WH Correspondent’s Dinner - Trump evacuated, shooter in lobby

This is getting silly, and really not sure why you picked this hill to die on... but sure:

By now you have certainly seen the wide ranging reporting about what a security failure this was. And by now you surely know the only ones claiming it wasn't are Trump's guys Blanche and Bessent.

CNN reported the security plan was essentially the same as over 20 years ago. Kasie Hunt and all her stupid panel laughed about the easy access via back door that was shared by all from Pres down to the caterers, makeup, and press that were able to come and go freely.

Even Oz Pearlman said he was shocked by lack of security. Mentioned the Golden Globes requiring actual ticket scans (not just waive what could easily be a copy) and multiple security lines after entry. This is for the Golden friggin Globes!!!

So yeah, I would think treating the event on par with the Globes -- or maybe even go YUGE and match the security for the Oscar's-- and then we would be getting closer to the destination.

Agree to disagree as you wish, but no reason for me to keep this one up -- reckon the evil mainstream media will keep doing their bit to explain it

Edit: forgot to add that if Wolf and a few other media bigwigs had actually been killed, as could have happened EASILY, then this would have been an epic failure beyond imagination. If the gap between the Secret Service and local agencies for security is that wide -- then damn, I'd say that is a massive gap and failure of security
Again, for the fifth time now, what do you think the Hilton could have done differently to prevent this nut ball from getting as far as he did?

That is a pretty simple question and is very different from what you keep rambling about.
 
I'm not going to go full conspiracy theory on this one. Yet.

But if Iran, say, had a trained gunmen squad, they possibly could have broke through.

This is why I'm incredulous about how half the Cabinet and line of succession was in that place at one time.

How do you know that. None of us knows what the security protocol was or how many levels of security there was. Just watched 60 minutes and it seemed impressed by how fast things were executed. They apparently didn’t feel a need to leave the venue as it was the most “secure” place in DC.
 
Again, for the fifth time now, what do you think the Hilton could have done differently to prevent this nut ball from getting as far as he did?

That is a pretty simple question and is very different from what you keep rambling about.
What part about actually scanning tickets, having multiple layers of security stations, and limited movement access to the event for random hotel guests did you not get from my post? And would properly coordinated Secret Service and local police coverage be too much to ask?

I said all this above, but kept it short for you here.

Carry on with doing you, Don Quixote, on with my evening
 
What part about actually scanning tickets, having multiple layers of security stations, and limited movement access to the event for random hotel guests did you not get from my post? And would properly coordinated Secret Service and local police coverage be too much to ask?

I said all this above, but kept it short for you here.

Carry on with doing you, Don Quixote, on with my evening
Was it a transvestite again? Asking for a friend!
 
What part about actually scanning tickets, having multiple layers of security stations, and limited movement access to the event for random hotel guests did you not get from my post? And would properly coordinated Secret Service and local police coverage be too much to ask?

I said all this above, but kept it short for you here.

Carry on with doing you, Don Quixote, on with my evening
Let's break this down.

1. Scanning tickets - Nope, he was a registered hotel guest. That would have made no difference because he didn't need to enter the hotel.

2. Multiple layers of security stations -- There were multiple layers of security stations. You couldn't just go straight from the hotel into the dinner, as the would-be assassin found out. And of course, that is a secret service issue.

3. Limited movement for hotel guests -- Of course there was limited movement. There were quasi-public areas (think hotel dining), semi-secured areas (think the press parties), and then hardened security areas (think the dining room where the WCHD was). Is your point that they should have treated the press parties as akin to the dinner, itself? What good would that have done in this particular case? The would-be shooter wasn't hanging out at press parties.

The simple fact is that when a hotel guest decides to sneak guns onto the property in his luggage and then his plan of attack is to simply run as fast as he can past security, there is not a lot you can do unless you inspect 100% of the luggage of the 2,200 guests at the hotel, which is not even one of your suggestions.
 
Very little is fact based.








 









This is what you offer as factual? Editorials and leftist media sources, including the disgraced NYT? Nothing you offered is fact based except the report on lowering misleading inventory.
 
This is what you offer as factual? Editorials and leftist media sources, including the disgraced NYT? Nothing you offered is fact based except the report on lowering misleading inventory.
Could've scripted your response before you gave it. The links I posted include articles from the centrist, if not conservative-leaning, Tax Foundation; the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations that publishes the centrist magazine Foreign Affairs; and David French, a conservative-leaning NYT columnist who also writes and does a podcast for The Dispatch. In any event, every article I posted there discusses numerous facts (with citations) that I knew you couldn't refute and would be too lazy to try. You take the easy road out of "leftist publications" every time instead of actually engaging with what's being posted. Because your fragile ego is so tied up in the notion that all criticism of the Trump admin must just be "TDS" that it won't even let you consider evidence to the contrary.
 
But public funding of private facilities is legal? 🤔

Color me skeptical.
Yes, for better or for worse, it happens all the time. See the construction of virtually every major American sports stadium in the last few decades, among numerous other examples.
 
The problem with doing Pres event in a hotel is that s inthat in addition to guns, guests could also check in with chemicals, explosive devices and tools etc. A paramilitary team could be very dangerous in such a setting.
 
Could've scripted your response before you gave it. The links I posted include articles from the centrist, if not conservative-leaning, Tax Foundation; the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations that publishes the centrist magazine Foreign Affairs; and David French, a conservative-leaning NYT columnist who also writes and does a podcast for The Dispatch. In any event, every article I posted there discusses numerous facts (with citations) that I knew you couldn't refute and would be too lazy to try. You take the easy road out of "leftist publications" every time instead of actually engaging with what's being posted. Because your fragile ego is so tied up in the notion that all criticism of the Trump admin must just be "TDS" that it won't even let you consider evidence to the contrary.
Two were listed as editorials. I can offer the same from sources you would discredit. If you want to cherry-pick facts from those and discuss, then by all means but im not reading all that just for you to say it incorporated some “facts” that I might not even dispute to begin with. If you want to have a discussion then calling people you are trying to discuss something with lazy doesn’t really advance that discussion.
 
The problem with doing Pres event in a hotel is that s inthat in addition to guns, guests could also check in with chemicals, explosive devices and tools etc. A paramilitary team could be very dangerous in such a setting.
Agree, if the WH had a ballroom then it could be hosted there and all would be safe.
 
Two were listed as editorials. I can offer the same from sources you would discredit. If you want to cherry-pick facts from those and discuss, then by all means but im not reading all that just for you to say it incorporated some “facts” that I might not even dispute to begin with. If you want to have a discussion then calling people you are trying to discuss something with lazy doesn’t really advance that discussion.
You immediately label everyone on this board as some version of crazy with TDS yet you blanche at being labeled lazy because you won't read cited publications?
 
Back
Top