people live for theatrics.

DC being Hollywood for ugly people is as good a description of that dysfunctional shithole as I've heard.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

why is this a big deal though

Yeah, I don't really fault her for that.  She's back in D.C. doing one debriefing after another, followed by internal inquiries, followed by committee prep, followed by hearings.  She has 5 direct reports and 11 underneath them, most of whom had some hand in this (or lack thereof).  Obviously on her flaws seems to be delegating to competent people.  But tooling around in Western PA for 36 hours when she's got a lotta people to interrogate and then a lotta people to give answer, not a big deal IMHO. 

Plus I'm quite certain there's a protocol way above my paygrade on how they interrogate local law enforecement for incidents like this.  But I'd rather some of them be showing my team around Western PA, while others are brought to DC to USSS HQ, on her turf to be questioned.  Get them outta their bullshit comfort zone and start answering tough questions.  They probably have a room where they can replicate the whole damn thing in 3-D anyway.  I realize that would put a wedge between local LEO and USSS going forward.  But guess what?  Too fucking late.   

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, TexEx15 said:

This is a fantastic question.

Actually, I'm not sure how good a question it is.  A competent sniper can make shots from 1000 yards or more, and they wouldn't use an AR-15 variant.  Really good shooters can hit at nearly 3000 yards, using some other weapon, like a .50 BMG.  Regardless, better, and very common bolt action rifles with optics are widely available and owned by many, e.g. deer hunters, and would have had a much longer lethal range.

Establishing a perimeter at 3/4 mile or more because of the possibility of snipers using common, but not AR-15, rifles isn't really realistic.

Unless the shooter was spraying rounds at pretty close range, an AR-15 variant, most of them, is an objectively bad choice.  

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
Actually, I'm not sure how good a question it is.  A competent sniper can make shots from 1000 yards or more, and they wouldn't use an AR-15 variant.  Really good shooters can hit at nearly 3000 yards, using some other weapon, like a .50 BMG.  Regardless, better, and very common bolt action rifles with optics are widely available and owned by many, e.g. deer hunters, and would have had a much longer lethal range.
Establishing a perimeter at 3/4 mile or more because of the possibility of snipers using common, but not AR-15, rifles isn't really realistic.
Unless the shooter was spraying rounds at pretty close range, an AR-15 variant, most of them, is an objectively bad choice.  

This. If you were to assign any of a million hunters in Texas the “mission” of “take a dude out at under 300 yards,” functionally all of them would bring their own scoped rifle in 30/06, .270, .300 WM, etc. And almost all could hit the target’s center mass.
Give a decent shooter a clear shot at a large mammal inside 300 yards, and most will score a solid hit.
That sort of threat is the baseline the SS should be prepared for and should sweep for, in all cases.
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted

Give a decent shooter a clear shot at a large mammal inside 300 yards, and most will score a solid hit.


Yea on a perfectly still and crisp December morning shooting at a deer.

I’m guessing Bubba might be slightly less accurate when shooting at the fucking president knowing he will die in about 30 seconds after he pulls the trigger with the whole world watching.
  • Drool 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


This. If you were to assign any of a million hunters in Texas the “mission” of “take a dude out at under 300 yards,” functionally all of them would bring their own scoped rifle in 30/06, .270, .300 WM, etc. And almost all could hit the target’s center mass.
Give a decent shooter a clear shot at a large mammal inside 300 yards, and most will score a solid hit.
That sort of threat is the baseline the SS should be prepared for and should sweep for, in all cases.


I think you and TwiceHorn are missing the point of AOC's question.  

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Posted

Oh is this where we start talking about calibers and magazines vs clips and a bunch of other stupid gun bullshit?  Because that sounds super fun and definitely has never been done before. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Actually, I'm not sure how good a question it is.  A competent sniper can make shots from 1000 yards or more, and they wouldn't use an AR-15 variant.  Really good shooters can hit at nearly 3000 yards, using some other weapon, like a .50 BMG.  Regardless, better, and very common bolt action rifles with optics are widely available and owned by many, e.g. deer hunters, and would have had a much longer lethal range.

Establishing a perimeter at 3/4 mile or more because of the possibility of snipers using common, but not AR-15, rifles isn't really realistic.

Unless the shooter was spraying rounds at pretty close range, an AR-15 variant, most of them, is an objectively bad choice.  

I mean if you are preparing for the plot of “Shooter” then yes you have a point. In reality the AR-15, as AOC rightly points out, is the soup du jour for these idiots.

  • Hook 'Em 2


×
×
  • Create New...