The Daily Signal - Key Forensic Questions in Trump Assassination Attempt with Former Navy JAG , Cully Stimson

Episode Date: July 14, 2024

 This special weekend edition dives into the immediate forensic details and pressing questions rocking America in the aftermath of former President Donald Trump’s attempted assassination with special guest Cully Stimson. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Snap up Ancestry DNA's lowest price ever in our incredible cyber sale. With 50% off Ancestry DNA kits, it's the perfect time to help a loved one unwrap the past. And with their latest update, they'll discover their family origins like never before. With even more precise regions and new and exclusive features. Their best gift, our lowest price. 50% off Ancestry DNA, only until December 2nd. Visit Ancestry.ca for more details. Terms apply.

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Sunday, July 14th, 2024. I'm Tony Kinnett. This special weekend edition dives into the immediate forensic details and pressing questions, rocking America in the aftermath of former President Donald Trump's attempted assassination. Now stay tuned for my conversation with Cully Stimson after this. Hey, it's Rob Lewy from The Daily Signal. Want to stay ahead of the curve on conservative news and analysis? Subscribe to our free Daily Signal email newsletters.

You'll get the latest headlines, detailed policy coverage and exclusive interviews delivered straight to your inbox. Whether you're interested in our morning update, breaking news alerts, or weekly roundups, we've got you covered. Don't let the liberal media control the narrative. Sign up now at daily signal.com slash email and join thousands of informed conservatives who rely on the daily signal to cut through the noise and get the truth. Welcome back to the Tony Kinnettcast on 93 WIBC and the Daily Signal here a little bit early from the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. And coming to you a little bit early here just off the road on our way in, of course,

because of the circumstances surrounding the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump yesterday. And joining us for an interview to get a little bit of perspective on what's going on and what we can perhaps expect in the next couple of days, which have just become far more important in American historical events, is none other than the deputy director of the Edwin Neese Center for Legal Studies over at the Heritage Foundation. Foundation. Cully Stimson. Cully, good afternoon. Great to see you, Tony. Thanks for having me. So let's hop right into this. Obviously, getting all of this information rapidly, things

coming out yesterday. What was the first thought that went through your mind, both with your, obviously, years of legal experience and also working with the United States military? Well, I remember being a junior in high school when Reagan was shot. I remember where I was. I was in music class. We had a TV on. And remember, the first reports that came out was that he wasn't hit or that it was minor. And so that was the first thing to jump to my mind. When I saw Trump stand up shortly after he, you heard the shots ring out and he pumped his fists in the air, I thought that was obviously a good sign. But I didn't know whether the adrenaline had allowed him to do that, but he actually was still injured much more than, thank God, he was. Right.

And so, look, I think this thing is going to run on two tracks, Tronnie. And I focus on track one. Track two, I leave to my friends who do politics. Track one is the forensic analysis and investigation of what went right and what, if anything, went wrong. Because there are layers of security around the protective bubble that the Secret Service provides a president. The first layer is the folks who are literally on station within feet of the president. They obviously were very quick to shield him from any oncoming. additional fire. The second level level is within the secured perimeter, some of which I'm sure

we have not seen or heard about. Then there's the secured perimeter that people had to go to the magnetometers to get in. And then outside that, there's a couple more layers, as I understand it, much of which is involved in secret service, FBI, and local law enforcement coordination. And so, you know, it doesn't take a genius or anyone with any military background to think, oh, gosh, why with a building that close wasn't some police officer or somebody on top of that thing or a drone or something? And so clearly that's going to be one area of the focus. But I think that this forensic analysis, this after action report, this hot wash, as we call it in the Navy, of sort of slow walking through, what went right, what went wrong, what can we do better, how the hell did this happen? is going to take some time. I think a lot of people who were there,

and you saw all the people with their cell phones, it's a different world than the Zapruder film when Kennedy was shot. It's a different world than when Kennedy was shot outside the Washington Hilton. I mean, everyone's a videographer today. So they collected all those phones. They uploaded all the information on those phones. They're going to have a lot of different views of what happened, what people saw.

I think this gentleman or these people that saw the shooter, skedaddling up on the top of that roof and told the BBC, among other reporters that they saw, they were calling local police saying, hey, look up there. There's a dude up there. That's going to play a big part in this forensic investigation. And then there's the political side, right? And that's oversight and all the rest of it. And I don't do that. Right, right. The forensic side is going to be really interesting. And that's the part that I want to focus on right now. Of course, we're on with Culley Stimson, the deputy director over at the Meese Center of the Heritage Foundation. And this is the part that I think needs to be looked at most closely, maybe at this point,

because, again, depending on what branch of service you might have been in, whether you or maybe just in law enforcement or maybe on a private security team, there is the internal secure zone. And then there's the outside. There's the, I've heard it called the zone of watch, the area of circumspection, I guess, if you're over-group C's. And then, of course, just the proximal zone that you need to keep eyes on. Because, like you said, in today's day and age, those kind of threats can be seen as not just a person pulling out a gun close to the stage. There was a security report that was sent out of Seattle a couple years ago detailing fears

that there might be short-range drone attacks in which someone flies a drone very quickly outside of the zone of watch or the proximal zone into the secure area and it's not able to be stopped. And in this case, it was something that I'm just going to make this case as someone who hasn't looked through all of it yet no one has that an individual could within 200 feet of the former president of the united states clamber up on a roof and then pull out a visible rifle and then take aim i look i i i'm not sure what the rules are of an of engagement inside the secret service that you know that's a world completely outside of mine i don't know what the rules of engagement are

for a high security situation for the navy but there is no way at least in my very very small frame of reference that it should have taken that long to put a beat on that shooter. Am I wrong for asking those kind of questions? No. Those are the questions that every sentient person is asking. I actually think, Tony, it was about 130 yards, not 200 feet. But regardless, you know, 130 yards is not a long shot for somebody who has even minimum proficiency on a weapon. Ironically, I was at the range yesterday shooting two different.

long rifles and I was shooting at the 300, 200 yard range. And as a pick that grew up on a farm and served in the military for a while, you know, I like guns. I practice all the time. And, you know, getting that on bead from 200 yards to 200 yards is not hard for a person to send me efficient. I don't think I've used to rely on the, the Hollis Sun on my AR to get 200 yards. Right. Right. Right. That's something that we could get with just minimal amounts of practice. Right. And thank God Trump turned his head because if, you think about the bullet, the shooter was aiming right here for a center head shot. If you hold your finger and you're in, towards your ear, and then you turn your head,

you clip your ear load, which is exactly what happened. It's just a miracle that it didn't. There's nothing in my mind other than divine. His head. I mean, it's a miracle. And he turned right before. I mean, and that's why, and again, we were talking about this late last night, the two of us that there was this photo that was suggested by the New York Times that

perhaps the round had been captured just after it hit Trump, something along those lines. And of course, you expressed concern. Obviously, the round is flying that fast. Hearing you talk about the windage and speed of the 223 round, likely being what it was,

made me feel like I was back in basic. But it does not seem possible to photograph should have been able to capture that elongated shot of the bullet firing. It's still wild to me. I can barely comprehend it. Yeah, but if that picture's accurate, I'm not sure it was capturing the bullet. I think it was capturing the hollowed out disturbed air pocket,

like a straw of air. And it looks like from the reporting I've seen, other forensic analysts who have looked at the picture said it's the real deal, which means there was a high camera frame, right, a high shutter frame. It's just amazing. Look, the potential future leader of the free world was almost killed. Right.

To me, it didn't matter whether it was Trump, Biden, or any former president, Obama, Clinton. This is a seminal moment in American history. Yes, sir. And I think that the doubts some people have about the thoroughness of the FBI's investigations and prior investigations, the over-politization of DOJ. I hope none of that. None of that is part of this investigation because we've only had 40 some 45, 46 presidents

in our nation's history. You've had hundreds of Supreme Court justices and thousands of senators and congressmen. And so regardless of your party affiliation, the last thing this country or the world needs is an assassination of a future president or a current president or a former president, because that is way over the top and highly destabilizing. I was thinking about this on the way up because, again, driving up from Indianapolis,

I was thinking about the words. We obviously had this interview scheduled. And I was thinking about the words to put this into context because I don't have the words. I mean, I'm young. I was in elementary school when 9-11 occurred. I don't have the years and years of experience to be able to process the context surrounding this situation in a way. So I hope that you'll forgive what, at least to me, so far feels like kind of an elementary interview trying to get your perspective on this. Do you mind sticking around for another segment?

Let's do it. We'll be back in just a second. You'll have to hear the rest of this interview on the podcast. We'll make sure that's uploaded as soon as possible. This is the Tony Kennedcast on 93 WIBC and The Daily Signal. So moving past the initial reaction to the situation, now we look at where we move forward between now and the presidential election in November. And I don't mean a political analysis of the field now. Like you said, that's for many other minds and figures to look into this matter.

How seriously do we need to take the security of not just former President Trump, current President Biden, but also the other former president. of the United States, Barack Obama, George Bush, Bill Clinton, and not to mention vice presidential candidates, Supreme Court Justice has given this contention. Do we need some kind of an overhaul of how we view secret service security of these kind of events? Those are the questions that are at least rolling through my mind. Yeah. So those are the right questions to ask. I'm not sure I would go so far as to say, do we need an overhaul? But I think you certainly need a situation report on on the adequacy of the security envelope over high value potential targets. Because if there was a failure here,

and I personally think there had to be some kind of failure by somebody, not to put somebody on that roof or have eyes on that roof, that was a pretty obvious spot. In fact, it was the only, for what I could tell from the graphics, the only high visibility place within 200 yards. and they don't put somebody on top of there. So look, yeah, I mean, I think not only will they have to review whether the security protocols in place are adequate, but then follow up on any additional resources that are necessary to beef up security immediately for people like Kennedy,

who so far the government has denied security for. Now, maybe there's zero threats that they've received, but announcing, prevention. As you know, the same goes. And so, look, back after 9-11, when I served for Secretary Rumsfeld as a deputy assistant, defense secretary, he had a series of high visibility shootings by U.S. forces against Iraqis, some of which were, some of whom were Iraqi civilians. And I was the co-chair of the Hamdanya and Haditha Task Force, which over, which, which, which, looked at all aspects of the shootings in Nasser Square and elsewhere. These are in Iraq by U.S. service personnel or contractors against civilians.

And had to get those analogies really quickly, given the intensity of those particular shootings. If I remember correctly, it's been a while since I studied early Iraqi War history. You do. And not only were there huge internal security concerns about the insurgency and the Iraqi civilian population and she, versus Sunni or U.S. Iraq relations. We had third country nationals spilling into Iraq to kill allies and Americans. But you had to try to secure those scenes. And I remember the pains that NCS and other organizations had helped with the forensic collection had to go through just to stay safe while they were securing the scenes. That's not the case here, thank God. But it's still,

I can tell you, as a former homicide prosecutor, it's slow, it's laborious, it takes time. Figuring out just, for example, a profile of the killer, and what he did in the days and weeks running up to this, any social media footprint. Apparently, he was a registered Republican, but looking at how you can register for any party and switch your party affiliation in Pennsylvania may be relevant. and it may be completely irrelevant. The fact that he gave to Act Blue or some other lefty organizations may or may not be relevant. So you have to think of this investigation

as a 5,000 piece puzzle. And it takes time to get each piece and you've got to figure out where the borders are. You have to figure out where the splotches are. And you don't know what the full picture is going to be like, like the box of the puzzle you have in front of you that you're working off of. So it takes time to put this together.

And I think, maybe I'm, I'm just a cynic in this hyper politicized world, they're going to try to push people to put the puzzle together when they still don't even have the pieces. And that's of a concern to me. And that's one of the things that is really that I would caution. And I've talked to individuals and friends of mine who are on the more populous side of the aisle as well as a couple of friends that are on the left-leading side of the aisle, conservatives and libertarians. And there is a need of haste because they want answers. And this is something that Americans should rightfully want answers from. if this is something that is worth doing in this investigation, it's worth doing well. I do have

one last thing that I wanted to get your take on. And this is the makeup of a security detail. And that if I am looking for individuals who are going to cover, I've looked at this when I've needed security before because of threats that I have received. And I remembered, again, during time and training, when they outlined what you need to make up perimeter, what you need in order to make sure that someone who is receiving up close personal protection is done so in a good sense that is reliable and efficient. One of the Secret Service agents who responded quickly, she was short. And she was a lady.

I don't know her name. I know nothing about her. But I noticed that at least from my perspective, and I know that Inez Stepman over at the Independent Women's Forum, has made this point as well, that when the agents came back up and they were forming this double, layer of bodies around the president, that there was a clear window still to the president because this lady who was on the detail was shorter than the president. And so he was able partly you could see his face and his fist raised to the camera because she was too short to obscure

the former president to the United States. At least initially, I have a problem with this. Why do we have men that are surrounding the president who do not have the ability if they are on that initial perimeter, right? The up close shielding with your body with your life, who are not at least as tall and as wide as the presidency of the United States. If we were talking about questions to list, that's one of the last ones that I have for immediate things to rectify. Yeah. Of course, the way you style the question means that the gender doesn't matter. It's the height. I would not be the right person, right? I'm 5'8. Early Olga from the Russian wrestling Olympic team. That's fine in my idea. Right. Right. And so what I don't

know because I've not been on the Secret Service and I only have a few friends who have been, is whether you want at least one of the agents who are supposed to assist the president short enough so the president could put their arm over their shoulder. Because imagine if you're six, four, look, whatever height you are, if you have to put your arm around somebody who's your height or higher, it might be harder. Whereas he comfortably put his arm around her. Does that outweigh the need to have a body blocking the president from additional incoming fire. I don't know. But remember if you-

A fireman's-cary angle versus making sure that you are able in that particular moment or the assisted carry, sorry, not a fireman's carry. But the carry versus the shielding, that's a conundrum. That's something to figure out. Right. And I don't know what the balance of that is, if any. I don't know what the mix is. Of course, if you listen to the audio, and I know you did and many others have listened over and over and over, you hear that they kept on top of him until they said shooter secure, shooter secured,

then they allowed him to get up. That doesn't mean there couldn't have been other shooters out there, to your point. And so I think that, you know, I hear a lot of Sturm and Drang about DEI and the head of the Secret Service has put a focus on that. Right. And I was careful not to ask that politically heavy question because, again, in this interview, I want to stick to the forensic analysis more than anything. Right. And so, and so, you know, I think looking at the mix, and by the way, some of this may not be available or should be available to the public.

We don't need to know, because the bad guys will learn, we don't need to know all the TTPs, the tactics, techniques, and procedures that the Secret Service uses to protect the present, just like we don't need to know what the special forces to use when they go on raids of bad guys. But that will no doubt be part of the inquiry. And hopefully if and when Congress gets involved, and apparently you get involved already tomorrow morning, some of those hearings are behind closed doors and classified so that they don't expose to bad people, some of the things that the Secret Service does, like particular tools.

They're using particular sensitive devices. They're using particular agents they may have had in plain clothes, etc. One of the guys that interested me the most, and I want to see if you picked up on this, Tony, is there was a guy who was right behind the president, and he had a camo floppy hat on, and he had a Trump shirt on. And the second you hear the shot rings out, and Trump hits the deck, that guy goes like this. And he's turning his head really fast. Everyone else crouches down, and this guy is so dialed in, I would be shocked if he was John Q. Citizen, there in the crowd because he looked like he was dialed into where the shooting was coming from.

He was looking at the response. He was watching the agents come up over the first level of security in front of the president. He was really dialed in. And if he was just a citizen, I'm darn sure they interviewed him because that guy was so focused on what was going on. He had a presence of mind to take it all in. I did notice. And the reason that I noticed, actually, I had to go back because later, and we might try to bring up the footage if we have time, we want to get this out as quickly as possible, but if we have the time, we'll try to get this footage up at this point, that when the Secret Service agents came up on stage in full kit, right? You know, they have weapons at the ready.

They're basically while the president is surrounded by the up-close personnel, the perimeter, the new safe perimeter is being expanded outward, right? So as those new rings are being formed, I believe, and I could be wrong, I'm not looking at screen right now as I'm talking to this about you, but what caught my eyes, the individual that you're referencing, again, very certain that he appeared to make eye contact with one of the people in full kit and they just made eye contact. There may have been a brief nod. I may be completely full of it. This is just what I remember at the moment. So to answer your question, about half, yes, I know the individual you're talking about because, of course, I've watched the footage

hundreds of times like many Americans have. But if that's the case, I like knowing that there are some, you know, you say TTPs, some, you know, standard operating procedures, whether it's CEL Team 6, whether it's special forces, whether it's Rangers, whether it's the Secret Service, whether it's special task forces for the FBI and the NSA that I don't see and I don't know. That's an area that should be outside of civilian transparency because you're right in saying, I don't want the bad guys, the crazies, those who are mentally unstable, to weasel their way around those things. I had students who could get around any internet filter. The last thing I one as some grown adult with a horrible idea to find their way around the TTPs of a service detail.

Correct. Correct. And so I suspect that the speaker of the House and the chairmen's of jurisdiction will be very careful. I hope they are about making sure that there's the right level of transparency, but not so much so that we can tip off important techniques that need to be shielded from public view. I'll close this one off so that we can go ahead and get to editing this, and I know you have a lot of things this afternoon to get to as well. I hope that this is the only pseudo political point that I will make, that when the FBI and the Secret Service release their findings

and they make their presentations on this situation, because I can tell at least from this point, this would be my pundit analysis. The FBI is clearly already nervous about handling this investigation. They redid the social media posts of the statement regarding stepping into jurisdiction for this investigation at least twice. So they made an initial statement and they updated their statement and I believe they've updated a statement since then even now. Clearly, this is a very tense situation. I hope that when they do make their statements about what things should be transparent and what things should be kept behind closed doors,

that it is made in a way that is both sincerely giving. and sincerely received. Because like you, I know a lot of excellent guys in FBI field offices, particularly in my case in Indianapolis, as well as many others from around the country, Seattle, the name one. And I just, I know that you share this as well, that I hope that this is both sincerely communicated and received because we need that right now as a country. Yep. We need a Joe Friday, just the facts, ma'am investigation that has no stench of politicization

whatsoever and rings true and reads so the average everyday American can have confidence in their findings. Well said. Cully Stimson, deputy director over at the Meese Center for the Heritage Foundation. Thank you for taking a few minutes again on this busy afternoon. Not exactly a scheduled and prompted interview, but thanks for taking a bit of time with us. Nice to be with you, Tony. Thank you. We'll be back to bring you all of the coverage of the RNC this week here in Milwaukee. this is the Tony Kinnettcast on 93 WIBC at The Daily Signal. And that'll do it for today's episode. We'll be with you tomorrow for our coverage of the Republican National Convention this week in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

In the meantime, if you haven't gotten a chance, be sure to check out our evening shows right here in this podcast feed and on YouTube, where we bring you the top news of the day, the Tony Kinnettcast, the Daily Signal syndicated show where we pick apart national impact on the average American. Also, make sure you subscribe to the Daily Signal, wherever you get your podcasts and help us reach more listeners by leaving a five-star rating and review. We read all of your feedback, except the bad stuff. Thanks again for listening. Have a day, and we'll be back with you at 5 p.m. for our top news edition and 7 p.m. for the Tony Kinnitcast.

The Daily Signal podcast is made possible because of listeners like you. Executive producers are Rob Louis and Katrina Trinko. Hosts are Virginia Allen, Brian Gottstein, Tyler O'Neill, Mary Margaret O'Lehand, and Elizabeth Mitchell. Sound designed by Lauren Evans, Mark Geine, John Pop, and Joseph von Spakovsky. To learn more or support our work, please visit DailySignal.com.