Staff Reports
The latest revelations from Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle regarding the assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump should leave many scratching their heads—or at least wondering why the left is so hell-bent on muddying the waters. Cheatle testified before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, making it clear that there is no evidence to support wild conspiracy theories swirling in leftist corners of the internet about a second shooter or any foreign involvement in the incident.
Some folks may find it suspicious, but Cheatle has asserted that no requests for security resources from Trump on the day of the attack were ignored, despite the overwhelming evidence suggesting there were indeed oversight issues. Not one to dodge questions—although some might say she’s quite skilled at sidestepping—Cheatle claimed they didn’t divert resources away from Mr. Trump to assist Jill Biden, whose theater of the absurd seemed to take precedence that day. She directly claimed that “there were no assets that were diverted,” but that sounds like a fancy way of saying they didn’t want to be seen handing out security like candy to a politician they don’t favor.
Secret Service nixes conspiracy theories: No second gunman, no foreign influence, no staged shooting https://t.co/15HAk1QpFx pic.twitter.com/vWJ8T3JWoT
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) July 23, 2024
While Cheatle was adamant about the absence of a second shooter or any plot to stage the shooting, her comments on Trump’s general security were a bit more, shall we say, nebulous. Representative Mike Waltz, a Florida Republican, mentioned he had spoken to Secret Service whistleblowers who indicated their written requests for additional resources for Trump had gone unanswered, which raises some eyebrows. Cheatle’s half-hearted acknowledgment of these claims without concrete evidence leaves a gaping hole in the narrative that there’s nothing to see here.
In the midst of all this, Cheatle’s denial of a lack of resources has yet to provide any clarity regarding how many other support requests were declined on various occasions, inviting speculation that perhaps her agency is spinning the story to cover their tracks. Her failure to divulge these details left lawmakers—and anyone who’s been following the story—wondering just what level of protection the former president was actually receiving.
It seems this episode fits neatly into a pattern of the powers that be trying to downplay any responsibility or red flags around Mr. Trump’s security. If the Secret Service can’t provide uninterrupted protection for a former president—even when the stakes are this high—it raises serious concerns about the trustworthiness of those charged with ensuring his safety. Ultimately, this might be one of those moments that galvanizes support among the conservative base, uniting them in disbelief over the apparent negligence of federal agencies when it comes to safeguarding those who they ideologically oppose.
