tvc184

I concur with Chester about the back room scuttlebutt. The one thing about local candidates is that the powers that make a selection know or “have heard” about the person. That is where personal animosities or favoritism come into play. I have seen it up close and personal in a chief’s selection. Particularly when an outside company or assessment center is brought in, they don’t know anything about the candidate’s history except what is put before them in the process or in other words, don’t come in with prejudice or preconceived opinions. That is generally the point. Let’s look at qualifications, work history, personal history or involvement such as in the community, ability to answer critical questions, knowledge, etc. and not who likes or hates the candidate. So with no knowledge whatsoever about this particular process for BPD, there was a chance that Plunkett would have never been chosen, perhaps as Chester said, because of a previous lawsuit. Assessing by qualifications, Plunkett was in the top four. Then the politics come into play (my opinion). It’s like, “Sure he had the skills, vision and demeanor to lead but what about…..”. Again, with no knowledge of this selection, I have been fairly close to the same situation (not me and I would never apply to be in that position) and knew that a local candidate who was in the final four, no matter how qualified, was never going to be the chief. He is a close friend and I didn’t mention it to him until a couple of years later as to why he wasn’t chosen. I will vouch for the fact that the claims against him were ludicrous. That made no difference. He was never going to be the chief.

I will gladly say just I am a little shocked that the manager reached down the ranks and chose Tim. I have only had brief contact with him at schools and such. He seemed like a good guy but meeting people away from work is hardly a good indicator of success. Hopefully my little interactions with him are an indicator of his abilities.

Congrats to Tim. Hopefully the council will confirm him.

Oh yes, she is a box checker…

With the federal government, who knows the time frame. Look at the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO. The US DOJ stepped in to what was a local incident and took almost 7 months and millions of dollars to conclude that they could not prove wrongdoing by the officer. That was with dozens of witnesses and virtually all of the facts known shortly after the incident. How many shots fired, distances and injuries to Brown and the officer were known almost immediately. There was no issues of governmental operations like with the SS or any conspiracies to look into. It was a straightforward interaction between two people, and it took the federal government over half a year to draw a conclusion. What is transparency and how much do we really expect? Will every detail ever be made public? I doubt it. Just like some of the questions they were asking in the hearing a couple of days ago. I saw questions like or similar to, how far does the Secret Service extended the perimeter or safety zones? Should that be public information? Like, yes we go out to 500 meters but we don’t concentrate beyond that. Uhhhh….. no. Should we eventually know if anyone else was involved? Yes. How far did the planning and incompetence go from the federal to the state and local level? Yes. We might get tidbits of information but I don’t think that a conclusion will be made public anytime soon and then it might never be a complete recounting of all facts. Even if the final investigation was released next week, how many people would believe it?

You are correct, a lot of things can be misinterpreted or easily misunderstood. I believe that like much of the Biden administration, she was hired as a box checker. Was she really the best person? That is always subjective but was she such an outstanding agent that she had to be brought back from retirement or was it because she wanted to hire a more diversified agency? I think that she was probably incompetent and/or a bad organizer but that is more on the guy who hired her. A person is only as good as he/she is but if the boss puts him/her in that position, that’s on the boss. I didn’t watch much of the hearing but the little that I did see live, I thought a couple of questions were out of order and I would not have answered them either. I think some of them were gotcha questions and they probably knew that she wouldn’t or couldn’t answer. There were plenty of her actions or lack thereof to be angry at her. Asking how many shell cases were found on a roof seems irrelevant. This wasn’t a committee determining the case like the Warren Commission on the JFK assassination. This was a competency hearing and how many shell cases were found is completely irrelevant. The hearing should have been focused on the events that led up to the failure say the scene, not the after the fact FBI investigation. How many agents were assigned to the advanced detail, aren’t rooftops usually covered, who was the agent in charge at the event, what communications and protocol was set up with local law enforcement, etc., was certainly very important. Crime scene details after the fact aren’t. In my opinion.

That isn’t a cover up. I have been to thousands of crime scenes and probably 150 murder scenes, written likely 200 press releases and that information is not generally released for investigation purposes. It sure isn’t for a worldwide live television audience. A cover up would be to know that 10 shots were fired but in an official report say that it was 5 or worse, do away with the evidence. If not answering a question is a cover up then 95% of police officers are guilty of cover ups from 95% of crime scenes.

And just like that, Kimberly Cheatle can go back to guarding Cheetos.

Boxes,

So you’re calling it now, Trump won’t debate? It was Biden who threw all the unheard of rules like they get to pick the venue, the time, amount of seconds for rebuttal, not addressing each other directly, no crowds, mics turned off when not speaking, etc. Why? Because that would take away a Trump advantage but Biden held the cards The Dems were probably crowing when Trump had to concede or not debate. HA! We’ve got him now!! Then Biden showed what everyone should have known. Now the ball appears to be in Trump’s court and apparently some Dems might not like it when the shoe is on the other foot.

I think that Trump is likely chomping at the bit to debate.

Hahaha…. You’re on the CB bandwagon!! She is a sure win!! But Obama, Schumer, Jefferies and others don’t necessarily share that enthusiasm. They will eventually have to come on board or be swept away in the future dealings.

That is a nonsensical answer. This isn’t a primary. That has long since been over. Clinton has come out in support of Harris. Pelosi has thrown in her endorsement. So has Newsom. Why isn’t this over and it should be a rally around Harris? Why not Obama? Jefferies? Schumer? Why this divide for the guaranteed first Black female president? And hopefully not wading into primaries isn’t all that you have. For all of your proclaimed optimism, apparently many Democratic leaders don’t share your opinion.

And you perhaps conveniently didn’t comment on my post that you copied. People in this forum and others, led by CB, have proclaimed that Trump can’t win. If that is true, why hasn’t the nomination been already handed to Harris? Why have some big names failed to throw their support behind the potential first female/Black/Asian president, especially if she is so sure to win? Why do some want an open convention? Why has Joe Manchin and probably others gone on television saying that he is exploring a run for the presidency? Is it because when you get past all of the bravado, many are skeptical of this “sure win”?

From the DNC or rank and file? I made a couple of comments about the DNC is going to be in trouble if they try to force out the first B/F nominee. Some of the powers that be, like Barack Obama, are trying to throw a wrench in the spokes for some reason.