what happened. will you commit to that? >> yes, sir. >> let me state it this way. multiple requests were made by trump's protected detail and trump's campaign team to the secret service for additional resources. i am told that those were denied. as i recall, the secret service spokesperson initially denied that such requests were made and denied. why not tell the truth from the outset? what were they trying to do there? >> senator, i don't think there was any intention to mislead. >> it seems like a pretty material fact. will you commit to me that you will submit to us in writing what requests were made by home and to whom and when they were denied? >> i will, sir. >> look, at the end of the day, we are looking at a situation in

which at a minimum, people knew that this guy had a gun at least 2 minutes before the shooting happened. i want to know what you can tell me about what happened during the final 2-minute period. a whole bunch of people saw in the crowd and shouting he's got a gun. perhaps at the beginning of it, the local police started to climb the rooftop where there was at least 30 seconds after which local police were able to personally observe the shooter with the gun and have the gun pointed at him. what happened during that time period? why wasn't president trump not removed from the stage at that moment? >> again, senator, the reason why president trump was not removed, again, we did not have anything more than locals working on an issue at 3:00. it wasn't determined whether or not it was the same individual. there was no report. >> the same individual is what?

>> the same suspicious individual. >> we have left a category of suspicious individual at that point. you've got a guy with a gun on a rooftop, 136 yards away from the stage. you know that he's got a gun at that point. what happened during that time period i did not result in president trump's protective detail being notified of that and him immediately being removed from the situation? >> senator, what i will say then i will turn it over to deputy director, no information regarding a weapon on the roof was ever passed to our pers personnel. >> how is that even possible? do you want to comment to that? >> senator, i believe that information -- this is probably something my colleague can expound on. information that was in law enforcement, local law enforcement channels but did not cross over and make it to secret service awareness.

>> senator, to clarify the timeline, the individual was first seen by law enforcement on the roof at 6:08. we are working to perfect the timeline based on the radio calms and all that. it wasn't until 6:11:03 the officer called out that he saw him. that was the first sighting where you saw the rifle on the roof. >> that was related to the secret service command center? >> my understanding was not related to them. it's more narrow time frame. half a minute between the time he is seen with their rifle and when the shots are fired. >> but there is still time at that point if there were an open channel of communication which they were able to tell him, he's got a gun. take him out. you can still take president trump off the stage or have him duck. you could have the shooter neutralized. do you not have a channel of

communication by which they can say "gonna, take him out?" >> again, senator, that information state and local channels and did not make it over. >> did they not consider that element? you are saying that the local police didn't consider that relevant enough to pass along to the secret service? >> i think they were in the midst of dealing with a very critical situation, and they articulated that over the radio as i understand it. however, it was never relayed over to us. >> thank you, mr. chairman. could you put your first demonstrative backup? let's make sure everybody can see it. this is the photograph i believe that you took, your team took on the roof, the agr roof. that is the one. from this vantage point as the

law enforcement who are in those windows as they looked left, they should be able to see the shooter on the agr second floor roof. why is there not a secret service counter sniper on the roof? >> senator, when we post, our methodology is to look at things that can see in on our protect. they can provide that coverage. >> why is there not a secret service counter sniper there was a clear line of sight? the roof has a clear line of sight to the former president. why don't you put a secret service counter sniper there? >> the role is to neutralize the threats that are looking in on us from where the protectee is. not necessarily -- >> you might want to revise that protocol in light of what happened here. >> they were protecting the principal. >> the principal got shot. do you think you might want to revise the protocol? who is the lead site agent who

made the decision to the agr building completely outside of the security that name. this person is operational and still doing investigations. >> they haven't been relieved of duty? i know their name by the way. why have they not been relieved of duty? >> they are still cooperating and not only being interviewed by the fbi but office of processional tell my professional responsibility. we let the facts of the mission assurance and any further investigations play out. >> is in the fact that the former president was shot that a good american is dead and other americans were wounded, isn't that enough mission failure to say that the person who decided that building should not be in the security perimeter ought to be stepped down? >> i think you're using the wear decided. i think we need to allow the investigation play out to include -- >> who made the decision if it

wasn't the lead site agent? >> you are zeroing in on one particular agent. i want to find out what was the entire decision process? i want to be neutral and make sure we get to the bottom of it and interview everybody in order to determine if there was more than one person perhaps exercise bad judgment. >> why don't you relieve everybody of duty who made bad judgment? i am in zeroing in on somebody. i'm trying to find someone who is accountable. you are telling me that the person who made the decision not to include this in the perimeter has not been relieved of duty. what about the person in charge of the interoperability of radio frequencies between local law enforcement and secret service? as that person been relieved of duty? >> no, senator. interoperability is a greater challenge than just one person. on that day, we had a counterpart system. it failed. >> the person who decided who made the decision to send donald trump on the stage

knowing that you had a security situation, has that person been relieved of duty? is the person who decided not to pull the former president off the stage when you knew that in your words the locals were working a security situation, has that person been relieved of duty? >> i refer you back to my original answer that we are investigating this through mission assurance and opposes zeroing in -- >> what more do you need to investigate and no that there were critical enough failure that some individuals ought to be held accountable? what more do you need to know? >> what i need to know is exactly what happened. i need my investigators to do their job. >> people didn't do their jobs. >> i cannot put my thumb on the scale. >> what you mean put your thumb on the scale? >> you are asking me to make a rush to judgment about somebody failing. i acknowledge this was a fai failure. >> somebody has failed. a former president was shot. >> this could have been our

texas school book depository. i have lost sleep over that for the last 17 days. >> fire somebody. >> i will tell you, senator, that i will not rush to judgment. people will be held accountable. i will do so with integrity. and not rush to judgment input people -- >> i can't believe -- you have people who are dead. >> we have to be able to have a proper investigation into this, senator. >> you said you've got to make sure that your protocols are followed. unless there is a protocol violation, people would be disciplined. i don't really care that much about your protocols i think of your protocols don't provide for the fact that when a former president is shot and when an american is killed, when other rally goers, innocent people who showed up on the day coming when they are shot at and critically wounded, if that isn't a protocol violation, you should revise your protocols. >> i think this is where you and i agree. this was a failure, and we will get to the bottom of it. >> i hope you will do something

about it. let me ask you something else. the real clear politics reports this morning that you were directly involved in denying additional security resources and personnel including counter sniper is not just to this event with over the last 2 years, president trump's team repeatedly asked for these additional resources, and you personally were involved in denying them. is that true? >> that is not true. >> you never denied any resources to former president trump's team? >> not me. >> you weren't involved in any of that of the decision-making? >> no, sir, i was not. >> a whistleblower tells me that in fact law enforcement were stationed to be on that roof. and law enforcement abandon their posts because it was too hot. is that accurate? >> senator, i have heard that as well. again, they posted up inside. i think moving forward as i said earlier, we are going to ensure

that state local and counter sniper is around groups. >> you know if someone was supposed to be on the roof? that is what the whistleblower tells me that may or may not be accurate. somebody posted to the roof? >> i do not know that to be a fact. >> can i ask you why you don't know that? >> again, senator, we are looking at this. they should have been on that roof. the fact that they were in the building is something that i'm still trying to understand. >> i want to express my frustration that 17 days or whatever it has been that whistle-blowers are telling us more than you are, and you don't know. you have and ascertain if there was supposed to be law enforcement on the roof. that seems like a pretty basic fact. i am also told that local law enforcement suppliers offered to secret service drones, and you declined them. is that true? >> senator, i have been very transparent and forthcoming. >> your agency has not been transparent and forthcoming. let's not go there.

>> i have been forthcoming. >> that remains to be seen. you've been on the job a few days in a fire nobody. the drones. >> there was an offer to fly a drone on that day. >> why did you deny it? >> again, i think the ability of local law enforcement to provide an asset we probably should have taken them up on it if it was offered. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for being here. i agree with what you said at the outset that the individual secret service agents demonstrated remarkable courage putting their bodies in between the line of sight of the shooter and the president. that being said, the bravery of the line agents is quite different than the decisions of secret service leadership. secret service leadership committed catastrophic security failures. indeed, there were security failures for the secret service

since 1981, since the attempted assassination of a president ronald reagan. it is incumbent upon this committee to determine why those security failures happened. just after the shooting, secret service put out an official statement from your spokesperson that says there is an untrue assertion that a member of the former president's team requested additional security resources and those were rebuffed. this is absolutely false. we had a protective resources and technology and capabilities as part of the increased campaign travel tempo. was this tweet accurate? >> with respect, it is accurate. >> it is accurate that the trump team had not asked for additional security and had not been rebuffed? >> if you are talking about butler, pennsylvania, all assets requested were approved. if you are asking about the media reporting of assets requested, there were times when

assets were unavailable and not able to be filled. those gaps were staffed with state and local law enforcement tactical assets. >> i am reading from "the washington post" july 20th, 2024. secret service said to have denied security for speech in events. u.s. secret service repeatedly denied requests for additional resources and personnel sought by donald trump security detail in the 2 years leading up to the tented assassination. according to 4 people familiar with the request, is that right that repeatedly and with a speech in detail asked for more resources and repeatedly secret service leadership turned that down? >> that is not accurate, senator. assets are requested. there is a process that is made. >> how many requests did this speech in team detail asked for? >> i can give you that number. >> you don't know now? >> i can speak of the ones

reported in "the washington post." >> you don't know how many requests that work? >> in general, how many requests since 2021 that the former trump detail? >> you had two weeks and a spokesperson put something out that is false on its face. did you approve this statement when it went out? >> i don't know if i did or didn't. >> is he still employed? >> he is still employed. >> he lied on behalf of the secret service. he still has a job. she approve the statement? >> hour, steam, they send out statements. they do put them out. >> did she approve this statement? >> i don't know if she did or did not. i don't recall approving it, senator. >> will you commit to provide this committee in writing every written request for additional resources from the trump campaign or the trump detail and

every response from secret service? >> i will commit to providing responses in getting you the information you are seeking. >> let me ask you something. who makes the decision to deny those requests? did you make that decision? any of them? >> the process is that a detail will make a request for staffing, technical assets that is handled. it just takes office. >> is there a decision-making? in may the person who is a decision-maker. >> it is a conversation. >> let me tell you what i believe. the secret service leadership made a political decision to deny these requests. i think the biden administration has been suffused with partisan politics. at the same person deny also

repeatedly deny the request for a security to robert f. kennedy jr. whose father was murdered by an assassin and whose uncle was murdered by an assassin? at the same person make that decision? >> secret service agents are not political. >> you know what? leadership ran by the president teleported by by the president is political. i have a simple question, yes or no. if the same person deny the trump request that also denied the rfk request? >> that is not a "yes" or "no" question. there's a process. >> does the buck stop anywhere? it is a bicameral, bipartisan process. you are not in congress. >> mr. kennedy submitted a request that was referred over to the cpac. >> you are refusing to answer the question.

the failures on that they were catastrophic. by the way, is it true that on the day of the butler event that secret service transferred agent for president trump to the first lady? >> no, sir, that is not true. >> that has been widely reported. >> there was one agent that went on the manpower to request. >> what was the relative size of the trump detail compared to the detail assigned to the president with the first lady? >> senator, the former president travels with a full shift just like the president. >> the exact same size? is that your testimony? president trump has the exact same size detail? >> the agent surrounding him is the same number of agents surrounding the president today. there's a difference between a sitting president who also not only -- >> you're using a president in a way that is not clear. is it your testimony that in butler, pennsylvania, donald trump had the same number of agents protecting him and

joe biden has at a comparable event? >> i am telling you this shift. >> that is yes or no appearance when i'm trying to answer it. do you want is it the same number of agents or not? >> there is a difference between a sitting president in the united states -- >> what is the difference? >> command authority to launch a nuclear strike. >> how many were agents? sorry, you are refusing to answer it. sorry, stop interrupting. stop interrupting me. you are refusing to answer clear and direct questions. i am asking the relative difference in the number of agents between those assigned to donald trump and those aside to joe biden. i'm not asking why you assigned more to joe biden. i'm asking is the difference to x or 3x or 5x or 10x? >> senator, i will get you that number so you can see it with your own eyes.

>> senator marshall, you are recognized for your questions. >> director rowe, they were probably ten buildings within sniper range, president trump on that afternoon. i was the building being used by the sniper are not in security zone? >> that is a question i have asked, senator. there was a decision that we were going to construct this site, and it was going to maintain within the butler farm site. that building, that agr was right on the outer perimeter. it is something that i again having been there and walked it, i had a hard time understanding. >> there is no protocol that says anything within 300 or 500 euros with direct line of the president should be in or out of the security zone? is not a protocol that describes that. >> we try to control the high ground or mitigate line of sight concerns. >> you have stated that on

multiple occasions, president trump's team is denied more of the detail, more assets. who denies that? who is the person that denies that generally speaking? >> there is a process, again, there conversation -- to be got to be someone. who is the person? is it a level within the d.c. agency or pittsburgh office? >> it has nothing to do with the pittsburgh office. it's a conversation between not only the detail, the field office. >> i don't want to know the conversation. i want to know who makes the decision. >> the decision is our process between the officer of protective operations and investigations. >> is there a title for this position? >> it is that "war room" where our logistics files into. >> it is a room that makes the decision? >> it is a staffing and assignments officer. >> a briefing with all enti

entities -- leading up to the event in the day of the event? >> we do a police meeting, sir. >> is it required? is a part of your standard operating procedure? >> the police meeting is what initiates the advance. that is what is required. >> was this meeting held on that day? >> the police meeting took place in the days prior to that. >> do you have documents that meeting actually happened to mark >> and we do, i will get them to you. >> you are saying it did not happen on the day of the event. >> i think what you are referring to is a briefing at the state locals would have done with themselves. we did a briefing with their own folks. >> did your people meet with local law enforcement the day of the assassination attempt? >> yes. >> you realize that the local

law enforcement says no to that meeting never happen. that is why we need to get these people into talk to us. that is why the fbi needs to be speaking up sooner than later to say that meeting did or didn't happen. surely there is some type of documentation of that meeting one way or the other. is there documentation of that meeting? >> i can tell you what you are referring to is that counter sniper team. two butler esu. our personnel met with the team lead from butler esu. they discussed areas of concern, areas of responsibility. that did in fact happen at the site on that day. >> director, i think you would agree with me that there were multiple individual and institutional failures the day of this assassination attempt. you have a $3 million budget. you're still 2,000 employees short. in 2022, the secret service had a 48% departure rate.

it tells me you either have a cultural problem or just gross incompetence. which one is it? >> i would challenge that 48% departure rate. let me get you some statistics that we have. it is not 48%. >> go back to the multiple failures that we saw on an individual basis as well as systemic bear that proves there's incompetence or some type of a cultural problem within the ss. >> i know you are not calling our workforce and confident. i know we do not have a cultural problem. we are dedicated to making sure that we don't have mission failure. let me get you the hiring numbers that we have. i think you will actually see we've actually done very well, fairly recently with trying to make sure that we have the numbers that we need. of course we need more people. everybody does. and me get you those numbers and that your own eyes. >> would you disagree with me when it's reported that 50% of

the rank and file officers don't trust leadership within the secret service? >> senator, i think it is the right of every worker to talk bad about their boss. >> thank you, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. gretchen. clearly there is a lot that the secret service has to answer for in this stunning security failure. i do want to follow up on the testimony. an online profile of the shooter may have been found. you said it contains anti-semitic and anti-immigrant postings. can you elaborate? have you found anything further in this shooter's profile? >> senator, this was discovered as i mentioned it being closely analyzed right now. we need to verify that it is in fact belongs to the now deceased

shooter and that he made these comments. i felt it important in the interest of transparency to share that here. add the caveat that we have a lot of work to do which we are working on quickly determine that. it is important. if it is in fact this shooter that posted these comments, it is the first real indication where he is expressing what is described as extremist views and talking about political vio violence. >> i take it then once you determine that it was a fact at this shooter who posted these kinds of comments that you will let the public know as well as this committee. >> absolutely. >> many of the perpetrators of mass shootings have these kinds of postings online that are very anti-immigrant, anti-semitic, anti-everything. it is really important as we determine the kind of profile for many of these shooters that

we understand how critical it is that we are careful how critically important it is that people are careful about what they are posting online, misinformation and disinformation and everything else along those lines. what kind of weapon was used in the assassination attempt? >> this was an ar-15 style rifle manufactured by a company named panther arms. >> once again, many of the persons involved in these kinds of mass shootings use this particular kind of weapon. we know from similar hearings that the judiciary committee has had that we are a nation -- in your views, should we be doing more to prevent the easy accessibility of these kinds of firearms in our country?

>> senator, we are focused on collecting the facts. i'm not going to comment on something like that. >> i know that there is a hesitancy to ask about firearms and all of that. i think as a law enforcement person that you probably have some opinions along those lines. but you don't want to articulate to what many people in our country, there is a causal factor here. the easy accessibility of guns. i want to ask that question. i think it is important that the american people understand that we are a nation that has more mass shootings than any other country. we are unable -- we have been unable to pass the kind of laws that prevent these kinds of firearms to be easily available that we have not done enough to promote gun safety in our country. mr. chairman and i wanted to

articulate that as the elephant in the room that nobody wants to address including apparently our law enforcement officers, i have disappointed in that. obviously, we have work to do to create a much safer environment and to prevent persons who have these kind of ideological perspectives. and who have these kinds of profiles, to have such easy accessibility to the kind of firearms that can cause math tests and distraction. >> chairman, thank you. thank you for your testimony today. director rowe, future vice president j.d. vance was in my state this past week in oklahoma city. i talked with some of the secret service folks there who did a terrific job. i got a chance to thank them personally. they are very dedicated and

incredibly sharp people on that team. i know this is a challenge to all secret service. this is something every secret service agent wakes up every day to avoid. please pass on their gratitude for the work they do every single day and what is happening out there. i want to ask you about some of the interviews that have happened. you have done more than 400 interviews. for the counter sniper team that was local law enforcement that was on the second floor overlooking that roof top, have they been interviewed at this point? >> yes, each of them have been interviewed. >> do you know if they were at their post at that time able to look across that and at that posted sometimes, do we know they were at that post that 6:08-11? >> i have not read the reports directly. i have been briefed on some of it. they were at times during that time frame we are talking about here on post within the agr building.

i do believe i would want to confirm this at some point. one or more did venture out in an effort to locate and isolate. >> they were also looking for this individual that was suspicious that they had left that post to be able to look for him on the ground to be able to see if they could get a different perspective. during that time, climbed on the roof, assembled a firearm are picked one up, whatever might have been there. able to see him if they were able to look left as been acknowledged in the photos that are out there. >> i don't know the exact timing and the movements of each of us there. when i went derived as they focused on locating this shooter. shooter. the suspicious person at that time. as we have all seen, one officer attempted to get on the roof directly. they were efforts going on in the final minutes on the video to try to get to this. >> we have one officer being boosted because people on the grounds that there is someone up there and they have a gun that

is crawling on the roof. they climbed up to be able to see it. he came down and at that point, he gets on a local radio that he hasn't says there's someone on the roof with a gun. is that correct? what is the rest of the radiocommunication. we heard that first call then. it's about 30 seconds from that time he called into the actual first shot rang out. what else was discussed on the radio during that time period? >> we have the radio communications. we have the local radio communications recorded and captured. we have that as part as the investigation. the key points to me that local officer communicating that he sees the individuals. that is that 6:11 and seven seconds. i think it is three seconds. he identifies as a long gun. the shots which all happens quickly together, i believe happened with and probably 30 seconds.

>> over the radio. there is a command center there heard all radios including the local are all being listened to to try to be able to review. there is a statement that has the word "gun" in the eighth. we only know that first communication. we don't know what came back and forth. we would like to get transcripts of that conversation. coming into that command center, there's also the word "gun" coming through all one of the radio frequencies. i would be communicated. 30 seconds is not long but that's an nfl player plus a huddle plus the next play. that's quite a bit of time to be able to respond when secret service moved to be able to protect the president. within 2 seconds, they are gathered around him. trying to be able to figure out where the word "gun" got lost in radiocommunication and what else was said. >> certainly, we will share the communications with you.

i will note, there was effort within the minutes and seconds, once the gun was announced, there's other communications where the local police are talking about deploying a qr fn responding that they've got the building surrounded. i don't want to give you -- >> i would assume if they hear the word "gun," they are moving to protect the protectee. they are moving pretty quickly at that point if that is what is actually coming out. i'm trying to figure out how they didn't get communicated out to the people that were directly in front of the former president at that point. the last question i would have is, was there any overhead dr drone? any visibility that secret service had to be able to see the field and all the operation in their own ability. >> no, sir. as was asked by another senator, it appears that there was an

offer by a state or local agency to fly a drone in our behalf. i'm getting to the bottom as to why we turned that down. >> you are recognized for your questions. >> thank you f mr. chairman. >> senator, thank you. >> you are the deputy director of the fbi. is that correct? >> yes, senator. >> is there any doubt in your mind or in the collective mind of the fbi that president trump was shot in the ear by a bullet fired by the assassin crooks? >> senator, there is absolutely no doubt in the fbi's mind, former president trump was hit with a bullet and wounded in the ear. no doubt in there never has

been. i've been part of this investigation since the very beginning. that has never been raised. >> you are sure? it wasn't a space laser? >> no. >> it wasn't a murder hornet? >> absolutely not. >> it wasn't sasquatch. >> no, senator. it was a bullet, senator. >> fired by crooks that had president trump in the air and almost killed him? >> 100% senator. >> i am glad we cleared that up. the fbi just settled 2 lawsuits. one in hole in one and part in which the fbi agreed to give peter strzok $1.2 million in lisa page $800,000. >> it is my understanding that the department of justice was involved in that and not the f fbi. >> the fbi had nothing to do

with it? >> they may have been in consultation our general counsel's office. >> did the fbi have to sign off on that? >> i don't believe so, but i would like to confirm that. >> this would be the same lisa page who said, "trump is not ever going to become president, right, right?" he said, no, no, he won't. we will stop it." that is peter strzok and lisa page that i am talking about. i need to know if the fbi signed off on this lawsuit. and then i need to know who signed off on it. did you sign off on it? >> i absolutely did not and would never -- >> de christopher wray sign off on it? >> i don't believe that he did. nor do i think he would have. >> you need to let me know who

signed off on this if anyone at the fbi. it was merrick garland who agreed to do this? >> i do not know. >> someone had to agree to it. a client has to agree to it. you are the client. >> understood. i'm going to direct him to the department of justice. >> get me that information if you would. mr. rowe, help me understand this. the assassin crooks fired his first shot. as i understand it at 6:12:00 p.m. he was about 140 -- 150 yards away. it has been reported that the snipers, the government snipers saw him on the roof 20 minutes before.

not 2 minutes, 20 minutes before. is that correct? >> senator, that is the first time i am hearing this. that is not correct based on the information that i have right now. >> when did the fbi snipers see him on the roof? >> secret service snipers, sir. >> i am sorry. i understand, i apologize. when did this secret service snipers ultimately one who shot the assassin crooks see him on that roof? >> immediately upon the shots being fired, our snipers -- >> i know that. when do they first see him? you've got a guy lying on the roof. you have snipers in an elevated position. they can look down on the roof. you have the guy lying there with a gun pointing out the former president of the united states.

they shot him. good for them. he is now as dead as woodrow wilson. that is a good thing. i am sorry. god forgive me. it is a good thing. but when did this snipers first see him? >> as soon as he presented himself as a target and the threat to the president. >> then was that? >> he fires initially a volley, i believe it was 3 shots. >> he fired at 6:12:00 p.m. >> within 15.5 seconds of the shot. >> here is what people are asking. crooks was up there. the sniper at some point saw him. our snipers, because they killed him. when did they first see him? it has been reported repeatedly that the snipers first saw him

20 minutes before. that is more than a quarter in an nfl football game. you don't know the answer? >> i do know the answer. >> what is the answer? >> they never saw him. >> how could they not saw the guy? how could they not see him? they are in an elevated pos position. they are checking roof tops. they are looking around. there's 2 government snipers. how could they not see him? there he was as big as dallas lying there with a gun pointed at the president. how could they not see him? >> i believe he was obscured by that roof. >> on the is flat with ridges. >> he is below the line where they would have seen him. he did have concealment. i'm not can i say its cover. he did have concealment. he ultimately gets into firing position and fires. within 15.5 seconds of his first shot, he is neutralized.

>> you gentlemen need to answer these questions. mr. deputy director, get me then information about those law lawsuits. >> thank you for holding this important hearing on the attempted assassination of former president trump. i am grateful for everyone's service and dedication. it is critical that this committee get to the bottom of what happened that day so that we can prevent any future catastrophic security failures and ensure that nothing like this happens again. director rowe, given that the event took place in a rural area, we've talked a lot about connectivity issues. was law enforcement in a disadvantage due to a lack of or limited conductivity? why is this secret service not adopted a dedicated satellite enabled wi-fi connection which would facilitate integrated communication and enable device

connectivity to include drones and allow for the sharing of real-time intelligence? >> thank you for that question. based on what i have seen, radio connectivity, cellular was an issue that day. with respect to the satellite broadband, that is something i have tasked our cio and getting support from the department of homeland security. we will start to leverage whatever i said we have to ensure that connectivity. >> we have the ratings at homeland security and special event ratings that we have for things like the super bowl. we have it a lot in las vegas. they do bring these mobile units to be sure that we have all the dedicated wi-fi self-service and integration that is absolutely necessary for securing a huge event. i look forward to hearing about that. thank you. i want to talk a little bit about intelligence for a lone wolf actors. although we have not been made

aware of any specific intelligence, this secret service over others that shooter had before the event, we know that we have intel on iranian threats against the former president. acting director rowe, can you talk about how you utilize intelligence correction as a way of mitigating threats from state actors like iran compared to what you do -- compared to lone wolf actors. it seems to be like the attempted assassin that we have here with crooks. one of the specific challenges that the intelligence collected -- against lone wolf actors versus state actors. >> first let me preface by saying this secret service is not a member of the intelligence community. however, we are their biggest consumers of information. we receive that information regularly especially as it pertains to our protected mission and the people that we protect. we have in beds with the fbi through their national joint

terrorism task forces. our agents are basically able to not only receive information about also follow up on investigations that may have a nexus or direction of interest toward one of our proctectees. we have an excellent working relationship with the fbi. we have an excellent working relationship with the intelligence community. we are not collectors. we are consumers of finished analytic products at the intelligence community and fbi produces. we ingest them and use that to adjust our protective posture. we do this daily, weekly, all that time. it is not only for protective proctectees about the events and sites that we protect on a permanent or temporary basis. with respect to largely a lot of people that that come to our attention, and in the case of

the assailant, you know, to me as i overlay him over the top of john hinckley who tried to shoot president reagan, i see an individual based on information that i have now. some of the great work that the fbi has done. we have an individual who was a loner. we have an individual who is focused on donald trump and joe biden. hinckley traveled the campaign. we know that he followed president carter. on march of '81, he happened to show up in washington, d.c., and he saw an opportunity to try to attack president reagan. when it comes to this secret service, it was a watershed moment for us. we have people that are for whatever reason are fixated on carrying out an attack on the president of the united states or one of our proctectees. in this instance, you have the assailant who was a loner.

he was researching. he had researched the democratic national convention. he had researched and googled her use a search engine about the president, the former president. i think he had moved towards an idea that he was going to try to do something. when i look at this, we don't have a challenge with the fbi or the intelligence community. i think what we always tried to wrestle with is trying to line up and see people as they are starting to head down a pathway towards violence. it is something that we have spent a lot of time and resources with to try to gain a better understanding so that we can help our agents on the field as they are doing these protective intelligence cases and investigations to be able to make a determination. in some at a generally a threat or do they need mental health or some other type of service? >> thank you, i appreciate that. my time is over.

>> senator cotton, you are recognized for your questions. >> i want to express the admiration and bravery and skill for the officers on site that day. as well as all the local law enforcement. my 9-year-old son was watching with me that afternoon. it's hard to get him to turn away from it. he asked to them men and women where that jumped on mr. trump. those are his bodyguards. what are they doing? they are protecting him from a bullet. actually? for real? i said yes. he felt like it was hard for him to process that. there are men and women in this secret service and law enforcement in the military who are willing to die for our country. it is an important lesson that everyone should take away from this. you had a very brave men and women on the ground who are doing their job to protect this country to protective former president as they do every day

for so many other proctectees. obviously, there were failures in the planning and preparation for this event. we have heard that this shooter had a golf range finder. is that not on the list of prohibited items at an event like this? >> currently it is not on the list of prohibited items. we are going to make that change, senator. >> john kennedy can't get into an lsu football game with a flask. he probably can, but he's not supposed to. it seems like common sense that you don't need a laser range finder at an event like this. it feels like a lot of that was a lack of common sense being exercised. our ofered on the front lines to use common sense to say if a guy has a laser range finder, he should be detained or at least stopped and asked why he is carrying it around. if you have a building that's not secured from 150 meters away, the frontline lowest level

most junior officers should be able to send out the red flag immediately and say we need to halt everything right now and figure out what the hell is going on. two officers -- speak i would hope they will. from a uniform division officers that run our screening, they do a tremendous job. even though something may or may not be on the prohibited items list, they are well trained. they do exercise that good. >> i want message. i want everyone of your officers all around the country to hear that they are acting director wants them to exercise common sense. it doesn't have to be policy or protocol or procedure. they should exercise common sense. thank you for that. it was reported right before the hearing last week that in fact president trump's detail had requested more resources and those had been denied. she said that she did not deny those resources. you have testified that you did not either. who did?

this secret service is not the post offices. it is not a vast bureaucracy. it is a small agency and you have a lot of officers. surely you've got to be at the bottom right now on who's desk this request landed. >> sometimes when they make a request, they may not have the asset available. instead of the detail may say, we want 15 magnetometers. we will look at it based on what the event size -- listen, we are going to send ten based on our protocols of screening so many. we have a flow rate of how many people we can put through. when it comes to a counter sniper or something like that, that has been the subject of some media reporting where they have requested counter snipers. we do have a finite number of counter snipers. when we try to do if we cannot

fill that asset, we will say, we can't fill this assignment. through the field office, they will use local law enforcement resources. in those situations, for example, and the one that has been the subject of a lot of reporting with south carolina, they infected use local assets to do that. they were three counter sniper teams. one of them was formerly with the secret service uniformed division. they actually use the same practices that were used. it's not that there was a drop in the capability. they use the best practices that we would use. the asset may be denied by secret service between the war room in that conversation with the detail in the field. it doesn't equate to a vulnerability. >> as you know, iran made credible threats against firmer

dolomite former speech and administration officials. ms. cheatle remove secret service protection from robert o'brien last year. were you involved in that decision? >> senator, he was a memorandum protectee. the president authorize protection for him. we do not weigh in on who gives protection. >> you are still protecting some others. i won't reveal their names. other personal security offices and the federal government are protecting other officials. i won't reveal their names. who made the decision that robert o'brien no longer made a security detail despite iran's ongoing credible threats? >> it wasn't the secret service. we don't factor into the decision. >> can you take a look at why that happened now that you are in charge and consider the possibility that he might need

that protection? >> i will do so, senator. >> i want to reveal the protective details. i am pretty confident that the agency can get this done. i think it needs to get done if you look at the kind of ongoing threats that he had all these others face. despite all the resource constraint we've talked about tthe day, is not the president f the united states. he doesn't have an 18 car motorcade. i think he needs that protective detail. i'm asking you to take a new look at that and talk to your supervisors inside the department about whether you can spare just that small limited amount of resources. >> thank you very much. first of all, thank you both for other tremendous work that you do and for all the folks behind you. thank you for that. i kind of want to follow up a little bit on senator cotton.

there is issues that have been raised. one is a selection of who gets protection. you have addressed that just now. the other is whether it is a budget issue -- which i don't necessarily think that it is. then there's the operational question. where is this an operational failure? it appears to me that is where the focus should be. one of the issues on the operations is the capacity of people who are part of the team, both secret service and also the local law enforcement. their capacity to act on what they see. this is what senator cotton was talking about with common sense. you mentioned that the sniper was authorized immediately to ask. he wasn't checking in with anyone. he took out the shooter as quickly as he could. according to that timeline, you

had local law enforcement captured two photographs of the shooter. at 5:to intranet 5:32, local law enforcement officers spotted a suspicious person who turned out to be a shooter. at 5:46, the alert was so significant that snipers text photo of that shooter graham where he was initially spotted to the usss lead sniper. how is it that where you had the experience law enforcement people who understood the gravity of the responsibility of protecting the presidential candidate, the former president, none of these actionable observations resulted in action? i will direct at first to you. >> thank you, senator. from the fbi standpoint, we are simply collecting the facts.

they are interviewing most of the officers and end up interviewing all of them. >> acting director rowe. >> on that, i think there was a sense of this guy is standing out. that is why he came to the attention of local law enforcement. >> i get that. that is my point. he did stand out but nothing happened. there were alerts. you have got somebody suspicious. why didn't somebody go interact with a suspicious person right away? >> they were attempting to locate him. i can't answer that question as to why. if they took a picture of him and thought he was unusual, suspicious, not acting normal, why there wasn't -- i think there was probably an assumption on the part of that officer that took that picture. some you know former and somebody go eventually and woke up.

>> that is what seems like an operational failure. somebody else will do it. it is the responsibility of an officer to alert some other officer that they think somebody might be suspicious, or the first officer who sees a suspicious person can take the next step to actually engage that person or talk to someone very, very close to it and say, engage that person. this guy was wandering around for quite a while. >> i can't put myself in the mind of that event officer. >> this is operationally, how does the process work? that is the job of the leaders as opposed to the officers. are they empowered to act immediately upon the observation of someone who looks very suspicious, particularly when they got the range finder in in a place where it really wasn't about seeing the rally.

as we see, it was a place where we get a good view of former president trump. that is a leadership issue. >> that officer didn't work for me. that was a state and local officer that made that observation it took that pic picture. i can tell you from the secret service perspective -- we do this routinely. when people come to our attention, we locate them into a field interview >> that is the operational thing i am talking about. if you do it within secret service, you all are in charge. you are relying on local law enforcement assets. they did their job up to a point where they identified this person passed information along but nobody acted. the empowerment to that local officer, i would think has to come to be to the secret service in the earlier briefings.

you say folks, you see somebody suspicious, you engaged in a person. >> i don't disagree. it goes back to my comments that we need to be a very direct to our local law enforcement counterparts that they understand exactly what their expectation is. >> i yield back. >> you are recognized for your questions. >> thank you for being here. do you have a picture? i was watching your testimony. you have a photograph of the vantage point, secret service snipers? >> i do. >> there were 2. is that correct? >> yes, sir, stage left and stage right. >> i know you had one for the one that ultimately shot. >> that is the vantage point of the sniper who neutralize the assailant. >> where they have also been impaired in term