To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
I just watched a Secret Service Press conference (with no Secret Service officials there) flatly denying that Trump had inadequate protection. We can believe our government, right?
6 posted on
07/13/2024 10:14:28 PM PDT by
Responsibility2nd
(A truth that's told with bad intent, Beats all the lies you can invent ~ Wm. Blake)
To: Responsibility2nd
>> flatly denying that Trump had inadequate protection
Disingenuous crapstains.
13 posted on
07/13/2024 10:21:17 PM PDT by
Nervous Tick
("First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people...": ISLAM is the problem!)
To: Responsibility2nd
Then they are flatly lying. That is as plainly evident as the nose on a face.
So they are declaring which side of the line they are on then.
I figured as much, didn’t need their affirmation.
14 posted on
07/13/2024 10:21:23 PM PDT by
Sarcazmo
(I live by the Golden Rule. As applied by others; I'm not selfish.)
To: Responsibility2nd
Trump did request more secret service security for this rally and it was denied.
To: Responsibility2nd
I just watched a Secret Service Press conference (with no Secret Service officials there) flatly denying that Trump had inadequate protection. When the guy you are protecting is shot in the head, it's hard to make the case that the protection was sufficient, unless you wanted a little chance of excitement that night.
43 posted on
07/14/2024 12:24:21 AM PDT by
pepsi_junkie
("We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. F. B. I. is tending in that direction." - Harry S Truman)
To: Responsibility2nd
OK....if his protection was not inadequate, how did a shooter with a rifle get within 125 yards of the President with a clear line of sight on the roof of the only other buildings around?
52 posted on
07/14/2024 3:05:04 AM PDT by
FLT-bird
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson