smr-nj Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 3 hours ago, CMRivdogs said: This definitely belongs in the Idiocracy thread... As long as I remember school nurses couldn't hand out any drugs without explicit instructions from at least a parent, let alone major surgury. You just know that approximately 5 million people in this country were shaking their heads affirmatively while he was saying that. And they have guns. We’re doomed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ronz Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 More like 74+ million people but point taken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted September 3 Author Share Posted September 3 13 hours ago, CMRivdogs said: This definitely belongs in the Idiocracy thread... As long as I remember school nurses couldn't hand out any drugs without explicit instructions from at least a parent, let alone major surgury. The dumb leading the ignorant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 A few years ago our school district had a big thing about "gay books" being in the Library and we saw the convergence of fundamentalist christian and muslims at school board meeings protesting. One resident said "They can be gay when they are 18" This is the mindset we're battling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 On 8/16/2024 at 5:51 PM, romad1 said: She has a case sorry, haven't been around much, but what have I missed about this? Why would Trump be liable? Isn't SS in charge of security for this? Also, I thought the SS was being tight lipped and not saying anything on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 (edited) 7 minutes ago, ewsieg said: sorry, haven't been around much, but what have I missed about this? Why would Trump be liable? Isn't SS in charge of security for this? Also, I thought the SS was being tight lipped and not saying anything on this? USSS probably told Trump that he shouldn't do outdoor rallies and he went ahead anyway. Recall the line from J6 when he wanted the magnetometers turned off because the crowd wasn't there to shoot him. Edited September 3 by romad1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 Quote The president was warned by a Secret Service official that protesters outside security magnetometers were carrying weapons. Trump said: “I don’t ****ing care that they have weapons, they’re not here to hurt me. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the ****ing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here, let the people in and take the mags away.” Trump knew crowd at rally was armed yet demanded they be allowed to march | January 6 hearings | The Guardian Appeared he hoped the crowd were armed to attack the Capitol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 If Trump fought with the USSS over the trip down to the Capitol he probably fought with them over outdoor rallies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted September 3 Author Share Posted September 3 20 minutes ago, romad1 said: Trump knew crowd at rally was armed yet demanded they be allowed to march | January 6 hearings | The Guardian Appeared he hoped the crowd were armed to attack the Capitol. Just another drop in the firehose of atrocities that I'd completely forgotten about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 Maybe i'm wrong, but I would think USSS would still be authoritative on the overall security and if they felt they couldn't secure an outdoor location, they should not allow an outdoor location. And between me and you, deep down you know, if Trump or his campaign told the USSS they were doing outdoor events explicitly against the USSS wishes, that info would have been leaked like a sieve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 27 minutes ago, ewsieg said: sorry, haven't been around much, but what have I missed about this? Why would Trump be liable? Isn't SS in charge of security for this? Also, I thought the SS was being tight lipped and not saying anything on this? If they can show the campaign took actions that ignored SS advice or acted in ways that subverted security efforts in place I suppose they would have a cause of action. As practical matter to sue the SS under the Fed Tort Claims Act I think you have to prove actual negligence and in the kind of multi-model failure to communicate situations like this was, explicit negligence might be a hard standard to meet, not to mention that SS can shield its procedures under security classification etc. So the lawyers must think the bar to show partial liability on the part of the campaign is a better bet. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 (edited) 15 minutes ago, ewsieg said: Maybe i'm wrong, but I would think USSS would still be authoritative on the overall security and if they felt they couldn't secure an outdoor location, they should not allow an outdoor location. They don't have any legal authority to prevent their protectee from doing anything. If they won't take advice, (and since when does Trump accept advice from anyone?) they just have to salute and do the best they can. Edited September 3 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 17 minutes ago, ewsieg said: Maybe i'm wrong, but I would think USSS would still be authoritative on the overall security and if they felt they couldn't secure an outdoor location, they should not allow an outdoor location. And between me and you, deep down you know, if Trump or his campaign told the USSS they were doing outdoor events explicitly against the USSS wishes, that info would have been leaked like a sieve. I think it's different when it's a sitting President, who is their boss, and "just a protectee" which is now as a former POTUS and candidate. A sitting President being protected isn't just about his own safety, it's the nuclear codes and other sensitive info. That is also their repsonsibility. My other guess at this is that the USSS sets up the perimeter and is responsible for that. They are not responsible for the logistics, where the stage is set up, etc. Areas outside of the perimeter... they can't guarantee anything. But there's enough there for a lawyer to think there's a case. If I got to a Tigers game and get shot by someone.... I can sue the hosts of the event. In this scenario Trump's campaign was the host. I worked security for the beaitifucation mass of Fr. Solanus that was held here about 7 years ago. It was at Ford Field. It was a global ceremony and a huge deal. The biggest security event held in that building since the Super Bowl. The Archdiocese was responsible for security even though the FBI and Homeland Security were involved as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 (edited) 21 minutes ago, oblong said: I think it's different when it's a sitting President, who is their boss, and "just a protectee" which is now as a former POTUS and candidate. A sitting President being protected isn't just about his own safety, it's the nuclear codes and other sensitive info. That is also their repsonsibility. Even here you run into the Constitutional issue since he is their boss and at least theoretically is the source of the authority of all the rules they operate under other than legislation that explicitly binds a president's actions, and even in these cases the SCOTUS may find for a president if he challenges it. e.g. the Mar-a-Lago case wouldn't exist if Trump could have shown he declassified the docs before he took them because he had the authority to do it. It's a powerful office, the Founders never imagined it had to made idiot proof. Edited September 3 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 32 minutes ago, oblong said: My other guess at this is that the USSS sets up the perimeter and is responsible for that. They are not responsible for the logistics, where the stage is set up, etc. Areas outside of the perimeter... they can't guarantee anything. Isn't about all we do know from what happened is that the perimeter was the biggest issue? 32 minutes ago, oblong said: But there's enough there for a lawyer to think there's a case. If I got to a Tigers game and get shot by someone.... I can sue the hosts of the event. In this scenario Trump's campaign was the host. Correct, and if the Tigers did not provide due diligence they would lose. But what if a friend gets you tickets into the GM suite and you get shot. Does GM owe you a responsibility of being safe in their suite or is that the Tigers job? 32 minutes ago, oblong said: I worked security for the beaitifucation mass of Fr. Solanus that was held here about 7 years ago. It was at Ford Field. It was a global ceremony and a huge deal. The biggest security event held in that building since the Super Bowl. The Archdiocese was responsible for security even though the FBI and Homeland Security were involved as well. This is somewhat similar I guess, in that the USSS works with local law enforcement as well. In my purview, I would assume USSS is the authoritative voice though. Not going to lie, I would like to know the details of this event and if the USSS bowed down to Trump demands, while that doesn't necessarily shift the blame IMO, it would add some additional blame towards Trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 4 minutes ago, ewsieg said: Not going to lie, I would like to know the details of this event and if the USSS bowed down to Trump demands, while that doesn't necessarily shift the blame IMO, it would add some additional blame towards Trump. It's always going to be a matter of degree. In every event the SS and the other security team members will have a list of things they would *like* the candidate to do and the candidate will agree to some and reject others ( for instance you know SS would always *like* the candidate to stand behind a bullet proof screen, no candidate ever will.) So every event is a compromise with a line drawn somewhere on that list that defines a spectrum from overkill security to candidate negligence. So the area between is where Comperatore's lawyers have to try and make a case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ronz Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 I don't even think it is about the USSS bowing down to Trump's demands altho they certainly could have. The USSS most likely has a certain area/perimeter that they are responsible for and that is the ONLY area they are responsible for. Anything outside that area is NOT the responsibility of the USSS but COULD be the responsibility of the Trump campaign. Meaning if the Trump campaign wanted to hire additional security beyond the established perimeter, they were welcome to do so. My guess - based on a 50+ year record of Trump not paying anyone - the campaign chose not to do so. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 (edited) 9 minutes ago, The Ronz said: I don't even think it is about the USSS bowing down to Trump's demands altho they certainly could have. The USSS most likely has a certain area/perimeter that they are responsible for and that is the ONLY area they are responsible for. Anything outside that area is NOT the responsibility of the USSS but COULD be the responsibility of the Trump campaign. Meaning if the Trump campaign wanted to hire additional security beyond the established perimeter, they were welcome to do so. My guess - based on a 50+ year record of Trump not paying anyone - the campaign chose not to do so. This is probably pretty accurate. The one place where I think the SS did clearly miss was not establishing a live communication link with the local command post. Trump could have been taken off the stage well before a shot was fired if the locals could have communicated with his SS team as soon as they had ID'd the presence of the armed threat. That was a ridiculous level of breakdown given today's communications tech. Edited September 3 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 I mean.... PA is an open carry state. A guy with an AR-15 is probably some patriotic dude looking to be that good guy with a gun. Why should the cops worry about him? You can generaally find a lawyer willin to sue anyone for anything. I'm not suggesting Trump's campaign is responsible because I don't know the rules, the law, etc. None of us really do. Just explaining how it's possible there's a lawsuit. A lawsuit itself is not an indication of guilt and it's not prosecutorial. It's just a lawyer with a pen, which from the Godfather book, is said "A lawyer with a briefcase is more powerful than a hundred men with guns" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 8 minutes ago, oblong said: You can generaally find a lawyer willin to sue anyone for anything. I'm not suggesting Trump's campaign is responsible because I don't know the rules, the law, etc. None of us really do. Just explaining how it's possible there's a lawsuit. A lawsuit itself is not an indication of guilt and it's not prosecutorial. It's just a lawyer with a pen, which from the Godfather book, is said "A lawyer with a briefcase is more powerful than a hundred men with guns" Agreed, the posted tweet seemed to indicate Trump was responsible and I took how Romad posted it to agree that he was though, wasn't sure if I had missed something or if it was just related to hating Trump. Sounds like it was the latter. They always say that when you sue, you include every possible person/entity and with the USSS likely enjoying some of that same qualified immunity police do, it would be tough to get anything out of them anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 1 hour ago, oblong said: A lawsuit itself is not an indication of guilt and it's not prosecutorial. It's just a lawyer with a pen, To me the more interesting thing than the law involved was the widow's apparent change of heart. I just wonder if it's a situation where if Trump had had a little more personal grace and extended himself to and better recognized the other victims, he might have saved himself defending one more suit. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 Cool!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smr-nj Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 I’d love to have a sycophant look me in the eye and tell me he/she believes this. edit to add: Nobody believes you have friends who are English professors. ========================== Donald Trump doesn’t ramble nonsensically in his speeches. Instead, he does “the weave.” Well, that’s according to the former president, who told a campaign rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, on Friday: You know, I do the weave. You know what the weave is? I’ll talk about like nine different things, and they all come back brilliantly together and it’s like, and friends of mine that are, like, English professors, they say, ‘It’s the most brilliant thing I’ve ever seen.’ But the fake news, you know what they say? ‘He rambled.’ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 I don’t get this at all. It makes no sense. I have an uncle who was a plumber. That doesn’t mean I’m great at unstopping toilets My dad was a landscaper, I’m great at killing plants 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ronz Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 2 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said: I don’t get this at all. It makes no sense. I have an uncle who was a plumber. That doesn’t mean I’m great at unstopping toilets My dad was a landscaper, I’m great at killing plants Not to belabor the point because I know it makes people upset but this is what Nazism, eugenics and "The Master Race" are all about. Trump is implying that he comes from "good stock." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.