Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Not saying the Trump fiasco was her fault,
but her focus was all wrong.

The Secret Service called criticism of female agents "misogynistic" and reaffirmed its belief where diversity in recruiting was "helping, not hurting, the effectiveness of its protective teams."

Cheatle's previous statements regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion became a frequent target for criticism by bipartisan commentators after the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.

Here is the deal, diversity in protecting the president of the United States is a bad thing.

Only Special Forces types or elite law enforcement, and only the top of the top in that group should be hired to protect the most powerful person in the world.

Diversity has no place in this group, it can only hurt. Dan Bongino types are the only ones who should qualify.

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Not saying the Trump fiasco was her fault,
but her focus was all wrong.

The Secret Service called criticism of female agents "misogynistic" and reaffirmed its belief where diversity in recruiting was "helping, not hurting, the effectiveness of its protective teams."

Cheatle's previous statements regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion became a frequent target for criticism by bipartisan commentators after the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.

Here is the deal, diversity in protecting the president of the United States is a bad thing.

Only Special Forces types or elite law enforcement, and only the top of the top in that group should be hired to protect the most powerful person in the world.

Diversity has no place in this group, it can only hurt. Dan Bongino types are the only ones who should qualify.

---

Mostly agree with one caveat:

There are certain scenarios where female agents are useful to have. Like if the President has young daughters (Bush/Obama) it would be better to have some female agents on the detail to accompany them in spaces we want to be female only bathrooms/locker rooms.

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

That's perfect for both parties who want to sweep this all under the rug.

We're never going to get any answers.

---

As usual …..you are 100% correct.

Dems must have figured stonewalling her resignation was a November loser .

---

I don't even think it's so much about the election, it's more that both parties either know it's catastrophic incompetence or an inside job and they want to protect their pet agencies from scrutiny. They don't want to expose the shortcomings, make changes, draft legislation etc.

This all exposed means our government is admitting that they can't protect candidates and presidents. That equates to further incompetence in governance which they also won't tolerate, even though it's true.

I think the idea is to pin all the blame on her and that's enough to get the public to care less about it and sweep it all under the rug. That's why you saw a major bipartisan ass chewing and calls for her resignation.

---

Then why did both parties House Leaders, Mike Johnson and Hakeem Jeffries just make a deal to form a bipartisan task force to investigate the assassination attempt? Why is Homeland Security opening another bipartisan investigation?

It's possible that it's just so that they can further control the narrative like you believe, but I think it's more likely that both parties have a vested interest in a functioning secret service to protect their leaders and actually do want to get to the bottom of why this preventable attempt was not actually prevented, and how to make sure future attempts like this are prevented

---