tvc184

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.

Now Nancy Pelosi has endorsed Harris. Harris has secured a commitment from at least half of the delegates date needs for the nomination.

That is why there is a mad scramble to replace her or keep her off of the ballot. If the DNC thought she had the election in the bag, she would already be receiving their backing and nomination.

Ouch, the back room dealings according to Klein….

Never say never and I have no clue what’s up their sleeves but why would Bill and Hillary Clinton publicly endorsed Harris almost immediately? We could play some “what if” games. I think there is already a lot of rumbling about the DNC trying to cancel Harris which is going to really make quite a few Democrat supporters angry. Now toss in Clinton. Let’s say she accepts the nomination at the convention. How’s that going to look? She can say, I really wanted Harris but for the good of the Party, I will accept! Let’s see, previously failed presidential candidate, soon to be 77 year old W/F who “really wants Harris”, is going to bump the potential first B/F presidential nominee in history? After proclaiming support for Harris? Yeah, that will garner Black support. I reality it might be the nail in the coffin. But, we’ll see. Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

Because he was confronted by a local police officer who made him go to a now or never mode.

The Democrat who flipped sides and saved the Republicans (and eventually the Democrats) and the filibuster? Hmmmmm……. Maybe you’re handing an olive branch, right?

Tough call….

Black support for Trump has increased to as much as 23% from such polls as The NY Times, CBS and Qinnipiac. That is significant. Those are hardly Republican leaning polls. Imagine the support for Trump or more likely the staying away from the polls by Black voters if the first B/F VP president is shunned, particularly in favor of a White candidate.

Harris is in. Both Clintons have endorsed her.

The article that I saw said that Biden endorsed Harris. Can it then be anyone other than Harris? I am not referring to legally.

I was referring to a cover up as the conspiracy theorists. If there was a conspiracy then there has to be a cover up.

Just say many deer hunters about Buck Fever.

I would not argue with his statement however….. A couple of times he said that he was speculating. He drew no conclusions from his speculations, He also said, 9 out 10 times you would make that shot so there is in his estimation a 10% chance of failure. I think it’s a little more but okay. He is also likely talking about a person who is prone and has probably had time to get his natural point of aim. I don’t think the roof topper had that time. According to the mayor who spoke on camera, two officers attempted to get into the roof but couldn’t find easy access so they did what they should have done if mayor is correct. One stood in the shoulders of the other and grabbed onto the roof edge to pull himself up. As soon as his eyes cleared the roof edge (I always hated that), he saw the shooter who turned on him. The officer literally let go and fell off the roof and injured his ankle. The two officers immediately called for help. A few moments later shots were being fired. The mayor wasn’t there and was likely only reporting probably what his chief of police told him. Let’s speculate that the mayor was giving factual information which seems plausible. Two officers, possibly working a traffic detail, broke away from their assignment when people started yelling. Finding no easy access they tried to boost each other up onto the roof. I know on swat we would practice putting a 6 man team on the roof and back down with no ladder or anything to climb onto. The shooter was confronted with officers and getting them to back away, had to get down quickly and rush his shots. As a matter of fact that perhaps goes along with the video taken from the ground level cell phone where the guy is seen prone and looks to quickly get up and go back down. I think that really increases the odds of missing by more than 10% but like the guy in the video, it is speculation. So I don’t disagree with anything he said but there are several assumptions made. We know what assumptions do.