Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

International

‘Fingers Being Pointed’: Secret Service’s Explanations For Security Failures Ahead Of Trump Assassination Attempt Aren’t Adding Up

Published

1 year ago

12 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By KATELYNN RICHARDSON

 

Secret Service’s explanations for the security failures surrounding the assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump at a rally on Saturday aren’t adding up, according to security experts and former Secret Service agents.

Emerging details highlight what seems to be a disconnect between local officials and Secret Service, while making it more apparent that there were major oversights. Many key questions hinge on the responsibilities delegated to local police, who U.S. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle confirmed during a Monday interview with ABC News were inside the building the shooter fired from, though nobody was stationed on the rooftop.

Cheatle explained a decision was made not to put anybody on top of the building because the “sloped” roof made it unsafe, but security experts and former Secret Service agents who spoke with the Daily Caller News Foundation emphasized not having someone on the roof was a “big failure” and didn’t believe Cheatle’s explanation was sufficient.

“Let’s just say the local law enforcement officers [and] the Secret Service agree that it’s just not safe to keep someone up there for a couple of hours,” former Secret Service agent Anthony Cangelosi told the DCNF. “Then the question is, well, how do we maintain its integrity otherwise? It’s not like you just throw your hands up and say ‘can’t do that.’”

Cangelosi said there is no “justifiable reason” for failing to cover the roof, suggesting they should have found solutions like putting another platform up or getting an officer on a lift.

Peter Yachmetz, retired FBI agent and principal security consultant at Yachmetz Consulting Group, pointed out that the shooter was moving around on the “unsafe” roof prior to the incident.

“The slope didn’t affect him,” Yachmetz told the DCNF.

Law enforcement reportedly spotted the shooter on the roof 30 minutes before shots were fired, WPXI reported Monday. After the incident, a witness described watching a man climbing onto the roof and trying to warn a police officer, claiming officials responded with confusion.

“The reality is, regardless of the spin, that particular roof should have been under constant surveillance and or posted,” former secret service agent Tim Miller told the DCNF.

 

“In this particular instance, we did share support for that particular site and that the Secret Service was responsible for the inner perimeter,” Cheatle told ABC News Monday during an interview. “And then we sought assistance from our local counterparts for the outer perimeter. There was local police in that building — there was local police in the area that were responsible for the outer perimeter of the building.”

However, a local law enforcement official told The New York Times Tuesday that the local forces were in an adjacent building, not the one the shooter was firing from.

The discrepancies in their accounts only add to the uncertainties surrounding who was responsible.

CBS News reported Monday that there were three snipers stationed inside the building shooter Thomas Matthew Crooks fired from, citing a local law enforcement officer. One of the snipers saw Crooks looking through a rangefinder in the minutes before he fired and radioed command post, according to CBS News.

The Butler Township Police Department declined to confirm the report to the DCNF, stating that there is an ongoing investigation by the FBI.

Butler County Sheriff Michael Slupe declined to offer additional comments Tuesday, telling the DCNF he is “backing away from media requests for comment and opinions.”

“There are too many questions being posed that I do not have first hand knowledge of and too many fingers being pointed,” he said. “I am in charge of the Deputy Sheriffs and no other law enforcement agency. My Deputies performed their duties at their assigned areas and went above and beyond after the shooting started and ended in the their actions to help people and assist police in clearing the nearby buildings.”

Slupe previously confirmed to CNN that an armed Butler Township officer encountered Crooks before he shot at Trump, but retreated down the ladder after Crooks pointed his gun at him. He told KDKA-TV there was a security failure, but noted “there is not just one entity responsible.”

“The Secret Service plays a key role in protecting, in this case, former President Trump, but they don’t act alone,” he told the outlet. “The Secret Service receives support from local police departments.”

Pennsylvania State Police, however, did confirm they had no members “inside the building or staging in it.”

“The Pennsylvania State Police provided all resources that the United States Secret Service (USSS) requested for former President Trump’s rally in Butler on Saturday, July 13th, including approximately 30 to 40 troopers to assist with securing the inside perimeter,” Pennsylvania State Police Lieutenant Adam Reed told the DCNF. “Among PSP’s duties at the rally, the Department was not responsible for securing the building or property at AGR International.”

Reed said he could not say when an officer witnessed the shooter, as it was not a state trooper who saw him.

 

Former secret service agent Jeffrey James explained to the DCNF that protection “works in a series of concentric circles.” Typically, there is an inner circle of secret service agents, a second circle that mixes both agents and local law enforcement, and an outer ring that is largely state and local partners.

If the agent in charge of the site told a local law enforcement officer on the outer perimeter that the building is his responsibility, then anything that happens is on the officer.

“But if that agent didn’t find one of the local law enforcement partners and give very clear, direct directions…then it’s going to be the responsibility or the fault of that agent for not delegating that,” he told the DCNF.

It’s unclear what instructions the Secret Service gave to local law enforcement.

Butler County District Attorney Richard Goldinger told The Washington Post Tuesday that “Secret Service was in charge” and that “it was their responsibility to make sure that the venue and the surrounding area was secure.”

“For them to blame local law enforcement is them passing the blame when they hold the blame, in my opinion,” Goldinger told The Washington Post.

However, the Secret Service released a statement on Tuesday pushing back against assertions that they were blaming local law enforcement for the tragedy that unfolded on Saturday. “Any news suggesting the Secret Service is blaming local law enforcement for Saturday’s incident is simply not true,” the statement posted to the Secret Service’s X page said.

“I am having difficulty reconciling the answer the Director gave in her ABC interview with the official statement made on social media,” Patrick Yoes, national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said in a press release on Tuesday. “Our goal is to provide whatever assistance the Secret Service needs to perform their mission and to do so with mutual respect, trust, and accuracy.”

A RealClearPolitics report suggested Sunday that resources were diverted away from Trump’s rally to an event where First Lady Jill Biden was speaking. Anthony Guglielmi, chief of communications for the United States Secret Service, denied this was the case.

Questions also remain about why Crooks was not taken out sooner. Cangelosi explained to the DCNF that counter-snipers can face challenges due to their distance from the target.

“With counter snipers, you’re usually so far away, it’s not usually clear whether an individual is an imminent threat, ” Cangelosi said. “It’s harder to discern. Once they discern whether that person is a threat to life or serious bodily injury, they can take the shot.”

Yachmetz questioned why drone coverage was not utilized.

“A drone strategically placed a few thousand feet above could have oversaw the entire venue,” he said.

“In my opinion, a detailed, in-depth very specific investigation must be conducted of all procedures [and] this entire matter by a non-biased outside investigative group (possibly of retired agents),” Yachmetz told the DCNF, emphasizing the investigation must not be “politically motivated.”

House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer announced Monday that Cheatle would testify at a committee hearing on July 22. President Joe Biden said Sunday that he directed an “independent review” of the events.

The FBI told the DCNF it has “nothing additional to provide at this time beyond previously-issued statements.” The Bureau said Monday that it gained access to Crooks’ phone and “has conducted nearly 100 interviews of law enforcement personnel, event attendees, and other witnesses.”

Trump suffered a wound to his ear, and two were killed, including Crooks and 50-year-old ex-volunteer fire chief, Corey Comperatore. Two other attendees were also wounded the attack.

Secret Service did not respond to a request for comment.

Wallace White and Owen Klinsky contributed to this report.

Featured image credit: (Screen Capture/CSPAN)

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Daily Caller / 11 hours ago

Is Ukraine Peace Deal Doomed Before Zelenskyy And Trump Even Meet At Mar-A-Lago?

Energy / 15 hours ago

Canada’s debate on energy levelled up in 2025

Business / 17 hours ago

Socialism vs. Capitalism

Daily Caller

Is Ukraine Peace Deal Doomed Before Zelenskyy And Trump Even Meet At Mar-A-Lago?

Published on December 26, 2025

By

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Wallace White

As Ukraine and the U.S. try one more time to reach agreement on terms for a peace deal to end the war with Russia, questions remain about whether a resolution is still possible after multiple stalled rounds of negotiations.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine is set to meet with President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago on Sunday to discuss the current proposal for ending the war. The terms and language of the proposed deal have undergone substantial revisions since it was first presented in November, largely due to objections from Ukraine and other European powers.

Despite multiple rounds of peace negotiations fizzling out over the past year, foreign policy and defense experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation that Trump still has a chance to make peace if he can convince Putin that the cost of waging war outweighs the benefits, but that it’s unlikely any of the parties will leave the table satisfied.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

“The President’s team sees that stark reality, but also envisions a golden future for Ukraine once the fighting stops—a prosperous, strong, independent nation could rise from the ashes we see today,” Morgan Murphy, former Trump White House official and current Republican Senate candidate in Alabama, told the DCNF. “To get there will take a deal that likely leaves all parties—Ukraine, Russia, and Europe—unhappy when they leave the negotiation table.”

While Russia has signaled some willingness to make compromises, most recently saying it would accept Ukrainian European Union membership, Putin has so far not agreed to any ceasefire in the interim. U.S. officials previously told the DCNF that they resolved “90%” of the issues between Russia and Ukraine in the new deal, but stopped short of elaborating on the outstanding issues.

Zelenskyy expressed cautious optimism about his ongoing talks with Trump’s team in an X post on Christmas Day, but emphasized that a few “sensitive issues” still need to be worked out. While those points of contention weren’t specifically named, Ukraine has long objected to any territorial concessions to Russia and has sought additional security guarantees from the U.S. and European allies.

A number of foreign policy experts, including those who spoke to the Daily Caller News Foundation, warn that excessive concessions to Moscow could embolden U.S. adversaries around the world, including China.

“A rushed or weak settlement would do real damage to U.S. national security,” Carrie Filipetti, executive director of the Vandenberg Coalition, told the DCNF. “It would tell Putin that aggression pays and signal to adversaries like China that borders and sovereignty are negotiable. That is not peace, it is an invitation for the next crisis.”

Putin has continued to strike Ukraine relentlessly during ongoing talks, mainly targeting critical energy infrastructure. Despite Putin’s continued push to win militarily in Ukraine, Heather Nauert, a former U.S. State Department spokesperson, told the DCNF that his actions come less from a position of strength and more from desperation to quickly end the war before he is forced to concede.

“While Putin likely still thinks he can win, his actions are those of someone who is increasingly desperate,” Nauert told the DCNF. “With Vladimir Putin, you don’t get peace because you ask nicely; you get peace when he sees he can’t improve his position by continuing to wage his war. History shows that Moscow only takes negotiations seriously when the pressure is real and sustained.”

Despite projecting resolve publicly, Moscow has paid a staggering price for its war in Ukraine, with various estimates putting casualties among Kremlin forces at no fewer than 600,000. Russia has nevertheless made slow but steady gains on the battlefield, including taking the town of Siversk on Tuesday.

Putin’s government expected a short conflict and swift victory after the initial invasion of Ukraine. But Russian forces were repelled decisively in the 2022 assault on Kyiv, leading to multiple counter-offensives from Ukraine and the resulting protracted war.

Ukraine has held its ground at great cost to itself, needing significant support from the U.S. and Europe. The U.S. has spent over $180 billion on Ukraine since the war began in 2022, and Trump recently signed a bill allocating $800 million of support for Ukraine over the next two years.

Ukraine is dead set on gaining better future security guarantees from the U.S. in exchange for any peace, and U.S. officials previously told the DCNF that the new provisions offer guarantees that function similarly to NATO’s Article 5, promising mutual defense if one is attacked.

“I am not sure he can cut that deal without a commitment to Ukraine, by the U.S. and our allies, that we will stand behind them until a satisfactory peace deal can be made,” Bruce Carlson, retired U.S. Air Force general and former director of the National Reconnaissance Office, told the DCNF. “In recent negotiations with the Ukrainians and other allies [Trump] has made some compromises. Now, with a very confident Putin, he will have to re-sell this new and modified deal.”

Continue Reading

Business

Residents in economically free states reap the rewards

Published on December 26, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew D. Mitchell

A report published by the Fraser Institute reaffirms just how much more economically free some states are compared with others. These are places where citizens are allowed to make more of their economic choices. Their taxes are lighter, and their regulatory burdens are easier. The benefits for workers, consumers and businesses have been clear for a long time.

There’s another group of states to watch: “movers” that have become much freer in recent decades. These are states that may not be the freest, but they have been cutting taxes and red tape enough to make a big difference.

How do they fare?

I recently explored this question using 22 years of data from the same Economic Freedom of North America index. The index uses 10 variables encompassing government spending, taxation and labour regulation to assess the degree of economic freedom in each of the 50 states.

Some states, such as New Hampshire, have long topped the list. It’s been in the top five for three decades. With little room to grow, the Granite State’s level of economic freedom hasn’t budged much lately. Others, such as Alaska, have significantly improved economic freedom over the last two decades. Because it started so low, it remains relatively unfree at 43rd out of 50.

Three states—North Carolina, North Dakota and Idaho—have managed to markedly increase and rank highly on economic freedom.

In 2000, North Carolina was the 19th most economically free state in the union. Though its labour market was relatively unhindered by the state’s government, its top marginal income tax rate was America’s ninth-highest, and it spent more money than most states.

From 2013 to 2022, North Carolina reduced its top marginal income tax rate from 7.75 per cent to 4.99 per cent, reduced government employment and allowed the minimum wage to fall relative to per-capita income. By 2022, it had the second-freest labour market in the country and was ninth in overall economic freedom.

North Dakota took a similar path, reducing its 5.54 per cent top income tax rate to 2.9 per cent, scaling back government employment, and lowering its minimum wage to better reflect local incomes. It went from the 27th most economically free state in the union in 2000 to the 10th freest by 2022.

Idaho saw the most significant improvement. The Gem State has steadily improved spending, taxing and labour market freedom, allowing it to rise from the 28th most economically free state in 2000 to the eighth freest in 2022.

We can contrast these three states with a group that has achieved equal and opposite distinction: California, Delaware, New Jersey and Maryland have managed to decrease economic freedom and end up among the least free overall.

What was the result?

The economies of the three liberating states have enjoyed almost twice as much economic growth. Controlling for inflation, North Carolina, North Dakota and Idaho grew an average of 41 per cent since 2010. The four repressors grew by just 24 per cent.

Among liberators, statewide personal income grew 47 per cent from 2010 to 2022. Among repressors, it grew just 26 per cent.

In fact, when it comes to income growth per person, increases in economic freedom seem to matter even more than a state’s overall, long-term level of freedom. Meanwhile, when it comes to population growth, placing highly over longer periods of time matters more.

The liberators are not unique. There’s now a large body of international evidence documenting the freedom-prosperity connection. At the state level, high and growing levels of economic freedom go hand-in-hand with higher levels of income, entrepreneurship, in-migration and income mobility. In economically free states, incomes tend to grow faster at the top and bottom of the income ladder.

These states suffer less poverty, homelessness and food insecurity and may even have marginally happier, more philanthropic and more tolerant populations.

In short, liberation works. Repression doesn’t.

Continue Reading

Trending

X