Investigate Earth Conspiracy Podcast - Kimberly Cheatle Secret Service Director Testifies on Trump Assassination Attempt Breakdown

Episode Date: July 23, 2024

What a day it was in Congress as Acting Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle testified about the security failures and incompetence of the Secret Service during the assassination attempt on President Donald Trump by Thomas Matthew Crooks on July 13th. We break down the pointed questions from congressional members and analyze Cheatle's responses. Was this a conspiracy to assassinate President Trump or a massive oversight of security plans? 

A new place, a new home for a while, let me feel like. Nothing to hold me back. Damn our time. Just enjoy the ride. A nomad passing by, life is good best I've ever felt. Hello and welcome to Investigator's podcast. I'm your host chat alongside my beautiful wife, Sherry. On tonight's episode, we're going to be talking about Kimberly Cheeto, secret service director that infuriated lawmakers with vague answers on the Trump

shooting today, there were multiple lawmakers from both parties that joined the widespread calls for Kimberly Cheeto to resign by the end of the high-profile hearing. Secret Service director Kimberly Cheeto utterly felled Monday to reassure lawmakers that she was still the best person for the job after the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, instead prompting members from both parties a call for her resignation in real time. Now, guys, listen, we've covered this for four. five days, six days now. We've had about three or four episodes on the attempted Trump assassination. You had Kimberly Cheatel go into this hearing today. She basically did what

everybody else does, including Falchie. You remember FBI director Ray. There's been so many of them that go in front of Congress. They're subpoenaed. They're supposed to have all these documents and all of this information to give to Congress. And what do they do? Well, these agencies go into these meetings, these hearings, and they have zero information. And you know what they always are best at is they're always best at referring them to someone else, right? And so just like Kimberly Cheeto did today, well, I have to refer to you to the FBI investigation on this. I have to refer to you the FBI investigation on us. I have to refer to you the FBI investigation on this. But what I will say, Sherry, and I think you agree that a lot of the questions that she refused

the answer almost answered themselves, right? When she said, when she said, we have to refer you, that meant no. Yeah, or yes. And when you looked at her in the interview today, she did not even have a pen in her hand, or she might have had a pen. She had no notebook. She had no notes.

She had no nothing. She was there not prepared at all to answer any questions because she knew she was not going to answer them. Yeah, absolutely she knew. Right. So just so you guys know, Congress had asked for all of these various documents for the past three to four days.

They have requested these documents. They also requested Kimberly Cheapel. to show up for this for this congressional hearing today, which it sounded like she was not going to do. So they had to actually go after a subpoena, the subpoena Kimberly Cheeto into this hearing. Right. So the only way that Congress got her in this hearing today was by subpoena. And when you think about someone such as Kimberly Cheeto, the Secret Service Director, that is over the protection of who leads our country. right and it's not just who leads our country but who has led our country in the past or who is

the political nominee for whatever party that it may be these are very very important jobs that they hold right secret service has a zero fail policy they cannot fell because you know what happens when the secret service fells someone dies and although trump did not die on this particular they thank god someone did right it was a trump supporter that died. It was two other people that were injured. And it was only by a quarter of an inch that the most popular nominee, the most hated, the most controversial, the most whatever the case may be nominee in history, potentially,

which is Donald Trump, it was a quarter of an inch that he did not die. And we would be in a very, very, very different place today. as we sit here right now. And I don't know, you know, there's been a lot of people ask us, well, what would be the difference, right? If Donald Trump would have been actually assassinated that day, what would be the difference, right? What would it look like in America today?

Well, I think it would be the one of the final death blows to America. It would have been a final death blow of hope. It would have been, I think it would have enraged many people across the country. I think that there would probably be more political violence than you've ever potentially seen definitely in your lifetime. I mean, you think about Black Lives Matter. You think about on TV. You think about all this stuff, which mostly is coordinated by the globalists in the World Economic Forum and also pushed and coordinated also by the Democrats. You know, that's a that's a sideshow in comparison to what you potentially would see if you just assassinated, especially considering the circumstances that we're looking at.

here, right? This is not, I mean, they're trying to make you believe that this guy was a loner. He was bullied in school. He was all of these things. And then there was a new report that just came out today that says Thomas Crooks, which was the alleged shooter, was bullied all through school. But the report that actually came out today said he was not bullied in school. Actually, the school has responded to those theories and to those rumors that said that

Thomas Crooks was heavily bullied in school. This is what mainstream media has ran with. This is what the intelligence agencies have been trying to put out to the public since the assassination attempt on, I believe, what was it? January the, I mean, sorry, January, July the 15th, I think is the day that the Trump assassination attempt happened. But they've been trying to push this narrative. Loner, he was bullied, all the various things. And the school has actually come out recently and said he was not bullied in school. There were other friends that came out and said he was not bullied in the school.

said he was not bullied in the school. There are all these things that people are starting to push back on now, right? Very similarly, by the way, to the local law enforcement in Pennsylvania, at Butler, Pennsylvania, that is saying, I think that Secret Service is trying to push this off on us, but this is not our fault. We did everything that we were supposed to do, and everything was in the hands of the Secret Service. But now that you hear, it's like, oh, well, Secret Service says, no, this is the local law enforcement's fault, not ours, not ours. Now, guys, you have to remember that this building that Thomas Crooks climbed up on.

And by the way, with a ladder. That's not there now. Yeah. I want to point that out yesterday, Sherry, you remember we were looking at mainstream media. And there was these, all these reports coming out. There was no ladder found that the crime scene. But they showed a ladder a day before that.

Absolutely. And then even today and today's hearings, they ask her about a ladder she could not confirm nor deny of course because she knows there was a ladder there there were various things in today's hearing that when you hear the questions to Kimberly Cheathel by members of Congress and the fact that she can't answer or refuses to answer to these things tells you exactly everything I think that you need to know number one how many bullet cases or how many shell casings were there on the on the building yeah on the building where Thomas Crooks was, right? Because if you know how many casings there were found, because by the way,

those casings would still be there because he was shot in the face. So it's not like he's going to take the casings away. How many cases were found around Thomas Crooks? That's very important, right? Especially when you start hearing this theory, this, it seems like very plausible theory that there was a second shooter. But that would prove 100% that there would be a. like a shooter. If say that there were only two casings, right, around Thomas Crooks, and you cannot find any other casings around Crooks. Well, we know there were at least, what, eight shots? There were eight shots, but I believe from various people that have analyzed these recordings that they came from two different people. And we even know what shots came from what people.

We know that one, two, and three came from Thomas. We know that four came from somebody else. We know five and six came from Thomas. And then seven, we're not sure. And then eight was the last shot. Yeah, eight was the counter-snifers. Okay. But you can really hear this. When you really go and listen to these people that are analyzing these things,

you can hear the difference in the shots. It's crazy. We actually should really play that for people to hear it because you can hear it. Even if you're not an expert, you can hear the differences in the shots. Yeah. If we can find that, we'll definitely play it. And I'll look for that as we play some of these breakdowns. By the way, guys, today what we're going to be doing is breaking down the most key and pivotal

moments in the hearing today. It was, I guess, a five hour long hearing. We're not going to go into five hours of testimony because most of it was, you know, her denying her saying, referred to FBI, so on and so forth. But what I do want you guys to hear in our opinion is probably the best moments from congressional members that are asking the questions that, they believe that the American people want to know, right? You have to ask these questions, and you also have to gauge response.

Because one of the biggest things in law enforcement, interrogation and so on and so forth, is not just the questions, it is the response and how they respond, right? And so when you hear how she responds to certain things, there are various opportunities for her to, that she almost gets put in a corner. They ask around, you know, they ask questions around a thing. that almost says there's no reason that you couldn't tell us this. And then she's still, when they get to the core of the question, she'll go back to say, oh, well, you have to refer to FBI because there's no way she's going to answer that,

which basically says that what they're asking is true, in my opinion, right? And so this was not a security failure, in my opinion. What happened on the day that Trump was potentially almost assassinated and was the assassination attempt, in my opinion was an inside job. It was something that they desperately need to do. And guys, it should not be that big of a freaking surprise. You know,

when they have went after him, charged him with 34 felony counts. Now they're going after him in, you know, they've been after him in Georgia. The FBI's been after him with the documents case. You have Alvin Bragg and Leticia James

that had been going after him in New York, which sentencing has been postponed until August. And you know what the funny thing is they postponed the sentencing about two weeks ago. and maybe they postponed it because they're like, you know what, we're going to kill him anyway. So why don't we just postpone this a couple of weeks? And let's see what happens. Now that he's not dead.

How many of you think, by the way, and you guys can answer us wherever we do have an X account. We have Facebook. We have Instagram. And we also have a telegram last night's episode when we had our listeners on. It was a listener episode where we talked about Biden stepping down. I thought it was a good episode. That comes from Telegram, by the way. but I want you guys to tell us what do you think is going to play out?

Do you think that Trump is going to potentially be assassinated between now and then? Is there going to be another attempt on his life? Because in my opinion, I think there's going to be. It's a very scary time ahead, guys. I'm not going to lie to you. So I want to get into the first clip we have. Secret Service Director Kim Jietel can't answer almost all of Representative James Comer's questions. The woman is way more incompetent than most people thought,

but attendees were heard groaning in the background as Cheeto gaslit the American people. And Comer cornered Cheatel when he asked these questions. Check this out. The annual budget of around $3.1 billion, and I believe around 8,000 employees, is that correct? Yes, sir. Obviously, there were many security failures on the day of the attempted assassination. and leading up to that day. Let's start with the building that the shooter used

to shoot President Trump from. At any point Saturday, did the Secret Service have an agent on top of that roof? Sir, I'm sure, as you can imagine, that we are just nine days out from this incident, and there's still an ongoing investigation. And so I want to make sure that any information that we are providing to you is factual.

Okay. Why did the Secret Service not, can you answer why the Secret Service didn't place a single agent on the roof? we are still looking into the advanced process and the decisions that were made okay okay wasn't that building within the perimeter that should be secured do we agree with that the building was outside of the perimeter on the day of the visit but again that is one of the things that during the investigation we want to take a look at and determine whether or not

other decisions should have been made one of the things that you said I believe in an interview that there wasn't an agent on the roof because it was a slope roof. Is that normal? And do you fear that that immediately creates an opportunity for future would-be assassins to look for a slanted roof? I mean, this is a huge question that every American has. Why wasn't a Secret Service agent on the roof? And there have been reports that agents were supposed to be on the roof,

but it was hot that day and they didn't want to be on the roof. Can you answer any of those questions, Director? So I appreciate you asking me that question, Chairman. I should have been more clear in my answer when I spoke about where we placed personnel in that interview. What I can tell you is that there was a plan in place to provide overwatch, and we are still looking into responsibilities and who was going to provide overwatch. But the Secret Service in general, not speaking specifically to this incident, when we are providing overwatch, whether that be through counter-sniperes or other technology, prefer to have. sterile rooftops. Did the Secret Service use any drones for surveillance that day? So again, I'm not going to get into specifics of that day in itself, but there are times

during a security plan that the Secret Service does deploy an asset like a drone. There were reports that the shooter used a drone just a few hours before the rally. Start time. Is that accurate? I have heard those same reports, and again, am waiting for the final report. Do you know? If you can't answer the question, that's your answer. But can you answer this? Do you know? Do you know?

I'm not asking yes or no, but do you know if the shooter used a drone before the shooting? That information has been passed to us from the FBI. How many Secret Service agents were assigned to President Trump on the day of the rally? Again, I'm not going to get into the specifics of the numbers of personnel that we had there, but we feel that there was a sufficient number of agents assigned. There are reports that several agents assigned to the rally on July 13th were temporary agents. Agents not normally assigned to President Trump.

Is that accurate? What I can tell you is that the agents that were assigned to former President Trump are Secret Service agents that provide close protection to him, and that was what was actual on that day. How many temporary agents were there that day? quite frequently, sir, during campaign events. The Secret Service utilizes agents from HSI or the Department of Homeland Security to supplement our plan.

Have the investigators reconstructed the shooter's precise movements over the past days, weeks, and months? So, again. We need to have confidence that if the FBI is leading this investigation, that they're leading a credible investigation because there are some of us sitting up here today that don't have a lot of confidence in the FBI. So I will repeat the question. Have the investigators reconstructed the shooter's precise moments over the past days, weeks, and months? I understand your question, Chairman, and I share your concerns about wanting to make sure that we have factual information. The FBI is conducting a criminal investigation. The Secret Service is conducting an internal investigation.

There are a number of OIG investigations, and there is the external investigation that the Last question for me. Before July 13th, had the Trump detail requested additional resources? What I can tell you is that for the event on July 13th, the details that were requested, the assets that were requested for that day were given. And by the way, that's not true, because as we get into this question, you start to hear that actually what Trump requested for a additional resources actually was never given to Trump during this time. And so she already lies there, right? And but let's get into this, right?

She first talked about the building. Why did you not have people on the building? Why did you not have people near the building in any capacity to look at the building? The number one building that would be a direct line of fire. And also I had talked about this on a previous episode, Sherry, was that the farm equipment that they set up, It was, I think, a grain, whatever, some type of grain form equipment. I don't know what you call those things. But it was set up, but it was set up forward of where the actual line of sight, the line

of fire would be coming from from this building where Thomas Crooks actually placed his shots. It was not actually in direct lineage to where the building was to where Trump was speaking. And I think that's intentional. You don't leave an open slot for a shooter, especially if you're not going to cover that building in this position. You just don't do that. Let me just tell you, I was listening to an interview today. And this was a lady that's a vendor. She sells Trump shirts.

She's been to almost every Trump rally there's been. I think she's missed maybe 10. So she knows the ins and outs of everything because she goes to all these events and knows how everything works. And when she went there, she usually goes a day early and sets up. and gets ready. They tell her where to go. But she was also mentioning the heavy equipment. She said they usually bring in like lines and lines of heavy equipment.

So there is not a direct line of sight to the object or whoever they're protecting. Absolutely. And when she set up, she said there was no lines protecting anything. And she's like something. And she knew even before the rally got started. She's like something's wrong. Something doesn't feel right. This is really weird.

This has not ever been a rally I've been to. And like I said, she's been to all of them, but like 10. And I think it was over a hundred and something rallies that she goes to and sell these t-shirts. And she knew right away, she said, this is not right because this is not typical what they usually do. They bring in heavy machinery all around so that they can protect the subject. And there's no line of sight anywhere. Yeah, absolutely. No, I agree with that, by the way, because, I mean, you know, I've seen.

said this before, especially if you ever watch a president land in an airport or whatever the case may be, they're going to put their snow plows, their various equipment, heavy equipment, large equipment in front of the actual airplane. They typically do this also with Air Force One, but they will also do this with presidential candidates. And then to the point also going back to this, the perimeter, right? She said that this building was not inside their perimeter, the secret services perimeter, where they were tasked to protect, right?

You can almost hit a golf ball from point A to point B. No, you can. No, what you're talking about? How is that not in a perimeter? I don't get it because every time they talk about the yardage and stuff, I'm thinking about when we're on the driving range and where the little 200 marker or whatever is, you can hit a golf ball from point A to point B. For sure.

I mean, how is that not in a perimeter? That makes no sense. I can drive a golf ball and many others can drive a golf ball, 250 to 300. the pros drive over 300 yards. And so this is not something that is very hard. It's not also that far. I mean, and you have to understand that a AR-15 rifle,

which is what Thomas Crooks used in this particular event, has a four to 500-yard range, potentially further if you're an expert shot or you're someone that's really practiced and practical in your shooting. And with the right scope, four, five, six hundred-yard shot is even possible in that scenario. Probably there's people that can more than,

likely do longer shots with the AR-15 and even five or 600 yards. But this was a hundred and what, 42 yards or something like that. So it was a, you know, a very close shot, especially with a scope. And they said that this building was not in their perimeter. And that just makes zero sense to me because I,

as I've said before, I have been a part of things where presidents and vice presidents and members of Congress or whoever shows up at somewhere. And the secret service, they show up a week in advance. They plan for every possible scenario. And I'm talking about not just 150 yards out. They plan like a half a mile out.

Right. And usually where you see local law enforcement that gets involved is where you get that half a mile. Yeah, the outer rings. But not 150 yards. You should never, ever depend on local law enforcement to protect 150 yards from where your freaking principal is or your subject. But I think he had a great point about these people. not wanting to be on the roof because it was too hot because they put the people on the inside where the air conditioning was.

How are they even going to catch anyone on the inside when they have a roof right there? Absolutely. So I think his point was right on and is legit. I think these people might have been like, hell no, I'm not getting on that roof and standing there. I know this is my job, but I'm going to stand inside where there's air conditioning instead. Yeah. No, I 100% agree. Now, listen, guys, we have some of an amazing testimony.

or not testimony, but questioning from some Congresspeople today. We're going to get to that in just a second. But before we get to that, scumbag Marxist Jamie Raskin. He turns this into gun control rather than the botched secret service job, rather than the fact that the leading presidential candidate almost got assassinated. But old Jamie Raskins, he had to bring up gun control. I want you guys to hear what he said. And listen, when I heard this today, it freaking did not surprise me.

but I at least got to play this. Check this out. In New York, Alabama, where four people were shot dead and ten others wounded. This means amazingly that the Butler attack was not even the deadliest mass shooting to happen in America on that day. A weapon that can be used to commit a mass shooting in an event under the full protection of the Secret Service, together with dozens of state and local police, is obviously an intolerable threat to the rest of us who do not receive such protection. obviously does not belong in our communities. It's time to pass universal background checks and build on this administration's work to ensure that we permanently close the loopholes in the

Brady Law for gun show purchases, online purchases, and private sales to prevent those weapons from getting into the hands of people we know to be a threat to others. What happened in Butler shows why even closing these loopholes, however, will not keep assault weapons out of the hands of potential assassins and mass murderers under federal law and in the vast majority of states, even young people not old enough to buy a beer legally can legally purchase and own the AR-15 and carried in public. The shooter in Butler used his father's AR-15. We have to find the courage and resolve to pass a ban on the AR-15 and other assault weapons. A ban is broad support. Even the New York Post loudly endorsed such a ban in 2019.

We have passed an assault weapons ban before. Republicans and Democrats to passed it in 1994. Alas in 2004, we allowed the ban to expire. We know this weapons ban worked. One study found that in the decade that followed the ban's lapse, mass shootings went back up 183 percent, and deaths from mass shootings went up 239%. But even as we change the Secret Service and act to ban weapons of war, like the AAR-15, we still will have fallen short of our duty if we failed a denial.

every instance of politically motivated violence in whatever form it takes. All right. So that's Jamie Raskins. Of course, turning this into a gun control debate, a AR-15 debate. And listen, he says here,

you know, universal background checks. We got to get it. We got to get these universal background checks. And as he literally just stated, this Thomas Crooks used his father's AR-15. Yeah, so it doesn't matter.

Which obviously was a law blind citizen, but that's not Jamie Raskin's message here. And I want you guys to all understand. this very, very, very clearly. Jamie Raskin's message, Raskin, message is, is that we want to ban assault weapons. And he said, not just AR-15,

he says, all of the assault weapons. So what is other assault weapons? What is they, what do they refer to other assault weapons? Because according to Democrats, assault weapons are semi-automatic weapons. And I don't know if anyone understands this, but most weapons out there, including your glocks, including your 9mm,

including shotguns, including, and all this stuff, according to them would be assault weapon, which would basically mean ban all weapons. They want to ban weapons because the shit that is going on right now in this country to where they almost just assassinated our presidential nominee for the Republican Party and most likely will be our president in 2024 unless some crazy shit happens, which I'm very open to that as well, because I think there's going to be so many things that happen between now and November.

I think that you, if you think that the president Trump assassination was bad, you just wait. Give it a couple months. Give it even a month. This shit is going to get weirder. I mean, just today on X, we don't even know 100% right now if Joe Biden is actually alive. We don't know. We don't even know necessarily 100% if he knows that he dropped out of the race. And yes, he did call into the Kamala Harris campaign today ahead of her speech and wherever the hell she was at, I guess Delaware.

Was she in Delaware today? Yeah, it was in Delaware. Yeah, it was their campaign headquarters, I think. Yeah, so she called, so Joe Biden after calls all day from Congresspeople, from pundits, from journalists that said show proof of life of Joe Biden. He has not been seen from, heard of. The letter that he actually said that he is not going to run for reelection was not even on a presidential letterhead.

It was just some random ass white piece of paper, you know, everyone's saying, let's just see if Joe Biden is even alive. And I don't know if many of you know this, but, you know, two or three months ago, we said, or especially after the Trump assassination, Tempta said, more than likely, they're probably going to try to assassinate Biden because they know they got to get him out. This is a coup against Biden. They want, they're not giving Biden a choice anymore. They're saying you are out and we're going to do what the hell we want to do now.

And that's a coup. That is a coup in the Democrat Party is illegal. It's against the Constitution. There are various other things that's really going on. But the point here is, guys, is that they're trying to ban your weapons. They want to ban your weapons. That's desperately what they want to do. And the reason they want to do it is because they know what they're trying to accomplish

right now. They're trying to take out any political opponent in their way. I mean, you think about Russia, right? You think about Putin. They all talk shit about Putin. The Democrats especially say Putin's bad. He kills his political opponents. He imprisons his political opponents.

He does all this shit. But that is exactly what the Democrats are trying to do. They're trying to put Trump in prison. That's not working so well for them. He actually got more support on the back of the. that. And so instead, what potentially, in our opinion, did they do? Well, they tried to kill him. And by the way, that's probably not going to be the last time they try to kill them between now and November. And that's really scary. And I hope that doesn't happen. I pray that doesn't happen.

But talking about these weapon bans, let's just say, okay, they get their way and they ban weapons. Okay, turn in all of your semi-automatic weapons. Give them up. Give them to us. We're going to take care of them. Yeah, all probably like law abiding citizens might give it up. No, no, no, no, they're not. I think a lot of people won't. But I'm just saying the people that definitely won't give them up are the criminals. They have most of them.

Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah. No, I get it. I mean, yeah, you're never going to, I mean, even if you do an assault weapons ban or whatever freaking weapons ban you want to possibly do, criminals are ready, are criminals. They're already felons. They're already illegally. They're not even supposed to have these.

weapons. Yeah. And if you get caught with a weapon as a felon, you're going to jail for a long time, at least in states that actually prosecute that, right? But they don't. In Democrat states, they don't. There were 60 shootings on the 4th of July of weekend. Yeah.

And I don't even know if they've prosecuted anyone. Well, here's what I'm saying, sure. I know your point of what you're trying to say about, like, law Biden citizens would obviously would be more likely to give up their weapons because they're afraid of being felons if they get caught with those. Right. That's 100% understand what you're saying there. and also understand what you're saying as far as obviously criminals because they're not even supposed to happen to begin with.

So why the hell would they ever get rid of them? They're still going to shoot up their towns. They're still going to shoot up their opponents and they're political or not political, but gang oppositions or whatever the case may be. But I think this is where the tide turns because if that ever happened, if they actually did enforce or try to enforce a weapons ban or a assault weapons ban or whether the case may be, that's when you start seeing these law Biden citizens no longer become law Biden citizens. anymore. And they're going to be like, you know what, F you, there's no way in hell I'm giving up my weapon now, especially when you just try to assassinate the guy we're voting for and you're trying to take over as a communist dictatorship country, authoritarian regime, because that's what they are doing. They're doing it in their own party right now with Joe Biden, and they're trying

to do it to America. And I just wonder how many people on the left actually own guns. I would like to know that. That's a great question for me to know because, you know, they're so against weapons and guns and these things, do they actually own them? Well, there's probably more than you think that on them. I would think so too. But also, but also at the same time, like the people that are really actually going to go out and vote for these people, the people that are actually going to go and vote for these people, most of them probably don't actually own guns.

There are people that are Democrats that now they, you know, those same people that would own weapons right now that are Democrats are on the left, they're going to look at what's going on today. And if they are like people that say, hey, I think we should have weapons, they would never, ever vote for a Democrat right now. So, you know, although they may be Democrats, they're not dumb. They're not complete morons. They're not ignorant to what actually is going on.

And there are many people out there. And I see a lot of Democrats and people on the left right now. They're just desperately trying to cling on to the Democrat ideology. Right. They're desperately trying. I mean, Bill Maher is one of them. Bill Moore, although he makes a lot of good points, especially when it comes to how crazy the left is become, but he's still trying to desperately cling on to the

ideologies of the left. And the problem with that is, is that the left has went so far left is so very hard for people to cling on to those ideologies. And so now it's like if you were just centrist, which is a center line leftist, you are considered a Republican or extremist right, even in some cases, like Bill Maher. They've compared him to. I mean, but it's also we're in the day and age where they compare people that are black that say that, hey, maybe I want to vote for Trump. They even call them white supremacists. And they are black. So you have to understand what we're working with, right?

I would like to see somebody do some kind of poll. I just would like to know how many leftist people actually own guns. I think that would be a, you know, I don't know if they'd be honest or not. But if it's a poll, of course, they would be honest. I just like to know. Maybe. Yeah, maybe. Yeah, you're right.

It depends. But like I said, I think it goes back to ideology, right? I think if you're just indoctrinated by this ideology that they have going on right now, especially with a lot of people on the left, I just don't think you have. have those people that are ever going to own weapons. But I want to get to this next clip real quick. Fake a member of Congress, Eleanor Holmes, Norton, doesn't even mention the Trump assassination and spends all over time ranting about how great Washington D.C.'s gun control

laws are even though the murders are up by 40% in this district. And I thought this was funny as well. And this is the last clip we're going to play about how these asshole Democrats tried to spend a lot of this. And listen, I will give Democrats at least, you know, some credit today. We have to, Chad, because. this was the one time I have seen a committee unite on one thing. Yeah.

They're all against what happened. Well, not all. Well, for the most part, in this committee, they are all going after Kim. Poor Kim. But they're going after her. Kim's a bitch. Everybody knows. Everybody knows she's a bitch.

Sorry. Yeah. But I'm just saying this is one way. It's kind of been bipartisan and united, both, you know, both sides. Yeah, but there's probably a conspiracy around that as well. Why are they being united about this? Because there's something up with that.

I don't know what it is. They probably don't want to be on the wrong side of history. And I think even for Democrats, they're looking at this like, holy shit, this is no way this is a security oversight. I mean, even for Democrats, they're like, there's no way. This is accidental. Exactly. And I really think that's why. They're like, we can't go against us.

Because if we go against this and how obvious this shit is that they tried to kill Trump, like that's going to make us look like totally. total pieces of shit. But anyways, let's get to Eleanor Holmes Norton and what she had to ask or say to Kim Cheathel. Here you go. His name was Megger Evers. I condemn the political violence. It is a threat to democracy. I want to discuss one of the roots of political violence guns. For years, Republicans, including a member of this committee, have introduced legislation and amendments to repeal or block the District of Columbia gun violence protection laws, including its bans on assault weapons and large capacity magazines. The shooter at the Trump rally used the mass shooter's gun of choice and assault weapon,

specifically an AR-15-style rifle and presumably a large-capacity magazine, which is defined in D.C., as a magazine that can hold more than 10 bullets. Under current D.C. law, D.C. does not recognize concealed carry permits issued by other jurisdictions, but it does issue concealed carry permits to both residents and non-residents. However, D.C. imposes a number of requirements on concealed carry applicants, including suitability, such as not having exhibited a propensity. No one gives a shit. Okay.

Anyways. That's basically what she's trying to say. She was not even talking about what they're there to talk about today. Yeah. And that's crazy. Now, I do want to say this before we go into this, right? There were multiple other Democrats. And to Sherry's point, they did eventually get on task with actually asking the questions.

They're supposed to be asking a secret service director after an assassination attempt on president, former President Trump. But nonetheless, there were a lot of Democrats that kept trying to put Kim Cheeto in the crosshairs by asking her specifically how difficult does AR-15s make your job as a secret service director to protect your principal. And she kept asking her. And she did not buy it on that one by the way. No, she did not.

And but I want to talk about this for a second because this is important. They kept asking her about this. They wanted, and these are all Democrats that were asking her. this, right? And they wanted her desperately as a secret service director in a huge hearing in front of all of America to come out and say that, well, you know what, AR-15s are very bad for us because I think they make it more dangerous for our secret service agents or our principles. They make it more dangerous for President Trump or for this. And what I will say, to any credit to Kim Cheadle, she refused to bite on that. And she also at one point in time said, you know,

what, we respect, we respect the Second Amendment rights of Americans. That's, and, and listen, we, when we go to various places, we always look at the gun laws in those states and those, in those municipalities, all these other things, but she always refused to, to not get political. And let me tell you why I think she did that, because I, I 100% believe, number one, secret service cannot be political. That is the number one thing. if you want Americans to at all believe and buy the bullshit that is this Secret Service botched security failure, you can absolutely not be political in any way, shape, or form.

And so whoever she talked to leading into this hearing, I promise you the number one thing they all spoke about was when they ask you about Second Amendment or try to make this about guns, you better not even fucking dare bite on that. You better say Second Amendment. You better say this. because if you even at all look political in any way, shape, or form, this looks bad on us. Like, we might have potentially had some type of inside something, right? And so that's why she was answering the questions so wholeheartedly against answering the specific gun control and Second Amendment questions. And it's not because she actually believes that. It's because she cannot at all right now look political.

She cannot at all look politically biased. And because when you look politically biased as a Secret Service Director that you are in, you know, you are in control of the security of both Republicans and Democrats, then you are, you are shit. You are a shit on a stick. Whatever the hell that means. And it was just interesting in the first interview. They asked, well, how many people were on this detail? Yeah. She could not give a number.

And then I think later somebody asked, Jill Biden when I had an event going on at the third. same time. How many people were at Jill Biden's event? And I guess their point was they are shorting, you know, because they, they don't actually have enough people working for the Secret Service. So they were shorting one area to help another area. Yep. And then when they asked later, too, they're like, was Trump's own security provided?

And she couldn't answer that either. Yeah. Well, she. She said, we did what we were supposed to do. Yeah. She somewhat does answer that. and some of the follow-up questions as far as, you know, what happens, how many people were actual Secret Service versus, you know, contractors or so on. And our temps.

Yeah, or temps or whatever the case may be. But I want to get in this next clip. Representative Anna Paulina Luna leave Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheeto in disgrace and begins procedures to look in the perjury and contempt of Congress charges against the director, Cheetle. Now, for those of you that have been following us on the UFO phenomenon and everything we've talked about with UFOs and UAPEs and all that stuff, Anna Pauline Luna, along with Tim Burchett, has been at the forefront of the UFO disclosure attempt or at least a push for disclosure. Anna Pauline and Luna alongside Tim Burchett were the ones, the heads of the committee that were set up to question David Grush, Ryan Graves, Commander David Braver, And let me tell you right now, Anna Paulina, Lana is a superstar. And I, and I've said this from the beginning. She wants the answers to do UFO shit.

She wants the answers to things that American wants to know. And she did not disappoint in this as well. Let me get to this questioning from Anna Paulina Luna. Dr. Sheetle, can you please give me the names of the individuals who are in charge of your conop for the rally? I'm not going to release names. Can you give me the titles? And how many individuals? No, we had a full advance team that was responsible for advancing the site.

How many people are the final approval authority? There are a number of people that are engaged in approving the plan. Can you give me a number? No, I do not have a firm number. Can you just confirm whether or not, I understand this is an open investigation, but in order to dispel conspiracy theories, have you guys been able to subpoena the shooter's discord records or has the FBI to your knowledge? I believe that the FBI is working on those. Okay. Is it factual to say that you have not ruled out that the shooter was working with other people or persons?

Again, the FBI is conducting the criminal investigation into the shooter. Can you at least in an effort to dispel conspiracy theories? Can you confirm or deny that? At this time, we do not have that there were any other people engaged. So you believe he's acting along? I do. Okay. Have you been made aware of multiple eyewitness reporting that there was a second shooter on a water tower? I do not have any information related to any second shooter. Okay, the reason I asked that is because according to testimony from multiple witnesses, they did report that. And again, to my understanding, there were over 40 sniper teams that were briefed by the Butler ESU.

And I want to make sure that people are aware, if you're saying that there's not another shooter, that we are able to clear that information because from this whole entire briefing, it doesn't seem like much information has been able to get out to the American people. So I'm trying to dispel rumors, as I'm sure you understand. Was it true that Secret Service was present at the Butler ESU briefing? There was a briefing between the counter-sniper teams that were working on the ground. Yes, to my knowledge. Okay, I want to read your report from people that seem to be throwing you under the bus and stated that they were in attendance and that Secret Service was not in attendance at the security briefing, according to individuals with knowledge, to also include that the AGR building,

where the shooter Thomas Matthew Crooks was located, was actually not a part of their security perimeter for that. So there was not Secret Service present. It seems as though that when you were asked earlier from Rep. Christa Morthy about whether or not Secret Service was aware of a threat, you had said, no, they were unaware of a threat. And yet, according to communications, again, from law enforcement that were in some of these group chats, they actually had reports. that Secret Service was made aware of a threat at around 5.59 p.m. as a part of the command, including Secret Service, aware of messages and requests about information about the suspect's location. Can you please tell me if you have knowledge of that at all? Again, I think we're

conflating the difference between the term threat and suspicious. But you guys did have knowledge at 559 p.m. according to those group chats, did you not? Of a suspicious individual. Okay. Chairman, in my opinion, according to some of the testimony today, I feel that you have perjured yourself in some instances. And so I'm going to ask for a full review of the transcripts by staff. And if you find that to be the case, I do ask that you bring perjury charges against the director. I will say this. It is very frustrating. And I've talked to my colleagues and we've said it to your face that you have been up here basically stonewalling our ability to get the answers to the American people. And what I will also say is that every single member of Congress does not feel safe with you in charge. You have heard that. And I think that we are all sitting ducks with you and directing the Secret Service currently. But more importantly, it sends a message to our adversaries that we are not protected.

And we are one of the strongest countries in the world. So you have essentially made us a less safe country because of it. As a result of that, I'm asking you to formally step down. I share my same opinions as my Democrat colleagues. And I also think that your efforts to bring forward, a full investigation and report in 60 days is unacceptable. And as a result of that, I'm going to do everything in my legislative toolkit to ensure that that happens sooner rather than later. And I'm sure that you know that we brought a vote on inherent contempt against Garland

for essentially blocking a congressional investigation. And I don't think that you should be any different. So I will say that I am just completely disgusted by your performance today. And I understand that you are probably in a position where you are being told not to testify, which is why we had to subpoena you. that goes back to Garland. But again, that is part of the flushing that we need to get out of Washington. And I would be happy to assist in that process.

There you go, Anna Paulina Luna. Listen, these are the people we need in our Congress. These are people we need to represent America. And she did a fantastic job. I'm not going to lie to you guys. She kicked ass. But I have to bring up, this was the whole hearing. It was about threat versus suspicious or suspicious versus threat.

Absolutely. When does suspicious become a threat? Well, I mean, especially considering, right, this is something that they talked about, right? This was a game plan that, you know, say, for example, if you guys have ever been in a court case or a deposition or any of that shit, right? Or you have watched something on TV, whether it be the first 48 or whatever the crime show you that you may watch. Yeah, you can thank your wife for that. Well, one of the things at the very least that attorneys, part of their job is, is to prep their client, especially if they're going to go into a deposition. if they're going to go into a line of questioning, whatever the case may be.

And just imagine, guys, what the Secret Service Director, Kimberly Cheathel and her attorneys and everybody to surround her, imagine how much prepping she has going into a hearing like this. So what they came up with in this, and this was asked multiple times across the board, was, well, at the time, we did not see that as a threat, right? And the reason that they had to define a difference in suspicion and threat is because they knew that this guy was there up to an hour. They knew about this dude. They're an hour before he had range finders, drones, a weapon, ladders, a freaking van full of explosives and remote control detonate devices, the alpha fire systems. There are reasons why that they had to define a clear line with Kimberly Cheathel before she went into testifying. Congress that says, listen, Kimberly, there's going to be a fine line here. And they're going to ask you all these questions.

And you've got to say, we're right. You know, at that moment, it was suspicious. At that moment, it's suspicious. We can't fire upon someone based on suspicion. We can't do this based on suspicion. We can't do this. But they were supposed to talk to him. Exactly.

I don't think they ever even talked to this guy. No, they never confronted him. They never even followed him. No. The only way we know what he was doing is based on people that were there, the civilians that were there, the people that were there for the. or the rally videoed this guy. There is no videos that the secret service has or anyone else.

We all know this because of the people seeing these guys, this guy. They even seen him on the roof. They're like, he's on the roof. He has a gun. Yeah. Is that suspicious or is that a threat? No, it's absolutely a threat, right? I mean, obviously, that's absolutely a threat.

But at the very least, we know that if you are suspicious, especially around a rally for President Donald Trump, and you have secret service protection, you have multiple local law enforcement agents or officers around the area as well. If you knew about a suspicious person and up to an hour or more before Donald Trump ever took the stage, there's no reason why, no, but even that, why would you not question and literally interject to this person and say, hey, what are you doing?

What's going on? Hey, let me check you. Do you got any idea? You got any of this? Dude, police do this shit for far less all the time. And she was questioned during this hearing. How many suspicious people were, you know, shown or how many did you have suspicion of? She said three to five people.

Yeah. But listen, when you're in this position, you're literally loitering around a building right outside of a Trump rally. You have a backpack. You have all these things, a ladder, which I think was set up. You had a drone that was flown the day of the Trump rally. And listen, the fact that there was a drone being able to be flown the day of the Trump rally, when we know that Secret Service sets up prior to any event or rally, they have to scope out.

They got to, they have to plan for the event. They got to do all these things. And meanwhile, this guy is flying a drone over the place. He has range finders. He has weapons. He has an AR-15 with scopes. He's literally on. on the roof at least 10 to 15 minutes before he ever takes his first shot.

These counter snipers knew about the guy. Right. They intentionally either had a stand down or, and listen, I don't think they intentionally. I think somebody told them to stand down. Yes, you're right. And listen, I want to say this very clearly. I'm not saying necessarily that these counter sniper teams are the people that are in the wrong, right? They were told you not to shoot.

I've heard that over and over and over again. Yeah, I'm sure they were. I mean, if there was three to five suspicious people out of this whole group of people, how many people do you think was at this thing? Thousands. Thousands of people. I don't know. I think it was like 15 to 20,000, I think is what I heard. And you have three people that are even suspicious over thousands and thousands of people.

Why would you not look into those suspicious people more? Yeah, absolutely. I guess because they're used to doing these rallies and they just don't give a fuck and they've kind of like let it up. And it's, you know, when you do something over and over and over, you're going to these rallies. It's the same thing. Sometimes you get complacent, I guess, maybe. I don't know. Now, I want to play this clip because, you know, earlier you heard Kimberly Cheeto when Paulina Luna, I think it was Pauline and Luna.

I could be getting this confused now. But when they ask, do you feel like this person was a lone shooter, right? And she said, yes, we do feel like he's a lone shooter, right? Right. But then listen to this line of question. See if this counteracts what she actually said. The agency has a no-fail mission, and on Saturday, July 13th, your agency spectacularly failed. The failure resulted in the death of Corey Comptoror and serious injury to two other rally attendees,

David Dutch and James Copenhaver, besides the injuries to President Trump. It is unfathomable that a 20-year-old on the radar of Secret Service and local law enforcement before President Trump went on stage was able to climb onto the roof of a building with a rifle and fire off multiple rounds before he was neutralized. Was Mr. Crooks acting alone? Again, I would have to refer you to the FBI's investigation. So there you go. So she had a, yeah, she had a whole other answer to that question, right?

Why do you have a different answer to that question? When earlier you said, or actually it was- I think he acted alone is what she said. Maybe that was her opinion? No, no, no. She said he acted alone, right? That's what she said. Now, I think that was her opinion.

She said, I think he acted alone. Okay. I'm pretty sure. But maybe that's true. Maybe that's true. I want to also play this, right? We got to get to Marjorie Taylor Green. Now, there's a lot of people on the left that hate Marjorie Taylor Green with a passion.

They hate this woman. They hate her so bad. And you only tell you why? Because she doesn't give a shit. And listen, we're not even to the first woman. Or actually, we're not even to. Nancy. Yeah, Nancy Mays.

We're not even to her. yet. But we're going to get into this Marjorie Taylor Green. Check this out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Cheeto, I'd like to remind you that you're under oath. The site team has a senior supervisor, an advanced team, a protective intelligence team, a counter-sniper element and detail. Who was the agent in charge? How long has she been the agent in charge? And what is her Secret Service background. So I'm not going to provide a name. Why not? You're here to answer our

questions. This forum, I'm not going to provide names of... You stated in your testimony, you said, I am here today to answer your questions. That is correct. Answer the question. I'm not going to provide names of our personnel. Why not? Today. The American people are demanding these answers

from you today, Ms. Cheedle. I will do the best to provide you, accurate information based on the facts that I have at this time. You're not answering our questions. The advance element coordinates with other intel or law enforcement partners identifies threats and weaknesses at the sites and movements. We'd like a copy of the advance report. Have you brought it here with you today?

We will comply with the request for the documentation that has been requested. When will that be, Ms. Cheedle? Because you should have brought it today. I am certain that our personnel are working on obtaining all of that document. I don't believe you, and neither do the people watching this hearing. You're not doing well, as Mr. Moskowitz informed you. You've been sitting here for over three hours, and I have you know the entire country is demanding you resign and demanding that you be fired if you do not resign.

Things are not going well for you. You need to answer the questions. Was there a protective intelligence team and what technical resources were utilized for that event, specifically drone or helicopter assets? There were a number of technical assets that were deployed for that event, and there was a protective intelligence team that was assigned to that event. Why was Crooks able to fly a drone over the entire area, the day of the rally and the day of his assassination attempt?

To my knowledge, he did not fly the drone over the entire area. How did he fly a drone over the area, period, any part of the area? Again, I would have to go back and check the timeline of when that took place and when the event. Why didn't you bring the timeline with you today to answer our questions? I don't have all of the answers on the timelines based on the criminal investigation. Were you not prepared today to answer our questions? I am prepared to answer the questions based on the information and wanted to be able to provide. Do you have a timeline at all from any of the day?

I have a timeline that does not have specifics. That's shocking. That is absolutely unacceptable. That means you are a failure at your job. Let's talk about things that are prohibited in Trump rallies, and I've been to a lot of Trump rallies. Backpacks and bags, bicycles, firearms, any type of weapon or any other item determined to be a potential safety hazard, like a range finder would be one. At 510, Crooks is first observed by one of the snipers, AGR sniper 1 at the building.

510, 510, President Trump was shot in the face at 6.11 p.m. 528, AGR sniper 1 takes a picture of a bicycle in two bags. Those belong to Crooks. 532 AGR sniper 1 spots crooks looking at his phone and using a rangefinder 555 Butler ESU command confirms receipt of photos and states they have been relayed on 6.05 p.m. AGR sniper 1 later communicates that Crooks has seen moving northeast in direction of sheets and that Crooks has a backpack. Two minutes before the shooting

While President Trump has been allowed to take the stage, people see Crooks laying on his stomach in a sniper position on the roof and they're yelling he has a gun and they are trying to alert law enforcement and secret service. Why was Crooks not shot by the snipers? Why was he allowed to be there? as soon as the individual was identified as a threat they were no no no no no what do you consider to be a threat a man with a gun laying in a sniper position a man that had a backpack a man that had a bicycle a man that had a range finder at what point is he determined a threat an individual with a backpack is not a threat an individual with a rangefinder is not a threat what a a man laying on a building that has direct line of sight of President Trump with a gun that people are screaming and pointing out. Is that a threat, Ms. Cheedle? Once that an individual was identified, they were neutralized. No, they were neutralized. Crooks was neutralized after he shot President Trump in the face, Ms. Cheedle. Is he only a threat once he fires the weapon? As soon as the

counter sniper identified that individual, they were able to neutralize them. How were people in the crowd? Okay, then let's take it this way. People under your command did not consider him to be a threat, yet people in the crowd knew he had a gun and considered him to be a threat. That means that you are a complete failure as the director of the Secret Service, that people under your command don't perceive a man laying on a roof with direct line to the president with a gun, they don't perceive that to be a threat, yet the people in the crowd do. How is that possible? That's the last question, but please answer the question, Ms. Director.

I'm not certain at this time how the information from the people in the crowd was relayed to any law enforcement personnel. No, you knew that everyone knew. The people there knew that there was a danger, they knew there was a threat to President Trump, and it was allowed to happen. Was there a stand-down order, Ms. Cheedell? Was there a conspiracy to kill President Trump? Absolutely not.

Then how did this happen? And why are you still sitting here, not turning in your letter of resignation? Last question, but please answer, and then I'll recognize Ms. Presley, please answer the question. That is what we're investigating to determine. We're waiting for your letter. We're waiting for your letter of resignation. And you really need to consider doing that before you leave today. Thank you.

Chair. Was there a conspiracy to kill President Trump? That's what Marjorie Taylor Green asked. And because I think everybody knows that it sounds like it was a conspiracy to kill President Trump. Number one, I want to get to something. Secret Service agent in charge apparently was a female. I did not know that. I didn't either.

When she said she. She, yeah. What is her background? How much experience does she have? What is her name? Marjorie Taylor Green says. And Kimberly Cheetle says, I'm not going to give you that name. And I'm not going to give you anything about her background because she probably doesn't have a great background.

She probably was also garden Doritos and Pepsi like Kimberly Cheetah was prior to Secret Service, right? They probably met at Pepsi. Yeah. So then Marjorie Taylor Green asked, well, how the hell did Thomas Crooks pull off flying a drone over the area of where President Trump was about to speak that day the day of? and then what was the response? The entire area was not where he flew to drone, which means like, what does that mean? Well, he didn't fly like every single square inch of the area. So we can kind of lie because he didn't do all of it.

He just did the area where he could see where Trump's head would be. Absolutely. Yeah. And so more than likely, and look, if you're Thomas Crooks and especially if you're working with inside people, they're going to say, look, you know, fly the drone in this area, where you're going to shooting, whatever the case may be, don't necessarily fly it over directly over where the stage is going to be because, you know, whoever may be even local law enforcement, but that may ask questions or may point out something.

We don't want that. But you're allowed to fly here and here and here because, listen, this shit is a setup in my opinion. And I'm just saying there's so much incompetence with this going on. It's not incompetence. It's well, I'm just saying. It's willful. Yes. That's what I'm exactly trying to get to, Chad, is so incompetent.

It has to be that they planned this. Absolutely. You don't just F up that bad. No, you don't. And, you know, Marjor Tather Green also asks. Do you have a timeline of the events? Can you tell me that timeline? I cannot tell you that, whatever.

Well, do you have a timeline? Well, I have a timeline, but it does not have specifics. It doesn't have the times. Oh, really? That's interesting. I have a timeline with no times. So you're the Secret Service Director that has a timeline with no specifics. like are like is it is it the fact that maybe i mean here's here's a couple of my thoughts on this right

like is she just blatantly lying right you got to think about that is she blatantly lying or was there another agency that was really overall this that she literally has a timeline with no specifics they're not giving her any information because more than likely the people that were behind this the inside crew that was setting all this shit up knew that obviously she's going to be testifying in front of Congress at some point in time. And we do not share specifics or her. We do not do all this shit because she cannot answer that. We don't want to make sure.

We want to make sure that she is not being held in contempt. So they don't tell her that. And that's why she can't answer any specific questions. She can only answer general questions. And still, she goes around the rabbit hole. Yeah. And as Marjorie Taylor Green also says here, 510, they witnessed this person, right? 611 was when Trump was shot.

So this is an hour and one minute. Yes. I think she should be the secret service instead of Kimberly. Well, she has a timeline at least. Anyone should be a freaking secret service director than her. But by the way, guys, I do want to announce, I think that Monday, this coming Monday, the FBI director, I believe, is actually going to be questioned. And so I'm very excited to hear what the FBI director is going to say because who's he going to pass it off? Yeah. Who's he going to defer it to?

Well, you got to, guys, you got to refer to CIA on this because CIA is actually now in charge of the investigation. And then when CIA comes in, they're going to be like, well, actually, guys, you got to refer to God because God's actually now in charge of this investigation. And I'm not laughing. This is a very sad situation because it's either very incompetent or this was an inside job. It was one or the other. And I know you're leaning towards it's an inside job. Oh, absolutely. 100%.

I don't think a secret service could be that in. incompetent. No. Okay. I want to branch off for a second before we get to a couple of other clips because these are gold as well. Have you guys saw that there was UFOs that showed up at this rally? I know this.

I know this sounds bashed crazy. Oh my God. But listen to this. So there are videos that have come out in slow motion that are showing some type of orbs that are passing over the Trump stage literally. as the shooting and right before the shooting is happening. Wow, they could have prevented him from getting shot. I don't know.

I mean, we're going to sound like batshit crazy people. Yeah, I don't even know why you brought that up. Well, I had to bring it up because there are videos showing this. There's actual two videos now that are going wild on the internet on X and, well, in particular on X. But if you look at a slow motion video, it shows orbs. It shows some type of metallic orbs that are traveling, I don't know, very fast overhead. You really got to slow the footage down to see them, but they're traveling overhead right above the American flag, right past it almost at the same time Trump was shot and then right before Trump is very strange.

I'm not saying that has any connection to anything. I don't know. I just had to bring that up because obviously we talk about UFOs here. But talking about that and the guy, I can't remember his name, the guy that actually got the shot of Trump with the blood and the flag behind him. And he was, you know, he's been interviewed. I can't remember his name right now. But there is speculation that he even knew it was going to happen. Because he had this like $6,000 camera ready.

And it was an action pack camera. It was for action only. Yeah, well, it was 8,000. So what was it? Oh, God. I can't think of it. Sorry, I didn't need to put you on spot. No, it was 8,000 exposure or whatever.

Whatever. I'm not a photographer. I mean, I'm a video dude and stuff like that. But it was like 8,000 aperture, right? And it was a particular setting on the camera that. captures extremely fast objects, right? So you photographers are there probably know what I'm saying. I know what I'm saying.

I captured the bullet going past his ear. Yeah, for sure. But there's a lot of people speculating that he knew when he was at the right place and had the right cameras and the right situation to see this. But they're also speculating that he was probably there to see an assassination. Sorry. Yeah, for sure. Now, today is the day that, uh,

There were various people that said that only there was only one permanent secret service on Trump's detail when he was shot because they pulled everyone to protect Jill Biden from what I'm hearing in Ohio. And the snipers were not even secret service snipers, but local and had one day notice. Let's play this. Those are the temps. Yeah, let's play this quick clip on CBS News. Check this out. To expand hiring, they're aiming to have 30% women recruits by 2030. and even allowed YouTube influencer Michelle Carrey to train with ages.

I'm very conscious as I sit in this chair now. Kimberly Cheedell talking. We need to attract diverse candidates and ensure that we are developing and giving opportunities to everybody in our workforce, and particularly women. That workforce will be pivotal for the 2024 campaign season, which for the first time includes a former president who already has lifetime protection. agents were there when Donald Trump was arraigned in New York. We were able to work out the details ahead of time of how that particular day was going to go,

but we will always ensure the safety of all of our protectees that we have. The service has a zero-fail mission. A mission officers are training to uphold, pretending this field is the most famous address in America. Yeah, well, they have a zero-fell, but they failed, and they're going to continue to fail because, And listen, I say this again. I mean, I know most people think right now that there's no way they're going to try to assassinate Trump again, especially based on all this. Well, you see what happened at the RNC. Like they had their security beefed up.

But she also pointed out they have 38 protectees. Yeah. That's a lot of people they're protecting. And they're trying to, you know, she was saying based on location where these people are at, this is how we get these secret surface people. We never know who's going to be there. It's, you know, it's basically based on their location. And these are temp people. Absolutely.

I think, to me, if you have the most hated president in the United States. We're in the world. Campanying to be the president. You better have not tempt people, but people that know everything in and out. Yeah, absolutely. So Secret Service Director Cheetle knows how many shell casings were on the shooter's roof, but refuses to tell members of Congress and why? Listen to this quick exchange here.

Check this out. You keep referring to the FBI. When asked how many show casings were on the roof, you referred to the FBI. When asked if there were explosive in the car, you referred to the FBI. When asked if Crooks was acting alone, you referred to the FBI. See a common theme here? I can go on and on. My question is, who at the FBI should I speak with?

Wait for it. Wait for it. The FBI is responsible for the criminal. Is there a name? I'm not certain. I'm not certain. All right, here we go. I'm not certain.

I don't know. Let me ask a different question. Have you been in communication with the FBI? Yes, I have. With whom? I speak with the director and the deputy director. Okay. And what have they shared with you about this investigation?

So I'll give you an opportunity to answer again. Did they share with you how many shell casings were on the roof? They have shared with me. Did they share with you? how many shell casing were on the roof? Yes. Okay, how many were there? I would refer to the FBI for the investigation.

How many were there? And their information that they need to share in their investigation. So they've shared the information with you. You just don't want to share the information with us, correct? We have concurrent investigations that are going on. So they have shared this information with you. You know the answer to the question. You just refuse to answer the question from the member of Congress,

who has subpoenaed you to be here. Is there a different answer to that question? I was always willing to come here and testify before this oversight hearing. Beautiful. Then let's do that. Let's for once have your actions match your words. So you've been in communication with the FBI. You know the answers and you refuse to tell us the answers. So I will ask you again, you know how many shell casings were on that roof. What is the answer to that question? I think it's pertinent. What is the answer to that question? I think it's pertinent to talk to you about the information that the Secret Service has and that the Secret Service knows. I'm asking you an answer to the question.

If you're supposed to be in charge, if the buck stops with you, how come you can't share the answers? What are you covering up? What are you hiding, my friend? I'm not covering anything else. Then why can't you answer a simple question? I would leave it to the criminal investigation to answer questions. There you go. And I believe that was a lady from New Mexico.

I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I just reposted the video. And she was right on because she was putting her in a position that she knows how many shell casings they found, but she will not tell the American people. No, because she can't tell how many shell casings were found because that would implicate another shooter. Yes, because there were eight. And that goes back to what I was saying, that a lot of people are conspiring that there were more than one shooter. Absolutely.

And so there's a reason why you don't answer that. She knows the answer. And if you're going to come in front of Congress and you say, I'm willing to answer these questions that you are going to ask me, and yet you refuse to answer almost all the questions that Congress is asking of you, you are a lying piece of shit. And people are sick of this shit. I mean, people are really genuinely sick of the bureaucrat, you know, intelligence agency bullshit. Because you know what?

these people are controlling every aspect of American people's lives. And yet they are supposedly appointed by the people that we are electing. But the problem with the system is that the people that we are supposedly electing, supposedly electing, by the way, we can go back to 2020 and say the, you know, whatever. Whatever you want to think about that. You know, they say the big lie, election denier, big lie. Well, whatever. We're going to see what's going to happen in 2024.

But guys, I'm telling you right now, hold on. Hold on. I'm telling you right now that it's about to probably be worse than you can imagine. And I don't want to say that in a bad way. I'm just freaking pre-warning you guys. I'm pre-warning you letting you know what potentially is going to happen. Go ahead, Sherry. Sorry.

I was going to say the lady of South Carolina, Nancy Bays. Yep. Love her. I think she nailed it on the dot tonight. Absolutely. She did. And we're going to get to that actually. But before we get to that, we're going to get, we have to get.

We have to get to Jim Jordan because, look, Jim Jordan is one of my favorite. Yeah, I love him. He's one of my favorite in Congress. I think he really lays a lot of it online. I think Nancy Mace is the MVP of the hearing today. But before we get to Nancy Mace, let's listen to what Jim Jordan had to ask. Here you go. The day after President Trump is shot, Secret Service spokesman Anthony Gugliami said, quote,

The assertion that a member of the former president's security team requested additional security resources that the U.S. Secret Service or the Department of Homeland Security rebuffed is absolutely false. The next day, Secretary of Myorkas said, that is an unequivocally false assertion we had not received any request for additional security measures that were rebuffed. But five days later, the Washington Post said this. Top officials repeatedly rejected requests from Donald Trump's security detail for more personnel. The next day, the New York Times said this.

Mr. Gugliami acknowledged that the Secret Service had turned down some request for additional federal security assets for Mr. Trump's detail. So which is it? Because both statements can't be true. Were you guessing or lying when you said you didn't turn down requests from President Trump's detail? Neither, sir. And I appreciate the question. What were you doing because those statements don't jive? So what I can tell you is that for the event in Butler, there were no requests that were denied. as far as requests. Well, maybe they got tired of asking.

Maybe you turned them down so darn much. It said, not worth asking. How many times did you turn them down ahead of that? I think that it is important to distinguish between what some people may view as a denial of an asset or a request. Well, is Mr. Gugliami, your spokesperson? He said he acknowledged the Secret Service had turned down some requests. I'm asking how many? A denial of a request does not equal.

of vulnerability. Well, tell me what it is. There are a number of ways that threats and risks can be mitigated with a number of different assets, whether that be through personnel, whether that be through technology or other resources. Well, tell the committee which it was. They asked for additional help in some form or another. You told them no. How many times did you tell them no and what did you tell them no too? Again, I cannot speak to specific incidents, But I can tell you in general terms, the Secret Service is judicious with their resources based on... What does some requests mean? How many times?

By the way, I want to stop here for just a second, right? I want to point this out. What she's saying here and how she's responding and what Jim Jordan's asking about Trump's team said that we need additional support for this rally. Did Trump's team or someone in Trump's team already potentially know about a threat ahead of time? Now, we've heard about the Iran threat. Yes, I was going to get ready to say that. But we've heard about the Iran threat, which she was also asked about today. Yeah, and she deferred that and like would not even talk about it.

Well, she deferred it. But what they really grilled her on with the Iran threat at the very least, which by the way, guys, I do not at all. Hold on. I do not. Hold on. Hold on. But she knew about it before the whole thing happened. Yes, she did.

And that was what they tried to corner her in, right? They said, you know, at the very least, did you know about the Iran threat? And did you know about it before? because obviously you did and you know she basically succeeded and said okay yeah basically i did even though she didn't say that but she acknowledged the fact that she knew about it before but she said we get lots of threats yeah we get lots of threats but the iran threat obviously a big one now for the people that want to try to pretend that this had anything to do with iran is bullshit this is not an iran hit this is this has no marks of an iran hit this has in my opinion is that was all

some type of false flag, some type of false story in many ways. We didn't hear about this potential Trump assassination plot by Iran until the actual assassination attempt happened. The only reason they told you and brought up Iran was because they wanted to divert the attention away from themselves. That's why. Iran, whether or not they want to kill Trump or Biden or whoever, yeah, I'm sure they want to kill all of us.

They want to kill all of you. Okay? That's not a surprise. There's no surprise that the government of Iran wants to kill Trump. There's no surprise that the government of Iran wants to kill Biden or whoever. They hate Americans. That's not a big surprise.

And they also hate Israelis. Yeah, but this is. And I'm just saying it's kind of the same thing, Chad. Well, listen, but what I'm saying is, well, they hate it. They hate Israel. They hate Americans. They said that they knew about these threats in Israel and did nothing about it. So you can't play it one way or another.

What are you talking about? I'm talking about as far as Iran, Iran. Iran, Iran, whatever. Having threats in Israel. The same thing. Listen, this has none to do with Israel, though. This has zero to do with Israel. So we're not even going to get on that because that's a whole other thing.

We understand that the Middle East hates Israel. We also understand that the Middle East hates America. So my point to this is that, of course, there's going to be plots to kill our presidents. There's always been plots to kill our presidents by Iran and all the Middle Eastern countries and Russia and China and all these. So the fact that the mainstream media even ever came out with this bullshit story about there was a serious plot to kill Trump. They wanted to divert their attention away from themselves because this was an inside job. This was not Iran, period, in the stop whatsoever. There's no way this was Iran.

Absolutely not. This reeks of MK Ultra, potentially this reeks of a deep state, take a loner, put him in a position, give them the tools, give them necessary things to, do brainwash him, whether it be whatever. And maybe, listen, maybe they knew about this. At the very least, maybe they knew about his willingness to try to kill Trump, right? Or want to kill Trump. Because I have news for you people out there that if you go and start searching shit on your internet right now about how to kill things or how to do this or how to do that or you start

talking about. Yeah, you're going to show up. Yeah, someone's going to show up. No, someone's going to show up at your door. that is how advanced surveillance is in the country nowadays just yesterday Sherry we were talking what was it about

bathtubs because we were going to replace our bathtub or shower or whatever it was and what happened we were just talking about it in Lowe's and then two minutes later well guess what Facebook Sherry got on Facebook there's bathtubs there's all the shit you want here and so if you think that Facebook

can do that and I'm in marketing by the way I deal with marketing techniques like this all the time I am afforded the, I guess you can say, eavesdropping of social media companies in your apps on a daily basis. This is how marketers do a very good job at marketing, is they depend on these companies and these assets to marketing to make sure that when you market,

you do a good job of that and you make sure you target the right people. But if you think that Facebook and Instagram and all these other platforms have that technology, but the government doesn't? Are you freaking kidding me? trust me if you have any sense of wanting to kill someone a president or whatever the case is there are algorithms there are listen devices there are various other things your tv you're remote if it has a voice activated remote on your fire stick if you have an amazon Alexa if you have your cell phone near you if you have a tv that has any type of listen device if you ever start

talking about some assassination attempt someone's going to show up if they actually want you to be caught if they don't want you to be caught they're going to maybe play into this shit they're going to make sure that you get what you need to get done. And that's at the very least is what I'm saying. But wasn't he in a Black Rock commercial? Absolutely. Yeah. And there's a lot of conspiracies out there that Black Rock has something to do with this whole thing.

Well. Another thing, did he not go to Stanford University? He did, which was MK Ultra, a big, a big MK Ultra school back in a day. And they're still doing a lot of experiments with a lot of things. But what's so crazy is I don't see any evidence of this. So how do we know that? We mean evidence. Well, we know he went to Stanford.

He went to Stanford. How do we know? Well, he said it himself in a video. Oh, he did? Yeah. I did not see that. He said, I'm a Stanford student. I mean, he said it in a video. So we know he's a Stanford student, right?

And it also just the fact that they supposedly still have no social media presence. Yeah. He had a discord. And he's 20 years old. And, you know, the secret service director today said, oh, well, they're working on the discord. Working on it? I mean, look, you either, is, discord is one the easiest things. access, especially if you're FBI, especially if you're whoever.

That's not working on anything. You could get on Discord. You can look at all of his messages. The FBI and the intelligence agencies have all the tools necessary to look at any and everything you possibly do. And that includes Telegram. That includes your messenger. If you think that you're going on some encrypted app and talking to someone in privacy,

you're wrong because I'm promised you, the United States government has full access to every single thing you do that has connection to an internet. And I'm going to say in my. say in my opinion, I think they swept all of his social media before this even came out. Oh, absolutely. That's why he has no social media. Because I'm telling you, I don't know of one 20-year-old, one-20-year-old, not to be on Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, something.

The only thing they have found is Discord. Yeah. That's it. Absolutely. Let's get back into Jim Jordan question. That's halfway done. And then we're going to get Nancy Mace and then we'll close us. Here you go.

Some indicate requests is plural. So more than once they asked for additional help and you turned them down. What they asked for and how many times did you turn them down? Pretty basic questions. So again, without having all of the details in front of me, sir, what I can tell you is that there are times... You didn't get briefed on how many times you turned down the Trump detail when they asked for additional help? I'm sorry. You didn't get briefed on that before you came to this hearing knowing you were going to get asked that question?

What I can tell you is it in generic terms when people, when details make a request, there are times that there are alternate ways to cover off on that threat or that risk. But that's not what he said. He said they were denied certain requests, some request. This is your spokesperson, not me talking. This is the Secret Service talking. And what a change from absolutely false, unequivocally false to, oh, by the way, there were some times where we didn't give them what they wanted.

That's a huge change in five days. And the fact that you can't answer how many times you did that, that's pretty darn frustrating, not just for me, but for, for the country? I hear your frustration. Let me ask you this. Were any of those requests denied to President Trump's detail after you knew about the Iranian threat?

What I can tell you, again, I don't know the specifics, is that there are times when we can fill a request, it doesn't necessarily have to be with a Secret Service asset or resource. We can fill that request with

locally available assets and resources. You spoke to anyone at the White House since July 13th? Yes, I have. Who'd you talk to? I have briefed the president and the vice president. Talk to the First Lady? No, I have not. Talk to the White House staff? Any one of the White House communications? No, I have not.

Have you talked to the counter sniper who took the shot that took out the bad guy? Yes, I have. And can you tell us about that conversation? I would not want to reveal conversations that I've had with my employees. But that's exactly the kind of information the American people want to know, American people who pay your salary. I understand. This is an ongoing investigation. Who's all doing the investigating at Secret Service? I know the Inspector General, but is there also an internal investigation in addition to the Inspector General? We are conducting a mission assurance investigation internally, yes.

You know what? It looks like, Director, looks like you won't answer some pretty basic questions. It looks like you got a 9% raise and you cut corners when it came to protecting one of the most important individuals, most well-known individuals on the planet. A former president, likely the guy's going to be the next president. It looks like you guys were cutting corners. That's what it looks like to me. Is that true? I am here today because I want to answer questions, but I also want to be cautious. You might want to, but you haven't answered. I don't think you've answered one question from the chairman, the ranking member, or me. We've got a lot of other people ask them. We'll see if your record improves. No, her record didn't improve.

She still did not answer questions. And listen, guys, I mean, this is what this is about. I want you guys to hear how bad this really is. And I want you to fully envelop what's actually going on in this kind of. country. Now, I have said, I have said on this podcast for the past year and a half, 2024 is going to be a shit show. And it is a shit show right now. I mean, we've had people message us and say, shit show. This is a shit show. Now, this is hands down the most powerful and relevant exchange of the entire hearing. And this is, by the way, from Representative Pat

Fallon. Now, this alone is enough to warrant firing Kim Chitle, charging Kim Chitle and jelling her. Listen to this exchange from Representative Pat Fallon. I think it's very important before we get to Nancy Mace. Here you go. Recognizes Mr. Fallon from Texas. How did a 20-year-old loner with a week's notice pick the absolute best location to assassinate President Trump when the entire Secret Service missed it? Director Chittell, in your leadership, your agency got out smart in-and-out maneuvered by a 20-year-old. How can we have any confidence that you could stop and stop?

trained professionals from a nefarious nation state. Those are absolutely questions that we need to have answers to. I know the questions, but the fact of the matter is we can't have that confidence. Director, do you have the ability personally and you have the authority to beef up security of any of your protectees? Yes, I do. Okay. So were you also aware there was a credible threat to President Trump was facing?

He was facing heightened security threat to a foreign adversary? Yes. Okay. So given that there was an increased threat to President Trump's, life. Was he provided a full security complement akin to what a sitting U.S. President would receive? He was provided a full complement of security based on the threat assessment that we had and the venue. My question is, if he'd been the sitting president, would he have had the same security he had on July 13th or would have been beefed up? There is a difference between the

city president. So your answer is he didn't. And continuity of government and the responsibility that we did not. Okay, there wasn't a cat team, a full cat team. on site. There wasn't counter surveillance teams on site. But this is the thing. You just said you had the ability to beef up the security. You knew about the threat, and you didn't. And that's as telling as it is chilling. We have satellite images from the Butler Fairgrounds. Have you visited the site? No, I have not. Nine days, and you have not visited the site. You should have been there that night. Did you talk to that evening, did you talk to the team, the heroes that surrounded the president? Did you call them that night?

They were still operational work. So that's an answer is no. Did you call them the next day? The president. Yes, I spoke with the... You call them the very next day, not the day of. Or was it 72 hours after? I don't know the timeline, but I spoke with them.

Okay, because you're under oath. I think it was 72 hours after you waited three days. What is immediately clear is that there are a number of structures that need to be secured. Of these, director, other than the first, you know, immediate four, what's the most dangerous site that should have been secured? Because you know, security 101. You've got to mitigate the high ground. Yes.

Okay. Do you know what the next most dangerous site? What was the closest structure to the president, other than the four immediate ones that you had your counter-sniper teams on? There are a number of structures around that event site. You know who the shooter knew? The shooter has visited the site two more times than you have, and he had a drone, and he picked the AGR building. So you said, do you remember in an ABC interview you did that you didn't have people on the roof of the AGR building because you were worried about safety because of the slope? I recall that statement.

Does the Secret Service have written policy? You can share with us about slope roofs? No. Okay. So why'd you act like there was one? Because isn't your practice the comment on enormous events of enormous national implications when you're ignorant of the facts? That's rhetorical.

So here's this thing with the slopes. You go all up to like 18, 12. You can get to 112, which is about as flat as you can get without it being completely flat. And you're saying that there was a danger, safety concern there. But the problem is, Director, you put your counter-snipers on a 312 roof, which is steeper than the 112. And by the way, the 112 is ADA compliant. You can build a ramp for a wheelchair on a 112 roof. So these are nothing but pathetic excuses, and they make no sense, and they're a bunch of cow dump.

All the law enforcement I've spoken with over the last nine days are amazed that the AGR rooftop was not secure. And you want to know why? Because it's dangerous. I have never had any long gun training in my life. I own an AR-15, and last time I shot it, I shot it one time my whole life. It was six years ago. That is until Saturday.

We recreated the events in Savoy, Texas. We recreated what happened to bother. I was lying prone on a slope roof at 130 yards at 6.30 at night. And I knew that he had a scope, but I didn't know what kind, red dot, or magnified. So I shot eight rounds from both. You know what the result was? 15 out of 16 kill shots.

And the one I missed would have hit the president's ear. That's a 94% success rate. And that shooter was a better shot than me. It is a miracle President Trump wasn't killed. Corey Compaetore's life is over because that damn shooter made it on the roof. And it wasn't the roof that was dangerous. It was a nut job on top of the roof. You know what else is dangerous?

I believe you're horrifying ineptitude and your lack of skilled leadership is a disgrace. You're obfuscating today. is shameful. And you should be fired immediately and go back to Garden Doritos. Mr. Chamon, I go.

There you go. The best, that was one of the best, uh, appearances by congressional members today. And listen, he, he speaks about a lot,

right? And he talks about this roof. And if you look at the roof, this is one of the things that Kimberly Cheeto said that it was too dangerous to put our counter sniper teams on that roof. Although the actual roof that the counter sniper teams were on was more inclined. Yeah. Then the actual roof that,

uh, Brooks was on. There were congressional members that just yesterday went out to this roof. They had, they, they, they, they, they shown video of it. Yeah. They walked perfectly fine on the roof. There was no problems. This was a very, very, very lightly sloped roof.

No, there is videos of this guy on the roof, like repositioning himself, like he got, with no problem. Yeah. He was not like rolling down the roof or anything like that. No. No. You can walk on this roof like it's nothing. It is a very light slope.

And listen, everything about this stinks of conspiracy. It stinks of we made, we wanted to make sure this happened. We wanted to make sure he was able to kill President Trump. And what I will say from Valner is that we are very lucky rather not you hate or love Trump. We're lucky that he's still alive because I'm telling you, even the people that hate Trump, you don't want a post-Trump assassination America. Yeah. Because I'm telling you it's going to be a lot work.

than it is right now. And by the way, right now is, is really bad. And this shit is going to go, it's going to roll downhill. It's going to keep gay and steam. And there's going to be things that happen.

And especially dependent upon what the, or what happens in a 2024 election. I don't have confidence that we're going to get a fair election. I don't know. Um, I have no idea. But there was a lot of stuff. He said,

if you can, if a 20 year old can outsmart secret service, but yet the trained assassins around the, world, Iran and whoever else. And yet you didn't give him the protection that he requested. But let's put ourselves back for a moment. Let's just say it was an inside job. Let's just say it's an inside job.

They chose her to put all the heat on. Yeah, she's the scapego. Yeah, she's the scapego. And why her, you know, I mean, I just, I'm thinking in other directions. Like, if they knew this was going to happen, they probably scoped her out. they know everything about this girl. I mean, she is standing up pretty proud and being very general and not breaking. So I have to give her that if it is an inside job.

Well, let me tell you why, because they would pick her, in my opinion, because she is less likely to buck the system. She's less likely to enter some type of whistleblower category, which I don't think as a Secret Service Director or a CIA director, I don't think there's any such thing as you being a whistleblower category. blow her. You either go along with the plan or you're dead. And she's been there for 27 years.

Yeah, 27 years. But the reality is that they felt like she was the most likely candidate. And listen, you know, if you think this is an inside job, if that is your opinion, how long have they been planning this, right? Because that's something you've got to think about as well. And how long had they been, what's the word, getting her ready for this? Yeah, absolutely. And we just don't know.

I mean, we really don't know. Obviously, this is a, at the very least, in my opinion, a conspiracy. This is something that is disgraceful. This is something that we're going to have to deal with going forward because the reality is, if you guys think that Secret Service is not political, they are. I mean, when you appoint as Joe Biden, the Joe Biden administration, a Secret Service Director to protect you, but then you also depend on them to protect your political opponent,

which of who you've been trying to put in jail, who you've been trying to say is a threat to democracy. How the hell do you ever, as a, as Trump even? I mean, one of the ones of, they compare him as a Nazi. Nazi, Hitler, you name it. And then one of the, this is what's mind blowing to me.

One of the first thing Trump says when he gets out there in the RNC convention and says, I got to think our brave secret. service agents that protected my life that day. It's like, I was thinking, I was like, is he, is he scared that he, like, is, is, is, why he saying this? Because if I was Trump, there's no way in hell I'll be saying this. And listen, Trump has changed since this.

He has changed his rhetoric. He has changed how he says things, when he says things, and why he says things. But I think he's leaving it up to all the other politicians to do that job. He's not going to say anything bad about anyone. It's even like the fake news thing. He usually said, oh, here's the fake news. But he said they did report this, you know, accurately. So I'm not going to call him the fake news anymore.

Yeah, that's weird, though. So he is changing his tune. I think he's changing his tune, though, too, to let outside people do what he normally does. No, I think it's changing his tune because he realizes how close he just came to dying. Oh, yeah. I know. He's scary. Oh, I think he got to direct a message from the deep state.

You keep fucking with us and see what's going to happen. And I think that in his position, right now. He's like, shit, I might need to tone back some of this because I'm probably going to end up dead. And he may still, by the way, we don't know. But anyways, guys, here is Representative Nancy Mace from our great state of South Carolina. Yes. This is what she had to say.

And this is her questions to Cheeto. Here you go. I love her. I have a series of questions, very specific questions. I want very specific answers. Most of my questions are going to demand a yes or no answer. Do you understand? I do.

Okay, my first question. Both sides of the aisle today have asked for your resignation. Would you like to use my five minutes to draft your resignation letter? Yes or no. No, thank you. Was this a colossal failure? It was a failure. Yes or no. Was it a colossal failure? Is the question? Yes or no? I have admitted this is a yes or no series of questions. Was this a colossal failure? Yes or no? Yes. Was this tragedy preventable? Yes or no? Yes. Has the Secret Service been transparent with this committee? Yes. Would you say the fact that we had to issue a subpoena to get you to show up today as being transparent?

Yes or no? I have always been eager to know. You didn't want to answer the question. We had to issue a subpoena to get you to show up today. That is not transparent, by the way. You stated earlier, Secret Service is not. political. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Would you say leaking

your opening statement to Punchful News? Politico's Playbook in Washington Post several hours before you sent it to this committee as being political? Yes or no? I have no idea how my statement got out.

Well, that's bullshit. So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record articles by Punchball News, political playbook, Washington post. All done at 5.24 a.m. 6.12. 12 a.m. 6.34 a.m. A. A solid 3 to 4 hours before this committee got your statement. Without objection to ordered. Okay. Is a Secret Service fully cooperating with our committee? Yes. Okay. You say you're fully cooperating with this

committee. On July 15th, this committee sent you a list of demands of information that we wanted. Secret Service provided this committee a complete list of all law enforcement personnel that were there that day. Have you done that? Have you provided a list to the Oversight Committee? Yes or no? I'll have to get back to you on that. That is a no. Have you provided all audio and video recordings in your possession to this committee as we asked on July 15th? Yes or no? I would have to get back to you. That is a no. You're full of shit today. You're just being completely dishonest. Mr. Chairman, I want to. Mr. Chairman, I want to. Come on. We have to rein to you.

decorum in this committee, no matter how upset we get. Have you provided any and all memos to this committee that we've asked to you on July 15th? Have you provided all memorandums within the Secret Service? I would have to get back to you on it. That is a no. You are being dishonest or lying. You're being dishonest here with this committee. These are important questions that the American people want answers to, and you're just dodging

and talking around it in generalities, and we had a subpoena you to be here, and you won't even answer the questions. We have asked you repeatedly to answer our. questions. This isn't hard. These are not hard questions. Have you provided us all communications from the Secret Service related to that day in that rally? Have you provided this committee? We've asked for this information on July 15th. Have you provided any of this information that this committee has asked of the Secret Service, any of it? I'll have to get back to you. Have you even read this letter that we sent you? Did you even read this? Yes. Okay. And you have said you don't know.

you have no idea. The answer is no. We haven't gotten a single document or piece of information or data from you or your agency in related to the rally that we have asked you for. So is this was this attempted assassination of Donald Trump a failure of training or execution or both? I think that those are answers that we need to. Training execution or both. Which one? I think those are answers. All right. How many how many, how many, how many, Secret Service personnel have lost their jobs due to this colossal failure? At this time, none. How many Secret Service personnel have been required to take a refresher course on how not to let people shoot Donald Trump?

Our personnel are currently operational. We are examining the facts of this investigation, and we will make the changes necessary. What time did law enforcement become aware that there was an individual on the roof with a clear line of sight to President Trump? I am still verifying timelines. Of course, nine days in, you have no answers. How many minutes went by between the time law enforcement saw and took photos of crooks and the shooting? How many minutes? I am still verifying timeline.

57 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. There you go, Nancy Mace. Damn, Camberley Cheeel, you piece of shit. Anyways. Wasn't she the one that made the joke? Who? Nancy about the

Oh yeah Clean up an aisle Cheatel Yeah clean up an aisle Cheatle She actually posts that on her ex account And guys listen

This is what we're living in now Right I mean we have a public assassination attempt On the former president And most likely the next president Of the United States And you may think right now

And this is opinion These are all opinions right All opinions But you may likely think this is some type of security overlaps or this, you know, this is just something they didn't get quite right. And the reality is that even with DEI, even the fact that they may have hired people that were not qualified for the job, even if you understand and know that they, for whatever reason,

put people that were not permanent secret service agents on the Trump detail. They put people from the Department of Justice, you know, all the. these agencies that hate Donald Trump. There's a reason for that probably, by the way. Even if you think all that, that is just some type of weird security overlaps. And we cannot forget to mention

what happened during this actual rally when all the secret surface was around him and we watched the men versus the women. I'm just going to say, I am not a woman hater. Of course, I'm a woman. I love women. But I don't think they should be in charge

of security detail of a former president of his nature. Yeah, listen, I mean, and listen, to the women thing, I will say this. There are women that are in law enforcement or badasses. And there are women that are on teams that men are typically on that are great. But when you can't reload your gun in front of the car, there's something wrong. Yeah, you're absolutely right. But there are women.

Listen. Holster it. I want to make it. Sorry. Holster your gun. Yeah, holster your weapon. I want to make clear, though, there are women that are out there that are training just as hard. they are just as much inept, or not inept, but they're just as much qualified to be in positions

that they're in, with the exception, by the way, in a lot of cases, in physical force. Right. And you can't put a 5-2 girl in front of a 6-foot-4 man. No. That does not work. But also, keeping in mind with all of the, you know, DEI hires that law enforcement is getting nowadays, I'm sure you probably got plenty of beta males out there being cops that maybe women could overpower that are not beta females

that women could probably look their ass. I just got a mental image as bad. He's like, oh, instead of me arresting you, let me just do a strip tease for you. Yeah, well, it's absolutely crazy, guys. I mean, what we're experiencing today is absolutely batshit crazy. And listen, this storyline is not going to stop.

We are going to continue to cover this. This is probably one of the most groundbreaking stories that we've ever had on this podcast. You know, I was talking about for a couple months leading up to this. I'm like, damn, there's like no news. Nothing's going on. And I remember that I think it was Dave or someone, I don't know, someone said, don't worry, they're priming us for some huge thing that's going to happen.

And he was right. And here we are. We have a huge thing that's going to happen that did happen. And potentially more things are going to happen. If you think the Trump assassination is the last thing that's going to blow your mind before November, you just better hold on your seat. seats, ladies and gentlemen, because it's not over yet. Yeah.

And my mind was blowing that Trump actually got convicted of 34 felonies for a check. It's crazy. Like how are you a felon for writing, giving somebody money? But he didn't even, no, but he didn't even give the check. I know. It was his attorneys. But it was every log. You know, that was the felony.

Every time they logged it was a felony. Yeah. Every payment. Yeah. I've never heard of somebody getting a felony for paying somebody. Yeah, absolutely. It's crazy. It's bad shit crazy. But guys, listen, I want to say briefly, and before I even say what I'm about to say, I want to say that we do have an artist that we're going to play out on this episode. The artist, the artist's name is 3LN. You can find this artist on Spotify. She is a teacher that Sherry taught with when she was teaching. I think Ellen has been there, what, a couple years. Yes. Now she's, well, she's, she's a fantastic singer. I come from a musical background. Sherry and I did music for a while. while Ellen is extremely talented and her name on Spotify and I want you guys to go support her 3LN go follow her go support her music uh and listen when you listen this song you're going to see

how talented she is and I just want to tell you guys that the whole time that I was teaching she was right across the hall for me and I was kind of like her second mom at school and we developed a huge bond and then when she one day like played her music to me I was flabbergasted I was like, holy crap, you've got to do something with this talent. This girl is very, very, very talented. Yeah, she's very good. So I really want you guys to listen to her song and then I want you to go find her on Spotify. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And then Chad's going to tell you again, her name. Yes, 3LN on Spotify. Yeah, it goes for LN. Go listen to her music. And also I want to say this before we play this music, by the way, the name of the song is downtime. But what I want to say is if you guys want to help us and want to help spread our message, it's go rate us good. Look, we have people on the left. We get death threats. We get people that say that, you know, screw you. I hope you die. I hope you do this. We get those all the time because

we talk about very controversial topics like we're talking about right now. And especially after the Trump assassination attempt, these people have come out of the woodwork. They are sending us messages on every platform we possibly have emails, you name it. They're downrating this. They're talking shit about us. And you guys, if you like what we do, if you appreciate what we do, all we ask of you is to go rate us good, especially on Apple, especially on Spotify, all these places. That is the best way you can support us right now. And also by following our ex.

And if you want to communicate and connect with our community, telegram is the best place. Investigator Conspiracy Podcasts. Man, people will welcome you over there with open arms. If you want to give your thoughts and opinions on anything we talk about or give us ideas for what we're going to talk about in the future, please do that now. But I just wanted to say, too, real quick, guys,

anytime we've asked you to help us with these downplays or whatever, it's always helped us. So do it again. Absolutely. But without further ado, guys, we're going to wrap it up here. We love you guys very much. This is Ellen 3LN on Spotify. Name of the song is downtime.

Go support her. She's a great artist. Until next time, peace out. Peace out, guys. to move I don't see you soon because I'm trying hard to say what I feel better get it on my eyes