The CubanAmerican Voice®

Attack on Trump: Failure of Security, Negligence or Complicity?

Attack on Trump failure of security negligence or complicityAttack on Trump: Failure of Security, Negligence or Possible Complicity?

Leer en Español

The attack on Donald Trump on 13 July has unleashed a torrent of questions about the role and responsibilities of the Secret Service ranging from security lapses or negligence to possible complicity in the attempted assassination of the former president. In this article, we examine the theories surrounding the incident and the critical lapses that have emerged in the former president's security.

Table of Contents

Introduction to the Attack

The attack on Donald Trump has given rise to various theories about its execution and the possible complicity involved. According to reports, the attack was carried out by Thomas Matthew Crooks, a 20-year-old at a public campaign event at the Butler Farm Show in Butler, Pennsylvania.

The Complicity Theory

One of the most hotly debated theories suggests that there was complicity on the part of the Secret Service. This idea has gained traction because of the following questions:

Why did the Secret Service agents protecting Trump fail to act if they saw Trump's attacker 20 minutes before he fired?

Also if the Secret Service identified the shooter 62 minutes before he started shooting at the president as a person of interest, someone who was acting suspiciously, How is it possible that the attack on the president could not have been prevented?

Cheatle, a veteran Secret Service agent, has called the security failure at the rally on July 13 unacceptable, as a gunman was allowed to fire from an unsecured roof around 150 yards from where Trump addressed the crowd. The gunman spotted acting suspiciously before Trump began speaking but the Secret Service did not intervene or prevent Trump from taking the stage.

 

How did Secret Service agents allow this to happen? Why did they allow one American to be killed and two more to be wounded? Why did they allow Trump to go on stage knowing they had a potential shooter? If 62 minutes earlier they had identified the shooter as a suspect.

Implications of Complicity

The answers to these questions about the delay in reactions against the shooter should have been answered immediately by the United States Secret Service (USSS), and/or the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to avoid continued doubts about the integrity of federal institutions and lack of transparency.

If complicity is confirmed, the repercussions would be extremely serious. Trust in law enforcement agencies could be seriously undermined..

Details of the Situation.

Attendees at the event noticed the presence of the shooter. Efforts were made to alert the police, but they did not understand the gravity of the situation. Videos on social media show the snipers ready to act as the attack unfolded.

Questions About the Response

The late decision by the high command to give the order to neutralise the suspected attacker has been heavily criticised by former secret service agents. It raises serious questions about security protocol in emergency situations.

Although you don't really need to be a security expert to notice such a serious security lapse.

Secret Service Accountability

The current head of the Secret Service, Kimberly Chetle, has acknowledged responsibility for the incident. In an interview, she admitted that there were lapses in the security arrangements during the rally in which Donald Trump was injured.

Ms Chetle, appointed by Biden for her diversity and equality policies and not for her experience and professionalism, should have resigned immediately for her incompetence or at least been removed from her position pending investigations into the causes of so many security lapses.

Reactions to the Statement.

Despite the criticism, Chetle has decided not to resign from her post. His stance has sparked debate about the effectiveness of leadership within the security agency and of Biden's appointees in other roles.

Implications for the Present and Future.

Trust in the Secret Service is de facto called into question by the negligence and failures in the handling of this assassination attempt. The failure to act appropriately in critical situations raises the need for an immediate and thorough review of security protocols to prevent such an incident from recurring in the future.

Security Blunders Identified.

The incident has revealed multiple security blunders that cannot be ignored. These failures have called into question the Secret Service's ability to protect high-profile public figures both domestically and in the international arena.

These failures, inefficiencies and weaknesses in the Secret Service could result in encouragement for domestic and international enemies to take similar actions or at least discredit the US.

Failures in the Security Plan.

One of the most significant mistakes was inadequate access to critical areas. The shooter, a 20-year-old, gained access to an open rooftop, which gave him a clear line of sight to the stage where Trump was standing.

The shooter, a 20-year-old, gained access to an open rooftop, which gave him a clear line of sight to the stage where Trump was standing.

  • Undetected access to rooftops
  • Lack of supervision in strategic areas
  • Weaknesses in security protocol

Inadequate Access to Critical Areas.

The situation was further complicated by the lack of control over access to critical areas. This failure has raised serious concerns about the security procedures used by the Secret Service.

Implications of Inadequate Access.

The fact that the shooter was able to position himself without being detected and/or neutralised indicates serious deficiencies in surveillance. This not only exposes individuals at risk but also calls into question the effectiveness of the security system in place.

  • Need for review of protocols
  • Implementation of stricter controls
  • Additional training for staff

Failures in Surveillance and Monitoring.

Deficiencies in perimeter surveillance and monitoring were evident during the attack. Video analysis shows that the assailant was less than 150 metres from the scene, a critical distance for a shooter.

Identified Deficiencies.

The proximity of the shooter indicates that the surveillance equipment failed to perform its function. The snipers, equipped with binoculars and rifles, failed to detect the threat in time.

  • Aggressor within 150 metres
  • Lack of early detection
  • Weaknesses in security procedures.

Delayed Secret Service Response

The detection of the assassin 20 minutes before he fired and the response of the Secret Service was inadequate and delayed, allowing the assailant to fire before he was neutralised. This delay raises serious questions about the effectiveness of serious threat response protocol.

Implications of the Delayed Response.

Despite the fact that the counter-attack team was present, they did not act quickly enough. This highlights the urgency of reviewing and improving Secret Service response procedures.

  • Delay in neutralising the shooter even though he was detected in good time
  • Lack of rapid action in crises
  • Need for additional training

Weapons and Suspicious Behaviour Detection

The detection of weapons and suspicious behaviour is crucial in the security of public events. However, the incident showed serious failures in this regard, evidenced by videos on social media.

Failures in Early Detection.

Attendees at the event noticed the attacker before he started shooting. This highlights a lack of adequate vigilance on the part of security teams.

  • People were alerted to the rifle
  • Lack of quick reaction from the team
  • Ineffective protocol to detect threats

Denial of Security Requests

The denial of requests for additional security has been another critical point in the assessment of the incident. It was reported that the Secret Service rejected security measures proposed by the Trump campaign team.

Impact of the Denial

This rejection has raised questions about the Secret Service's preparedness. Although a spokesperson denied these allegations, the perception of vulnerability has intensified.

  • Security requests denied
  • Perception of insufficient support
  • Contributed to the vulnerability of the event

Negligence at the Security Posts

Neglect at security posts was a critical factor in the attack. Former Secret Service agents have indicated that allowing the shooter access to the roof was a result of inattention on the part of the agents.

Consequences of Negligence

This negligence can be attributed to several factors, including lack of proper training and insufficient supervision. Event attendees observed the shooter crawl across the roof, but the security response was slow.

  • Uncontrolled access to the roof
  • Lack of rapid alerts to police
  • Uncoordinated team response

Delayed Reaction by Agents

Secret Service agents failed to react in time, resulting in a tragedy. When they finally acted, the shooter had already opened fire.

  • Agents were alerted late
  • Lack of effective communication
  • Ineffective emergency protocols

Lack of Training and Deficient Staffing

Lack of training and poor staffing have been evident in the Secret Service's response. Videos on social media highlight the shortcomings during the attack, showing agents disoriented and confused.

Deficiencies in the Security Protocol

One of the most glaring failures was when Trump, wounded, stood up, exposing his face and vulnerable parts of his body without being covered by the bodies of the security agents. This could have been disastrous if there had been a second shooter or if the officer's accurate shot had been missed on his first attempt.

  • Exposition of the former president
  • Disorientation of the officers
  • Lack of coordination in the team

Agent's Reactions in Critical Situations

The videos show Secret Service agents acting on instinct, some taking cover behind Trump. This raises serious questions about the readiness and training of personnel.

  • Agents showing fear
  • Problems holstering weapons
  • Ineffective reactions during the crisis

Lack of Transparency and Communication

The lack of transparency and communication has been evident in the aftermath of the attack. The absence of a Secret Service spokesperson at the post-incident press conference has led to mistrust.

Communication shortcomings

The lack of details about the investigation also highlights problems in communication. It is vital that the Secret Service maintains clear communication with the public and authorities to ensure trust.

  • Lack of an official spokesperson
  • Insufficient details about the investigation
  • Need for open communication

To date neither the United States Secret Service (USSS), nor the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have been able to answer questions and that no official press release has been issued regarding the attempted assassination of former President Trump is truly alarming, which has raised a number of troubling questions about the role and effectiveness of the US Secret Service or whether the security lapses are craza negligence or complicity.

Conclusions on the Security Plan

Analysis of the incident shows that the security plan was inadequate. Protocols need to be reviewed and updated to address all potential threats.

How did Secret Service agents allow this to happen? Why did they allow one American to be killed and two more to be wounded? Why did they allow Trump to go on stage knowing they had a potential shooter? If 62 minutes earlier they had identified the shooter as a suspect.

Revision of the Security Plan

The lack of adequate preparation suggests that the original plan did not cover all possible threats. Planning must be comprehensive and adaptable to changing situations.

  • Need for a more robust plan
  • Interviews with key people
  • Adaptability to new threats

How did they allow this to happen? Why did they allow one American to be killed and two more to be wounded? Why did they allow Trump to go on stage knowing they had a potential shooter?

Why did they allow Trump to go on stage knowing they had a potential shooter?

The Trump assassination attempt: Unanswered questions about the Secret Service

The attack on former President Donald Trump has raised many troubling questions about the role and effectiveness of the US Secret Service. The claim that agents spotted the attacker 20 minutes before the incident and 62 minutes earlier had identified the assassin as a suspect, without taking action to stop him, has provoked a storm of questions, criticism and doubt about the performance of the secret services and agencies involved in the president's security.

  • Environment and detection: If the incident occurred in a non-urban environment, with few buildings and the attacker clearly visible on a rooftop for 20 minutes, this effectively eliminates many of the possible justifications for inaction. In such a scenario, early detection of a potential threat should have been simpler and more straightforward.
  • Threat assessment: With a single individual on a rooftop in an environment that did not justify his presence there, the threat assessment should have been quick and clear. This type of situation would normally trigger immediate security protocols.
  • Reaction time: A 20-minute period is indeed a considerable time in terms of security. This should have been more than enough time to take pre-emptive action, either by neutralising the threat or evacuating the protected person.
  • Unjustifiable inaction: Given this set of circumstances, it is difficult to justify the Secret Service's inaction. Standard security protocols would generally dictate a swift and decisive response to such a clear potential threat.
  • Security concerns about competence or negligence: Given this set of circumstances, it is difficult to justify Secret Service inaction.
  • Concerns about competence or negligence: These circumstances certainly raise serious questions about the competence, preparedness and operating procedures of the security team at the time. The apparent lack of response to such an obvious threat is deeply troubling.
  • It is a matter of deep concern.
  • Need for investigation: These facts further underline the need for a thorough and transparent investigation. It is crucial to understand exactly what went wrong in the chain of decision-making and action, and why standard protocols were not followed.
  • Wider implications: This incident raises broader concerns about the overall readiness and effectiveness of the Secret Service, especially in high-risk situations.

In conclusion, with this additional information, it is clear that there was a significant breakdown in security procedures. The seriousness of this failure cannot be underestimated, given the real danger the former president faced. Understandably, this incident has generated intense public concern and calls for a thorough review of Secret Service protocols and practices. The priority now must be to identify exactly what went wrong and to take steps to ensure that such security lapses are not repeated in the future.

Jose Tarano Author🖋️Author Jose Tarano 

José Tarano is a technical producer, graphic designer, collaborator, and researcher at Patria de Martí and The CubanAmerican Voice. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering in Telecommunications from José Antonio Echeverria Superior Polytechnic Institute (ISPJAE). In addition, he is the founder and director of Electronics JR Computer Design and Service ►, a computer and information technology services company. Originally from Santiago de las Vegas, Havana, Cuba, he currently resides in the United States.

Did you like it? Share your thoughts!