Secret Service agent had the shooter in his crosshairs for 3 minutes! The Secret Service would not give the order to take out the assassin! The Deep State is certainly in play. Do not let any of the partisan Lefties in Covers confuse you! You will have to copy and paste the link below to your browser.
https://x.com/JeckovKanani/status/1812502038783152492
What gets me is the sherriff made eye contact with the goof on top of the roof and crooks looked at sherriff and pointed his gun at him and the sherriff went back down the wall...
I was watching CNN and got that news and they said sherriff had right to shoot him based on federal law and he botched it...that seems like because he didn't do that it allowed crooks to shoot
Yes. The Deep State decided to go with an inexperienced, 20 year old rookie shooter with no military experience or professional training at a very crowded rally, in plain view with no tactical team or partner to take down your beloved Trump. This makes sense to you?? Seek mental help. 
If this was a "deep state" job, the mission would have been completed covertly, and professionally, not at a televised rally, in plain view. Get a grip. 
Lots of different stuff being put out there....some crazy, some not so crazy....some fact, some fiction. Just another day in our MSM news cycle.
There is a world, one in which we get regular reminders of, in which the authorities / government / people in charge of high level decision making, are completely useless and inept at their jobs.
Gross negligence.
Extreme incompetence.
Being dumb as shit.
All of these we witness on a regular basis, it is possible the combination of all contributed to the results of this past Saturday. Problem is the FBI is the only entity investigating this as a "3rd party" (lol). There will of course be a congressional hearing for the DEI hire head of USSS regarding the events of 7/13 but there should also be an independent parallel investigation alongside the FBI. Will that happen? Up to Congress for now.
Many questions still to answer, will anyone be held accountable for the negligence, incompetence and ignorance of those in charge? Probably not.
@ABooksNightmare
she got lit up yesterday by both sides..... when was the last time you saw a bi-partisan effort to hold anyone in government accountable ??
Some would consider this a RED FLAG.
Perhaps it was just so egregious of a failure, combined with the answers to the questions asked at yesterday's hearing, that there was no other acceptable action to take.
Well she used to be senior director of global security at PepsiCo. Probably under qualified for this gig.
No one wants to say things that are politically incorrect, or hurt feelings and such. But at some point someone has to raise the question, "should women be allowed to do a man's job?"
That's one scenario, the more realistic one right? She fucked up, or was to scared to give the call to shoot, or just painfully oblivious? "Under qualified"
Scenario 2, she was ordered to not take action. But we won't ever know. From the questioning she got from those senators, it felt like she didn't want to answer any of their questions.
For what reason/reasons she wouldn't answer those questions, we'll never know.
I think was actually uber-qualified. I think the misconception is that the secret service is comprised of a bunch of well-trained ex-military heavy hitters led by some former general. And maybe they should be. However, they're mostly former cops. And cops can be quite undertrained and inept. So as someone who had decades of secret servive experience, and who had then gone on to be a global head of security for a major corporation, she was actually extremely qualified. And as far as giving orders to shoot, I don't know if that was on her. Was she even there? Doesn't make sense that she would be.
@lbcake
Malinformation is a controversial term for information which is based on fact, but removed from its original context in order to mislead, harm, or manipulate.
Proponents of the term argue that malinformation is often used in conjunction with disinformation and misinformation as part of "orchestrated campaigns [to] spread untruths", a phenomenon known as fake news. However, critics of the term argue that "unlike 'disinformation,' which is intentionally misleading, or 'misinformation,' which is erroneous, 'malinformation' is true but inconvenient". Journalists have raised concerns that terms such as malinformation expand the definition of "harmful content" to encompass true information that supports non-mainstream views, resulting in people who hold dissenting viewpoints being censored and silenced even if those views are substantiated.
yes, damnit....and you know no one from Canada even replied to me after all that thought that went into it...
Some of my best work is done here and it is completely ignored...
It's like I'm a ghost posting in the shadow of the swords
I C U brutha
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
