Bodycam Footage Shows Local Police Anger at Secret Service After Trump Shooting

Bodycam footage shows local police anger at Secret Service after Donald Trump shooting

This story was posted on an Irish news site HERE, the video is on X.

The following is posted on the Irish news site

“I (expletive) told them they needed to post guys (expletive) over here,” the officer said in police body camera footage released by the Butler Township Police Department. “I told them that (expletive) Tuesday.” When another officer asked who he told that to, he responded: “The Secret Service.”

The following is posted with the video,

CNN has obtained and published body cam footage from the day of the attempted Trump assassination where a police officer climbed up on the roof and saw the would-be assassin moments before he started shooting.

The footage also shows a police officer complaining that he repeatedly asked the US Secret Service to secure the building. The officer says he made the request starting “on Tuesday” and the attempted assassination happened on a Saturday.

VIDEO HERE

Here is a longer video from the Police Activity channel

I believe the cop. Which means they deliberately ignored him.
Which could be for one of two reasons.
One, they are really, really unprofessional or two it was deliberately.
Now, the USSS can't afford to be unprofessional and if they are they are no longer fit for purpose and those who ignored the cop should stand trial, not just get the sack (nobody as of yet has been fired!).
To a logical mind it leaves that it was purposefully ignored.

Either reasons are bad. Very bad.

a reply to: Hecate666

What boggles my mind is that they were IN the building instead of ON it.
I agree with you in that it was most likely ignored, which is a very bad thing to let happen by the USSS.

Its obvious that someone/group wanted Trump taken out. Someone at the very top, whoever gives the orders where to place the agents. Or that person was given orders not to place someone up there.

The whole thing reeks of inside collabaration

originally posted by: SecretKnowledge2
a reply to: Hecate666

What boggles my mind is that they were IN the building instead of ON it.
I agree with you in that it was most likely ignored, which is a very bad thing to let happen by the USSS.

Its obvious that someone/group wanted Trump taken out. Someone at the very top, whoever gives the orders where to place the agents. Or that person was given orders not to place someone up there.

The whole thing reeks of inside collabaration

Everybody knows by now this was an inside covert operation. The big question is WHO ordered the operation?? ☠️

a reply to: xuenchen

It'll be a "shot in the dark", but let's play detective!

First, IF the local police told the USSS about the roof in question, which it appears they Did, we ask ourselves "Why didn't the USSS get someone on the roof to secure it, or "take out" Crooks before he had the chance to shoot?"

Possible answers:

-The police warning was simply ignored by the USSS.
-The USSS agent(s) who received the local police warning forgot, or failed, to effectively "pass" the warning on.
-The USSS was ordered not to interfere with the potential shooter on the roof.

So, who is the officer in the video who is making this claim? Should be easy enough for his superiors to identify him, right?

Once identified, investigating authorities should find out which USSS agent(s) that officer "f*@&#%@* told" about the threat.

Then ask that/those SS agent(s) what they did with that info, and why?


If the warning was simply ignored by the SS, Why?

If the the SS agent(s) who received the warning forgot, or neglected, to pass on the warning so that it could have been acted upon, we should find out why/how such an oversight could occur, given what we assume to be the level of training USSS agents receive. And the agent(s) responsible for this particular FUBAR should be immediately reassigned, or fired.

If the warning was received by the USSS, but the service was ordered not to act on the information, who issued that directive, who would have had the authority to issue such an order?

Does anyone know who the USSS "answers to" while on-site at an event like this?

What I mean is, are the event organizers required, by law or such, to obey the direction of the USSS agents assigned to the event?

Or, are USSS agents present in more of an "advisory" role; no real authority, and subject to the wishes and demands of the VIP (and/or the VIP's "handlers")?

a reply to: Mantiss2021

It's such basic rudimentary knowledge to take the high ground and deny it to others even a completely inexperienced rube knows to do it.

I do not accept excuses such an oversight, accident, miscommunication or other reasons as legitimate.

Someone/group ordered and orchestrated the hit or allowed to happen with foreknowledge.

That should also be obvious to any rube at this point.

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Mantiss2021

It's such basic rudimentary knowledge to take the high ground and deny it to others even a completely inexperienced rube knows to do it.

I do not accept excuses such an oversight, accident, miscommunication or other reasons as legitimate.

Someone/group ordered and orchestrated the hit or allowed to happen with foreknowledge.

That should also be obvious to any rube at this point.

I agree that "securing the high ground" seems to be a basic rule, unlikely to be overlooked by anyone with even a minimum of familiarity of threat assessment.

If we are to eliminate accident, incompetence, and/or miscommunication as legitimate excuses, then yes, indications do seem to point to an orchestrated action, which implies that Crooks did not act as a "lone gunman".

Which leaves us to ask,

"Was Crooks aided by someone from "inside" or "outside" the campaign?


Yes, credible arguments can be made for either source.

What really gets me is the secret service was point on this. In other words they were in charge! They cannot lay the blame anywhere else, it was on them! They had two command centers from what I've read (admittedly I can not remember where I read this) one for the local cops and one for the state police. That if true is idiotic! Everything for a security detail like that should go to one source. Very amateurish in my opinion.

a reply to: hangedman13


I totally agree, this was all on the USSS.

So, who gives them orders?

Surely theres a chain of command that can be easily traced, no?
Like, who told them all to stay in the building?
Their training would lead them to know that they should be on the roof, the high ground. So someone ordered them not to go on the roof, but to stay IN the building.

It stinks, its Epstein-esque in its corruptness.

a reply to: SecretKnowledge2

Someone might have told the SS that the local police had the roof "covered" or "secured".

That same "someone" (perhaps?) also advised the local police that the USSS had "secured the building"; with the implication that by "building" they included the roof.

SS, with limited manpower on-site, is assured that locals are covering the situation and leave them to it.

Locals are assured that SS are covering the situation and leave the Feds to do the job they're trained to do.


So who is the "someone"?