reSee.it - Related Video Feed

We, along with other senators, will press the Secret Service for answers. The American people deserve transparency. Past conspiracy theories have proven true, so we must uncover the truth of this situation.

An individual from the Pittsburgh office, who may have failed training exams and was not a top agent, was inexplicably placed in charge of the president's entire trip from arrival to departure. Sources close to the Secret Service's internal investigation claim the Department of Homeland Security is pressuring the Secret Service to withhold documents requested by Congress. The speaker insists the American people deserve the truth.

When the events unfolded on Saturday, there was shock and concern for the former president. Investigators are looking into whether the roof access was properly secured, as the shooter had a clear view of the former president from about 400 feet away. The building's sloped roof posed safety concerns, leading to the decision to secure it from inside.

The speaker discusses potential security failures in protecting the president at an event. They suggest the need for a thorough investigation to understand what went wrong and prevent future incidents. The speaker emphasizes the importance of transparency and accountability in addressing security concerns. They stress the need for a comprehensive inquiry before making any accusations. The conversation highlights the significance of ensuring the safety of the president and the American people.

The Secret Service is investigating who in the Trump campaign knew about a recent service issue. Some people close to Trump were unaware. Trump has a close security team that he trusts and respects.

Mike Jones tells the president to stay away from his girlfriend, Aya Cooper. Speaker 1 finds it embarrassing and wonders why they feel smart. Speaker 1 didn't know Mike's name, but mentions that there were around 2,000 people there this week. Fortunately, the president was kind about the situation. However, the president couldn't resist making a final remark.

The speaker mentions upcoming opportunities, including a quad family photo and a visit to the president's high school. Another speaker expresses frustration that the events are structured as photo opportunities rather than a press conference. They highlight the perceived contradiction between the president's commitment to transparency and freedom of the press, and the decision not to hold a press conference with the leaders of India and two other key democracies from a region struggling to maintain democracy. The speaker questions why the president would not take the opportunity to face questions from reporters in a free press, especially alongside leaders from major democracies.

Every precaution was taken, yet a catastrophic failure occurred during a presidential event. Questions arose regarding the Secret Service's response, specifically the lack of sufficient personnel and communication breakdowns. Whistleblowers reported that the Secret Service denied requests for additional resources, and that crucial information about the shooter was not relayed to the protective detail. The shooter was observed for an extended period before firing. Concerns were raised about the size and location of the security perimeter, which excluded a building within rifle range of the stage. The Secret Service's response is being heavily scrutinized, with questions raised about decisions made regarding resource allocation, communication protocols, and response times. An investigation is underway.

Government officials may have discouraged formal requests to avoid creating a paper trail. This allowed the director to mislead Congress by claiming no requests were technically denied. The aim was to limit resources and deny counter snipers. Counter snipers were eventually deployed on the day of the event, but initially, none were supposed to be available. The counter surveillance division, which typically does site advances to identify security perimeter problems, was allegedly prevented from doing so by Secret Service leadership. Whistleblowers suggest the situation is worsening as more information emerges. The number of counter sniper teams was also reportedly reduced from four to two.

I showed Tucker evidence from a reliable source about a missing police post. The media's story about the roof being the issue is false. The Secret Service director was told to stay quiet by the administration. If the missing post led to harm, it could have been disastrous.

I showed Tucker evidence that a police post was supposed to be present, but it didn't show up. The media is spreading a false story about the roof. The Secret Service director was told to stay quiet about this by the administration. If the police post logs show a post was missed, it could have led to a dangerous situation.

I showed Tucker evidence that a police post was supposed to be at a location, but it didn't show up. The media is spreading a false story about the roof being the issue. The Secret Service director was told to stay quiet about it. If the post had been there, it could have prevented a dangerous situation.

We were supposed to have a face-to-face briefing with the Secret Service snipers, but that never occurred. This lack of communication made me realize something was wrong. There was no contact with the Secret Service at all that Saturday, only after the shooting, which was too late.

The conversation centers on preparation and concerns surrounding a decision or briefing. Parked in a location because a diversionary is active, with discussion about whether to pull a card out for Q&A once a card is finished. There is acknowledgment that they cannot definitively decide on certain wording because not all stakeholders (“blue dogs”) are present. One speaker notes they are finishing up and references “the ground,” indicating finalization of points or a plan. They suggest that the plan was the result of a briefing with numbers and that stakeholders have signed off, but there is anxiety about the president’s stance or position. Regarding the president, one speaker remarks that the president is not bad “at the fourteenth,” implying a view of performance around a specific date or milestone, but another adds that the president has always been skeptical, particularly of certain issues or actors. They describe the president as having terrible relationships with the union and not great handling of the coronavirus pandemic with the workforce. They acknowledge some positive aspects: the president has hired well at the lower ranks and has done some things well on the operational side, but characterize him as not a strong leader overall. The discussion also notes that the president is a Secret Service figure. In a prior conversation with him just before the meeting, he was very transparent about his views on other states he might order, which were underestimating crowd size and underestimating the president’s influence on Saudi Arabia. The transcript ends with a commitment to further announcements.

The shooter was identified as a potential suspect, but by the time they were located, they were on the rooftop and able to fire at the former president. The Secret Service director was allegedly instructed by the administration and the DHS secretary to keep quiet or risk losing her job. One speaker has heard from the Secret Service director, but not publicly. Another speaker states they would fire the Secret Service director for not being visible and transparent with the American people, regardless of the story. They believe the handling of the situation by briefing only Milwaukee was poorly executed.

Speaker 0 notes they will park momentarily because the diversionary is active. Speaker 1 confirms understanding and says they can pull the card out, but if they’re going to finish the card they can pull it out for Q and A. Speaker 0 adds that they cannot say they want something; they can say they’ll call it, but they don’t know yet because not all the blue dogs are with them on this subject. They suggest looking at the words they’re using and ask what else is on the agenda. Speaker 1 says he’s finishing up. Speaker 2 shifts to discussing the ground and the plan: it was the plan they briefed on with the numbers, with stakeholders who have signed off on it. There is some anxiety about the president. Speaker 0 remarks that the president isn’t bad at the fourteenth. Speaker 2 clarifies that the individual in question was on their first choice before today, but not today; he has always been skeptical—always skeptical of some things. The speaker notes this person’s terrible relationships with the union and asserts that he has not been great in handling the coronavirus pandemic with the workforce. They acknowledge that he has done some good things, such as hiring well at the sort of third-tier rank and some operational improvements, but characterize him as not a strong leader. Speaker 0 adds that the person is, after all, a Secret Service guy. Speaker 2 continues: in their conversation with him immediately before this meeting, he was very transparent about what he thought of other states that he may order. He believes those states were underestimating the crowd size and underestimating the president’s influence on Saudi Arabia. The speaker notes that further announcing... (the thought trails off here).

Whistleblowers claim the security plan for the former president called for law enforcement on the roof and around the building, but there was no one except the shooter on the roof and no one around the perimeter. The excuse given was that it was too hot that day. Whistleblowers also say the lead site agent was not trusted or highly regarded by other Secret Service agents and didn't know what she was doing. The speaker questions why these individuals were running security for a former president and current major party nominee, calling it inexplicable and stating that the lack of answers is making the situation worse.

I will provide an overview of the security planning for the July 13th attack. The Secret Service and the former president's security team were unaware of a man with a firearm on the AGR building's roof until gunshots were heard. They were informed by local law enforcement about a suspicious individual before the shooting occurred.

Speaker 0: I was impressed by the questions, and I think it helped him understand how I think and how we run the White House and how we deal with threats. Speaker 1: Mister president, critics suggested you wanted to appear jointly with the vice president so you could keep your story straight. Could you tell us what you think of the value of appearing together and how you would answer those critics? Speaker 2: First of all, look, if we had something to hide, we wouldn't have met with them in the first place. We answered all their questions. I came away good about the session. Speaker 3: And even the president and vice president agreed to meet with the commission, but with a catch. They insisted on meeting together behind closed doors and not under oath. Speaker 2: Mister president, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the nine eleven commission? Speaker 0: Because the nine eleven commission wants to ask us questions. That's why we're meeting, and I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions

One must question why his staff wants him to hide away. Are they afraid people will see that he is too weak and unstable to lead America?

I told them to post guys at the farm show. I thought Secret Service would handle it. They were inside, not on the roof. I wanted guys posted here. Second key code should be at the command post or in your car.

It's possible that these two individuals are overly self-important, believing they deserve special treatment. Some colleagues share this sentiment. If they truly felt that way, why didn't they express it publicly? Instead of being honest about their meeting with the president, they misrepresented their intentions on television. Your reporting suggests they had undisclosed motives, which should draw even more criticism than they already receive. What do you mean by that?

I asked colleagues to create a committee with subpoena power to investigate the lack of Secret Service protection for the president. The Secret Service director agreed to brief us, but it hasn't happened yet. I question why the president wasn't given more protection and who is responsible for that decision.

They offered serious subjects of conversation about cabinet positions, lower positions, and paying off campaign debt. These conversations could lead toward some real "gotcha" moments.

I showed Tucker evidence that a police post was supposed to be at a certain location, but it wasn't there. The media is spreading a false story about the roof's pitch causing the absence. The Secret Service director was warned to stay quiet by the administration and DHS secretary. Negligence in checking police logs could have led to a dangerous situation.