What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle has resigned.

[Valmy]

Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle has resigned.

Justified? Or scapegoat?

Either way I guess it makes sense for the director to resign after a huge failure.

[Admiral Yi]

Justified? Or scapegoat?

Either way I guess it makes sense for the director to resign after a huge failure.

I think you could make the case for both.

As Director she didn't have tactical control.  As Director she was responsible for the play book that guided tactical decisions.

[Sheilbh]

Justified? Or scapegoat?

Either way I guess it makes sense for the director to resign after a huge failure.

I think absolutely justified. From that BBC interview and what I've read since - eg on deploying the police - it was a very serious failure. I think it's right she takes responsibility for her agency.

[crazy canuck]

Justified? Or scapegoat?

Either way I guess it makes sense for the director to resign after a huge failure.

I think absolutely justified. From that BBC interview and what I've read since - eg on deploying the police - it was a very serious failure. I think it's right she takes responsibility for her agency.

I think "justified" is the wrong standard in the sense that it is not necessary to prove she was directly at fault.  A significant failure occurred under her leadership.  That is enough to step down.

[Sheilbh]

Fair point - yeah I think it's the correct decision to step down in this situation. And I don't think that's scapegoating, I think it's someone taking responsibility for the agency they run which is a good thing.

[Admiral Yi]

We had a similar discussion over Rumsfeld and GWII. 

My position has not changed.  In a parliamentary system cabinet members essentially run their departments as fiefdoms.  They set policy.  Churchill invaded the Dardanelles on his own.  If it had succeeded he would have gotten the political credit so it's right he takes the fall.  In an executive system only one person sets policy.

[Jacob]

I haven't followed it closely - was the shooting possible due to a failure of policy, or due to a failure of execution?

[Sheilbh]

I'm not sure.

From an NYT story today according to local law enforcement, the Secret Service expected a lot of local law enforcement to handle any threats outside the Secret Service "secure zone", but then assigned almost all of those officers to work inside it. Reportedly the shooter was basically walking around outside the perimeter and the only police who got close to him were ones who left the area they'd been assigned to.

Plus there was the interview with the BBC reporter of an eyewitness who was sat outside the rally venue and said his group saw the man with a gun crawling on the roof and were waving and trying to shout down Secret Service and local police pointing at him.

So it definitely sounds like a serious failure. I'm not sure if that's just they operationally fucked up, or their strategic approach is wrong (it seems mad to pull on lots of local law enforcement resource only to deploy them in the bit you're securing?) - but I know nothing of what is the right approach.

[DGuller]

In general I'm not a fan of getting rid on the person on top because "they're responsible".  Sometimes shit just happens in life, but shit happens is the bad luck part.  Getting rid of a person who may actually be good at their job for being unlucky would be the "make even more shit happen, but this time intentionally" part.  That said, shit tends to happen more often in organizations that are poorly run or have poor culture, and if that is the case, then change of leadership is warranted.

[Admiral Yi]

As I said before, not putting a man on that rooftop looks like total failure.  If it turns out policy says men on rooftops with line of fire out to 500 feet and the head of the detail didn't do it, that's a failure of the detail leader.  If policy says only rooftops out to 250 feet, that's a failure of policy.  If the leader told local police to put a man on that roof and they didn't, then you can blame either one, probably on partisan lines.

[The Minsky Moment]

If it turns out policy says men on rooftops with line of fire out to 500 feet and the head of the detail didn't do it, that's a failure of the detail leader.

But who hires, assigns, and supervises the detail leader?  the buck does stop at the top.

 

If the leader told local police to put a man on that roof and they didn't, then you can blame either one, probably on partisan lines.

You blame both. Cops for not following orders, SS for not verifying. The potential that local PD does not properly follow direction has to be considered a material non-zero probability. 

[grumbler]

Churchill invaded the Dardanelles on his own.

OT, but  Churchill supported the invasion, but it had been on the table in the British government even before the OE entered the war.  His mistake was grossly overestimating the chances of success for the naval operation to force the straits.

[grumbler]

You blame both. Cops for not following orders, SS for not verifying. The potential that local PD does not properly follow direction has to be considered a material non-zero probability.

This.  The SS appears to have gotten complacent and didn't respond to changes in the situation.

[Josquius]

I do hope out of this the SS gets reformed including receiving a new name which is
1:more accurate to their job.
2:doesn't involve talking about The SS. It's too SSy

(https://youtu.be/anjbOuMiGXY?si=B33Vu-P5u94I-G9K)