Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Somewhere there's some written rules of engagement.
And somebody had to sign off on those rules of engagement.
That should be question 1 and 2 at any hearing on this.
#3 would be to look at the rules of engagement as it pertains to Trump and look to see whether those rules changed over time.
That they ostensibly watched the guy set up for 20-minutes while on the phone with DC is incredulous.
To me, this will be the key. What were the rules about engaging the shooter? Was there a standing rule that the snipers are allowed to shoot if they perceive a threat, but somebody was on the radio telling them to hold off from shooting in this case? Were the snipers forbidden from engaging a man on a roof with a rifle without clearance? If so, why was that clearance withheld? Was there some other reason they did not take him out before he shot?
By now it is abundantly clear from the reported facts that the shooter was identified early on as suspicious, that he was seen on the roof before Trump ever took the stage, and that he had been seen with a rangefinder. Why was Trump allowed to take the stage before he was secured, and why once Trump was on the stage and the rifle was seen, was he not neutralized? Thos are the questions I want the USSS and local PD members who were on site that day to answer under oath. Director Cheatle has already lied about the reasons for the sniper positioning, so I don't care to hear from her except about how the staffing decisions were made. I want to hear from the boots on the ground what happened and why.