08-11-2024, 05:28 PM
During one of Kamala Harris' campaign events, a group of individuals who reportedly were "dressed like Secret Service agents" took it upon themselves to break in to a closed, locked salon.
When they entered, they were under surveillance by the internal security monitoring cameras, albeit only long enough to see one of them stand on a chair and place tape over the camera lens. The store owner claims they were there for a few hours, specifically in the bathroom; after which they left the store unlocked, without uncovering the camera.
The store owner was apparently put off by the chain of events, and asked for an explanation... but until now ,it seems answers were not forthcoming. The story was picked up by media, and this story offers up sparse details, but includes something which I'm curious about.
From FOXNews: Secret Service hints it wasn’t behind salon break-in during Kamala Harris campaign event
I'm uncertain about the idea that the Secret Service has chosen to "hint" anything... politicians "hint," enforcement agencies deal in, and report, facts. But that aside, there is another small line that interests me...
"The U.S. Secret Service works closely with our partners in the business community to carry out our protective and investigative missions," USSS spokeswoman Melissa McKenzie said in a statement.
McKenzie said the Secret Service has been in contact with Powers since the July 27 incident.
"We hold these relationships in the highest regard and our personnel would not enter, or instruct our partners to enter, a business without the owner’s permission," McKenzie said, stopping short of saying who was responsible...
I couldn't help but wonder about "... or instruct our partners to enter a business without the owner's permission."
What "partners?" If it were local law enforcement there would be no reason to conceal, or otherwise withhold the actors.
Exactly how "loose" is the operation of the Secret Service now... do they even know what their "partners" are doing? What if this had been part of an illegal operation, an assassination plot, or a foreign operation? Just how 'casual' is the "contracting relationship" for "security" services,... casual enough that they are not really "secure" at all? In fact I fault the reporters for not asking "to whom they were referring," or how this represents effectively securing the VP's safety.
I include this within this forum because I am aware it cannot be considered "not political" given the time and place in which it is happening...
When they entered, they were under surveillance by the internal security monitoring cameras, albeit only long enough to see one of them stand on a chair and place tape over the camera lens. The store owner claims they were there for a few hours, specifically in the bathroom; after which they left the store unlocked, without uncovering the camera.
The store owner was apparently put off by the chain of events, and asked for an explanation... but until now ,it seems answers were not forthcoming. The story was picked up by media, and this story offers up sparse details, but includes something which I'm curious about.
From FOXNews: Secret Service hints it wasn’t behind salon break-in during Kamala Harris campaign event
I'm uncertain about the idea that the Secret Service has chosen to "hint" anything... politicians "hint," enforcement agencies deal in, and report, facts. But that aside, there is another small line that interests me...
"The U.S. Secret Service works closely with our partners in the business community to carry out our protective and investigative missions," USSS spokeswoman Melissa McKenzie said in a statement.
McKenzie said the Secret Service has been in contact with Powers since the July 27 incident.
"We hold these relationships in the highest regard and our personnel would not enter, or instruct our partners to enter, a business without the owner’s permission," McKenzie said, stopping short of saying who was responsible...
I couldn't help but wonder about "... or instruct our partners to enter a business without the owner's permission."
What "partners?" If it were local law enforcement there would be no reason to conceal, or otherwise withhold the actors.
Exactly how "loose" is the operation of the Secret Service now... do they even know what their "partners" are doing? What if this had been part of an illegal operation, an assassination plot, or a foreign operation? Just how 'casual' is the "contracting relationship" for "security" services,... casual enough that they are not really "secure" at all? In fact I fault the reporters for not asking "to whom they were referring," or how this represents effectively securing the VP's safety.
I include this within this forum because I am aware it cannot be considered "not political" given the time and place in which it is happening...
