By Mike Huckabee
August 5, 2024
|
|
“No one wants to believe that the Secret Service intentionally left Trump vulnerable, yet evidence keeps piling up that this was the case.”
That’s Matt Margolis at PJ MEDIA, writing over the weekend about Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley’s letter to newly-appointed acting Secret Service Director Ron Rowe about security failures that contributed to the shooting and challenges to the subsequent “investigation.” This was detailed in last Friday’s newsletter, but Margolis includes pertinent Hawley quotes in his piece as well.
Margolis also quotes Texas Rep. Ronny Jackson saying, “I...talked to President Trump’s detail months and months ago, and I asked them if they were doing okay, and they told me they were having trouble getting the resources they needed. And, you know, at the time, they felt that it was politically motivated.” So apparently, this issue has been going on a long time, probably as long as Trump has been campaigning.
Hawley’s letter had been prompted by information from a whistleblower that Rowe had personally directed “significant cuts” --- turns out these involved a 20 percent cut in manpower --- to the Secret Service Counter Surveillance Division, the agents who do threat assessments, which were not done prior to Trump’s events. (Rowe also did not come clean about this during his Senate testimony on July 30.) This cut surely contributed to the stunning failure of the Secret Service site commander, whose name we still don’t know, to include a building inside the security perimeter that provided a direct line-of-sight shot from only 450 feet away.
The whistleblower also alleged threats of retaliation against Secret Service personnel who expressed concern about the lack of security at Trump’s events.
Which brings us to a sharply-worded piece by Richard Truesdell and Keith Lehmann in AMERICAN GREATNESS, which says “out loud” what many of us with an eye for history can’t help thinking.
“The entire scenario stinks of conspiracy and coverup,” they write. “This is something we do not say lightly.” Keep in mind, by bringing this article to your attention, we don’t mean to imply proof of a conspiracy --- only to say there’s so much in keeping with such a scenario that it’s easier to suspect there was than to conclude there wasn’t.
Truesdell and Lehmann draw interesting historical parallels to the JFK assassination, saying, “The circumstances surrounding the attempted assassination of Trump and the successful assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 23 [actually the 22nd], 1963, are eerily similar. We are still waiting for information on all the serial failures to protect Trump as well as the actions taken by the shooter in the days leading up to the attack, but the motivations of our government appear to be very similar.”
Like Trump, Kennedy was trying to reduce our involvement in war, at that time the Vietnam War, especially after the Cuban Missile Crisis brought home the dangers of the Soviet nuclear threat. Also like Trump, and like brother Robert Kennedy --- who also would be assassinated --- he pledged to reform the intelligence community (which, as we have seen decades later, has demonstrated its willingness to go after President Trump “six ways from Sunday”).
In JFK’s story, there’s no spoiler alert needed --- we know the details and the ending. The article notes “Kennedy’s hurriedly planned visit to Dallas, driven through an unsecured area, in an unprotected, open-air limousine, with very little Secret Service protection, and in line of sight of buildings with multiple opportunities for snipers to hide. If our government did not intend for this assassination to happen, it certainly laid out a very workable plan to fatally ambush Kennedy that could not have been more perfect.”
That last sentence is really where we are right now with Trump’s near-death. This time, it looks at minimum like a perfect set-up, just waiting for someone to take out “Hitler.”
The article lists various security failures surrounding Trump’s rally. (It’s a good idea to review these but please NOTE: a few of them remain unverified, at least to our knowledge. Examples: that one of the female agents assigned to Trump was cowering behind him instead of protecting him, that the shooter brought a ladder [this point is still contested; a ladder was apparently on-site], and that the gunman was “shouting at law enforcement all the while” before Trump’s appearance [that’s a new one]. All the rest of these security lapses are verified, though.)
We would add one new piece of information: that the Secret Service had not sent counter-snipers to ANY of Trump’s rallies before this. And they had been approved just the day before.
The article lays out specific ways in which Trump’s threat to the intel community, other bureaucrats and war-machine profiteers mirrors that posed by JFK. “Trump made a lot of enemies in government,” they write, “just as Kennedy had by trying to reform many of the same systems and angering many of the same moneyed interests. With four years of experience in dealing with these Deep State operators and now knowing how to really reform the administrative state, Trump has a lot of career bureaucrats worried about their jobs, perks and power.”
Also, the lawfare has not succeeded. And even with the coup --- that’s what it is --- on the Democrat side with their deposing of Biden and anointing of Kamala Harris, Trump is still looking hard to beat.
The article states what we all know but few will say aloud: “It is not unreasonable to assume that the organized left operation that runs the federal government from the shadows of Washington, DC --- which sought to remove Trump from state ballots, drive him into bankruptcy, imprison him, frame him as an asset to Russia, compare him to Hitler, portray him as an existential threat to democracy, and accuse him of an insurrection --- would be desperate enough to recruit an Oswald-style patsy to kill him and make sure he had the opportunity to do it.”
Are they capable of this? Of course they are. Do we have proof? Not at this time. Of course, six decades later, we can’t prove that Oswald wasn’t acting on his own, either.
Trey Gowdy of FOX NEWS was asking questions about Trump’s shooter Sunday night, specifically, access to his cellphone data. Some are calling these devices “crime-free zones,” he complained, “where evidence exists, but you can’t access it.” Gowdy is understandably perplexed with the idea that investigators can draw blood in a felony DUI case but can’t seem to gain access to a suspect’s phone because it’s password-protected or encrypted.
He spoke with Florida Rep. Laurel Lee, a member of the House Judiciary Committee who has been named to the congressional task force investigating the shooting. She said that even though we know without doubt that this was the shooter, there are “barriers to law enforcement” in getting that data. Some of it --- data that should help answer the most basic questions about who he is, how he prepared, and whether he was working with anyone else --- is “located overseas or was in encrypted applications.”
She told Trey that “there is work being done...around the clock” to get this information, and also that the FBI is working “at home and overseas,” which was meant to be reassuring but sadly isn’t.
She’s been to the site in Butler and said that “seeing it in person makes it all the harder” to understand how this happened. “...This is not a large area. There were not very many buildings that needed to be secured...It should have been locked down…” The task force is focusing, she said, on people who attended the rally, “what they saw, what they heard, what they did that day.” With their oversight authority, they can actually bring those people together for interviews, along with state and local law enforcement. And she did say they’ll be sharing all the information with the American people.
RELATED STORY: Recall from last week that an April report from Homeland Security Inspector General Joseph Cuffari cited security problems within the Secret Service that hadn’t been addressed before Trump’s near-assassination. As REVOLVER NEWS reports, his report also implicates Kamala Harris’ Secret Service detail in the pipe bomb mystery of January 6. This is a very detailed article; we’re passing it along to you with the promise of a thorough analysis tomorrow.
RELATED STORY #2: According to several Federal Air Marshal whistleblowers, Tulsi Gabbard has been enrolled without her knowledge --- that’s the way it works --- in the TSA surveillance program called “Quiet Skies,” the same program that UNDERCOVER DC reports has been used to surveil J6 defendants and their families. One whistleblower is reportedly ready to go on the record with this.
According to Sonya LaBosco, executive director of the Air Marshal National Council, Tulsi is “unaware she has two Explosive Detection Canine Teams, one Transportation Security Specialist (explosives), one plainclothes TSA Supervisor, and three Federal Air Marshals on every flight she boards.”
The Quiet Skies program assigns teams of Federal Air Marshals to follow and track individuals “from when they enter the airport and then on all their flights and transits until they reach their destination.” Typically, they’re flagged for additional, lengthy searches. Those enrolled usually --- but not always --- have a “quad S” (SSSS) on the bottom right corner of their boarding passes.
LaBosco speculates that Gabbard’s placement on this list is politically motivated. Air Marshals were first assigned to her on July 23, which happens to be the day after she criticized Kamala, Biden and the National Security State in an interview with Laura Ingraham. That’ll teach her.
https://uncoverdc.com/2024/08/04/fams-whistleblowers-report-tulsi-gabbard-on-quiet-skies-list
You know, that’s a lot of security personnel to monitor one person who is no threat. How about leaving Tulsi alone and assigning them to conduct assessments of actual threats against Trump for the Secret Service?
RELATED READING: For when you have time, BLAZE MEDIA has a detailed profile of FBI whistleblower Kyle Seraphin. It was co-written by Steve Baker, an independent journalist (now on staff with BLAZE) who himself got punished by the system for his coverage of January 6.
Leave a Comment
Note: Fields marked with an * are required.