The United States Secret Service is a rogue agency

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that this conversation is even happening is destabilizing in itself—whether or not there is any THERE there. Extremely concerning.

How bullies have always conducted business: commit crimes and don’t let anyone talk about it.

You don’t want people to notice your sedition, don’t commit sedition and acts supporting sedition.

Excuse you. I’m just an average civilian aghast at what is happening in this country, and I know enough about failed states to know that a sign of autocracy is the loss of an independent presidential protection service. It’s very bad that trust in the institution is eroding. We don’t want a situation where very new president is raising their own private police force. It may be too late. It might not be too late. Depends on what kind of public accountability happens—which I am fully in support of.

Excuse yourself. You’re making excuses for obvious lawbreakers. You can’t say you fully support public accountability “depending on what kind” and tell people that the conversation in itself is “destabilizing.”

Something is wrong in the USSS.
1) Pence didn’t trust the USSS such that he refused to get in the car
2) Biden didn’t trust the USSS such that he requested agent switches
3) The USSS, or at least factions within, are in service to the fascists who want to overthrow the government and have deleted evidence.

I am making zero excuses. I am raising alarms. Calm down and read what I wrote again. The fact that this conversation is even happening means something is gravely wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That tidbit about how pence would not get into the car on Jan 6th really stood out to me as a mature reasonably informed person. I can't recall coverage of any similar incidents........lack of trust in a SS security detail by the person being protected.

Does that happen?

I thought Pence wouldn’t get in the car because he assumed the SS would take him far away from the Capitol building for his own protection—but he needed to stay there to complete his constitutional duties. But maybe I have misunderstood this. Anyone know?

The point was...his concern was about the constitutional duties part...not the protection part.

He was concerned the USSS would stop him for carrying out his constitutional duties. Pence was scared he would be flown off to Alaska because everyone knows the USSS can remove and isolate a president or VP.

Other are saying that Pence was afraid the SS would lead him to the mob and abandoned him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That tidbit about how pence would not get into the car on Jan 6th really stood out to me as a mature reasonably informed person. I can't recall coverage of any similar incidents........lack of trust in a SS security detail by the person being protected.

Does that happen?

I thought Pence wouldn’t get in the car because he assumed the SS would take him far away from the Capitol building for his own protection—but he needed to stay there to complete his constitutional duties. But maybe I have misunderstood this. Anyone know?

The point was...his concern was about the constitutional duties part...not the protection part.

Ever think that was the point of the violence? Get Pence out of the building, let Grassley handle it, and voila! coup d’etat!

Obviously that was the point. What was the role of the secret service?

To protect pence. They were doing their jobs, it was likely planned to happen just as it did, except Pence refused to budge. Called the bluff as it were. It IS shocking that more people didn’t die that day, almost like people were told to threaten without harming.

Unfortunately the USS is being thrown under the bus, probably by some of their own.

It seems they protected him just fine where they were instead of driving away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That tidbit about how pence would not get into the car on Jan 6th really stood out to me as a mature reasonably informed person. I can't recall coverage of any similar incidents........lack of trust in a SS security detail by the person being protected.

Does that happen?

I thought Pence wouldn’t get in the car because he assumed the SS would take him far away from the Capitol building for his own protection—but he needed to stay there to complete his constitutional duties. But maybe I have misunderstood this. Anyone know?

The point was...his concern was about the constitutional duties part...not the protection part.

Ever think that was the point of the violence? Get Pence out of the building, let Grassley handle it, and voila! coup d’etat!

Obviously that was the point. What was the role of the secret service?

To protect pence. They were doing their jobs, it was likely planned to happen just as it did, except Pence refused to budge. Called the bluff as it were. It IS shocking that more people didn’t die that day, almost like people were told to threaten without harming.

Unfortunately the USS is being thrown under the bus, probably by some of their own.

It seems they protected him just fine where they were instead of driving away.

They did. But under normal circumstances he would never have been allowed to remain. Maybe they didn’t want to facilitate a coup after all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the counter-assault team, specifically.

Do you know what the counter-assault team does? What their job is? What they’re tasked with doing, if called upon? What their training regime is like? Read up on them. It’s not the type of job most people could/would do.


It takes a very particular kind of person to do what they might be called upon to do. It’s a super-alpha-male type of personality that is required, not just to do their specific task, but to even endure the ongoing training. The type of men (and the very, very few women) suited to the team or even capable of doing the job, are of a hyper aggressive, combative, competitive type personality.

They’re basically the attack dogs. Paid to repel (and die) any attack on the President and soak up casualties while the protective team gets the POTUS out of the area of the attack.
People who go to work everyday fully expecting to be engaged in a machinegun and rocket battle against terrorists. And expecting to get wounded or killed at work, if the scenario they train for daily ever happens. These guys aren’t normal. Therefore it’s absurd to apply normal values and mores to them.


As long as they’re fit for duty and report for their shifts, I cut them all the slack in the world for any trouble they get in in off duty hours.

Sorry, my tax dollars are not to support half humans half dogs. You have SO drank the kool aid that these guys drink to justify being above the law.

My dad was a firefighter. He went into FLAMES to save babies when he had babies at home. That is pretty hard core. But no one said he could flaunt laws or morales, nor did he.

You sound like you have watched Topgun (see Jack Nicholson's speech on the witness stand) one too many times.

Let me help you, you poor thing…. The movie you’re referring to is “A Few Good Men”.

And yes, the spirit of the quote is generally accurate. Those people in the CAT are just different. And they should be regarded differently. I’m sorry you’re incapable of processing that. But I guess we all have our limiting factors.

Notice that the "heroes" in that movie were charged with murder. I think you are the one who is limited.

Democracies don't work when burly men with guns think they know best, rather than the appointed civilians who they report to.

Democracies also don’t work when our elected leaders are killed in an attack by burly enemy men with guns because we had no burly men with guns of our own to fight/kill/die repelling the attack.

Sorry, my vision for the future is a bit more evolved. But you can try to rally support for the Barbarian version of our country if that is how you roll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That tidbit about how pence would not get into the car on Jan 6th really stood out to me as a mature reasonably informed person. I can't recall coverage of any similar incidents........lack of trust in a SS security detail by the person being protected.

Does that happen?

I thought Pence wouldn’t get in the car because he assumed the SS would take him far away from the Capitol building for his own protection—but he needed to stay there to complete his constitutional duties. But maybe I have misunderstood this. Anyone know?

The point was...his concern was about the constitutional duties part...not the protection part.

Ever think that was the point of the violence? Get Pence out of the building, let Grassley handle it, and voila! coup d’etat!

Obviously that was the point. What was the role of the secret service?

To protect pence. They were doing their jobs, it was likely planned to happen just as it did, except Pence refused to budge. Called the bluff as it were. It IS shocking that more people didn’t die that day, almost like people were told to threaten without harming.

Unfortunately the USS is being thrown under the bus, probably by some of their own.

It seems they protected him just fine where they were instead of driving away.

They did. But under normal circumstances he would never have been allowed to remain. Maybe they didn’t want to facilitate a coup after all?

Geeeee...wonder if all those texts could have shed some light on that little old question?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That tidbit about how pence would not get into the car on Jan 6th really stood out to me as a mature reasonably informed person. I can't recall coverage of any similar incidents........lack of trust in a SS security detail by the person being protected.

Does that happen?

I thought Pence wouldn’t get in the car because he assumed the SS would take him far away from the Capitol building for his own protection—but he needed to stay there to complete his constitutional duties. But maybe I have misunderstood this. Anyone know?

The point was...his concern was about the constitutional duties part...not the protection part.

Ever think that was the point of the violence? Get Pence out of the building, let Grassley handle it, and voila! coup d’etat!

Obviously that was the point. What was the role of the secret service?

To protect pence. They were doing their jobs, it was likely planned to happen just as it did, except Pence refused to budge. Called the bluff as it were. It IS shocking that more people didn’t die that day, almost like people were told to threaten without harming.

Unfortunately the USS is being thrown under the bus, probably by some of their own.

It seems they protected him just fine where they were instead of driving away.

They did. But under normal circumstances he would never have been allowed to remain. Maybe they didn’t want to facilitate a coup after all?

Geeeee...wonder if all those texts could have shed some light on that little old question?

I know right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That tidbit about how pence would not get into the car on Jan 6th really stood out to me as a mature reasonably informed person. I can't recall coverage of any similar incidents........lack of trust in a SS security detail by the person being protected.

Does that happen?

I thought Pence wouldn’t get in the car because he assumed the SS would take him far away from the Capitol building for his own protection—but he needed to stay there to complete his constitutional duties. But maybe I have misunderstood this. Anyone know?

The point was...his concern was about the constitutional duties part...not the protection part.

He was concerned the USSS would stop him for carrying out his constitutional duties. Pence was scared he would be flown off to Alaska because everyone knows the USSS can remove and isolate a president or VP.

Other are saying that Pence was afraid the SS would lead him to the mob and abandoned him.

Some would say that this was their goal.. so that Biden wouldn't be formally "elected" and certified, then Trump would swoop in and declare Marshal law or something. It was in the Insurrectionists' five point plan detailed on a note card or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That tidbit about how pence would not get into the car on Jan 6th really stood out to me as a mature reasonably informed person. I can't recall coverage of any similar incidents........lack of trust in a SS security detail by the person being protected.

Does that happen?

I thought Pence wouldn’t get in the car because he assumed the SS would take him far away from the Capitol building for his own protection—but he needed to stay there to complete his constitutional duties. But maybe I have misunderstood this. Anyone know?

The point was...his concern was about the constitutional duties part...not the protection part.

He was concerned the USSS would stop him for carrying out his constitutional duties. Pence was scared he would be flown off to Alaska because everyone knows the USSS can remove and isolate a president or VP.

Other are saying that Pence was afraid the SS would lead him to the mob and abandoned him.

It was certainly someone’s goal—we’re the USSS involved in the planning or were they just a tool.
Some would say that this was their goal.. so that Biden wouldn't be formally "elected" and certified, then Trump would swoop in and declare Marshal law or something. It was in the Insurrectionists' five point plan detailed on a note card or something.

[Anonymous]

Snapchat earnings are tomorrow. Will the potential criminal liability of their new hire come up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the counter-assault team, specifically.

Do you know what the counter-assault team does? What their job is? What they’re tasked with doing, if called upon? What their training regime is like? Read up on them. It’s not the type of job most people could/would do.


It takes a very particular kind of person to do what they might be called upon to do. It’s a super-alpha-male type of personality that is required, not just to do their specific task, but to even endure the ongoing training. The type of men (and the very, very few women) suited to the team or even capable of doing the job, are of a hyper aggressive, combative, competitive type personality.

They’re basically the attack dogs. Paid to repel (and die) any attack on the President and soak up casualties while the protective team gets the POTUS out of the area of the attack.
People who go to work everyday fully expecting to be engaged in a machinegun and rocket battle against terrorists. And expecting to get wounded or killed at work, if the scenario they train for daily ever happens. These guys aren’t normal. Therefore it’s absurd to apply normal values and mores to them.


As long as they’re fit for duty and report for their shifts, I cut them all the slack in the world for any trouble they get in in off duty hours.

Sorry, my tax dollars are not to support half humans half dogs. You have SO drank the kool aid that these guys drink to justify being above the law.

My dad was a firefighter. He went into FLAMES to save babies when he had babies at home. That is pretty hard core. But no one said he could flaunt laws or morales, nor did he.

You sound like you have watched Topgun (see Jack Nicholson's speech on the witness stand) one too many times.

Let me help you, you poor thing…. The movie you’re referring to is “A Few Good Men”.

And yes, the spirit of the quote is generally accurate. Those people in the CAT are just different. And they should be regarded differently. I’m sorry you’re incapable of processing that. But I guess we all have our limiting factors.

Notice that the "heroes" in that movie were charged with murder. I think you are the one who is limited.

Democracies don't work when burly men with guns think they know best, rather than the appointed civilians who they report to.

Democracies also don’t work when our elected leaders are killed in an attack by burly enemy men with guns because we had no burly men with guns of our own to fight/kill/die repelling the attack.

I suggest you read the EXTREMELY well documented book, referenced above, which describes how that agency has lost its way.

That is if you can read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the counter-assault team, specifically.

Do you know what the counter-assault team does? What their job is? What they’re tasked with doing, if called upon? What their training regime is like? Read up on them. It’s not the type of job most people could/would do.


It takes a very particular kind of person to do what they might be called upon to do. It’s a super-alpha-male type of personality that is required, not just to do their specific task, but to even endure the ongoing training. The type of men (and the very, very few women) suited to the team or even capable of doing the job, are of a hyper aggressive, combative, competitive type personality.

They’re basically the attack dogs. Paid to repel (and die) any attack on the President and soak up casualties while the protective team gets the POTUS out of the area of the attack.
People who go to work everyday fully expecting to be engaged in a machinegun and rocket battle against terrorists. And expecting to get wounded or killed at work, if the scenario they train for daily ever happens. These guys aren’t normal. Therefore it’s absurd to apply normal values and mores to them.


As long as they’re fit for duty and report for their shifts, I cut them all the slack in the world for any trouble they get in in off duty hours.

Sorry, my tax dollars are not to support half humans half dogs. You have SO drank the kool aid that these guys drink to justify being above the law.

My dad was a firefighter. He went into FLAMES to save babies when he had babies at home. That is pretty hard core. But no one said he could flaunt laws or morales, nor did he.

You sound like you have watched Topgun (see Jack Nicholson's speech on the witness stand) one too many times.

Let me help you, you poor thing…. The movie you’re referring to is “A Few Good Men”.

And yes, the spirit of the quote is generally accurate. Those people in the CAT are just different. And they should be regarded differently. I’m sorry you’re incapable of processing that. But I guess we all have our limiting factors.

Notice that the "heroes" in that movie were charged with murder. I think you are the one who is limited.

Democracies don't work when burly men with guns think they know best, rather than the appointed civilians who they report to.

Democracies also don’t work when our elected leaders are killed in an attack by burly enemy men with guns because we had no burly men with guns of our own to fight/kill/die repelling the attack.

No. That's the point of a democracy. Sole authority is not vested in a single person with no fallback plan if that leader is assassinated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the counter-assault team, specifically.

Do you know what the counter-assault team does? What their job is? What they’re tasked with doing, if called upon? What their training regime is like? Read up on them. It’s not the type of job most people could/would do.


It takes a very particular kind of person to do what they might be called upon to do. It’s a super-alpha-male type of personality that is required, not just to do their specific task, but to even endure the ongoing training. The type of men (and the very, very few women) suited to the team or even capable of doing the job, are of a hyper aggressive, combative, competitive type personality.

They’re basically the attack dogs. Paid to repel (and die) any attack on the President and soak up casualties while the protective team gets the POTUS out of the area of the attack.
People who go to work everyday fully expecting to be engaged in a machinegun and rocket battle against terrorists. And expecting to get wounded or killed at work, if the scenario they train for daily ever happens. These guys aren’t normal. Therefore it’s absurd to apply normal values and mores to them.


As long as they’re fit for duty and report for their shifts, I cut them all the slack in the world for any trouble they get in in off duty hours.

Uh, not when they support a fascist coup on the USA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the counter-assault team, specifically.

Do you know what the counter-assault team does? What their job is? What they’re tasked with doing, if called upon? What their training regime is like? Read up on them. It’s not the type of job most people could/would do.


It takes a very particular kind of person to do what they might be called upon to do. It’s a super-alpha-male type of personality that is required, not just to do their specific task, but to even endure the ongoing training. The type of men (and the very, very few women) suited to the team or even capable of doing the job, are of a hyper aggressive, combative, competitive type personality.

They’re basically the attack dogs. Paid to repel (and die) any attack on the President and soak up casualties while the protective team gets the POTUS out of the area of the attack.
People who go to work everyday fully expecting to be engaged in a machinegun and rocket battle against terrorists. And expecting to get wounded or killed at work, if the scenario they train for daily ever happens. These guys aren’t normal. Therefore it’s absurd to apply normal values and mores to them.


As long as they’re fit for duty and report for their shifts, I cut them all the slack in the world for any trouble they get in in off duty hours.

This is a cop-out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Read Carol Leonnig's book on the fall of the Secret Service. It is so disturbing.

These patterns are not new. The rot starts at the top (and who they promote). That place needs a female head and a THOROUGH disinfection.

(Oh and heads need to roll, so they know there is a new sheriff in town. But that will be hard to do when the president depends upon them for his protection.)

Better yet, fold the money component into the Dept of Treasury and the rest into the FBI.