multiple requests were made by trump's protective detail and by trump's campaign team to the secret service for additional resources. i'm told those were denied. 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? >> i don't think there was any intention to mislead. >> seemed like a material fact. >> i saw that report. >> will you commit you will submit to us in writing what requests were made by whom and to whom and when they were denied? >> i will, sir. >> 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 two

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

point. you have a guy with a gun on a rooftop. you know he has a gun at that point. what happened during that time period that did not result in president trump, his protective detail notified and him immediately removed from the situation? >> senator, what i will say and then i will turn it over to the deputy director, no information regarding a weapon on the roof was ever passed to our personnel. >> how is that possible? you want to comment to that? >> senator, again, 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. >> to clarify the time line, the individual was first seen by law enforcement on the roof at 6:08.

we are still working to perfect the time line based on the radios and all that. it wasn't until at 6:11:03 the officer saw him and called out, he is armed. that's the first sighting where he had the rifle on the roof. >> that was relayed to the secret service command center? >> no, it was not relayed to them. it's a narrower time frame. maybe up to half a minute between the time he is seen with the rifle and when the shots are fired. >> there's still time. at that point if there were an open channel of communication in which they were able to tell him, he has got a gun, take him out, you could still take president trump off the stage, you could have him duck, you could have the shooter neutralized. do you not have a channel of communication by which they can say, gun, take him out? >> again, senator, that

information stayed in state and local channels and did not make it over to secret service. >> did they not consider that relevant? you are saying the local police didn't consider that relevant enough to pass along to the secret service? >> i think that they were in the midst of dealing with a very critical situation. they articulated that over the radio, as i understand it. however, it was never relayed over to us. >> thank you, senator lee. senator hawley. >> thank you. director, can you put your first poster back up? >> please put a up. >> make sure everybody can see it. this is the photograph, i believe, you took -- your team took of the roof, the agr roof. that's the one. from this vantage point as the law enforcement who are in those windows, as they look left, they should be able to see the

shooter clearly there. my question is, why is there not a secret service countersniper on the roof? >> when we post up, our methodology is to look at things that can see in on our protectees so that they can provide that coverage. >> why is there not a secret service countersniper there with clear line of sight? it has a clear line of sight to the former president. >> the secret service counselor counselor -- countersniper role is to neutralize those looking in on us. >> you might want to revise that protocol in light of what happened here. you think you might want to revise the protocol? who was the lead sight agent who made the decision to leave the agr building completely outside of the security perimeter?

who was that? >> i cannot give you that name. this person is operational. they are still doing investigations, protective visits. >> how about being relieved of duty? >> senator, they have not -- >> i know their name. why are they not relieved of duty. >> they are cooperating. being interviewed. we will let the facts of the mission assurance and any further investigations play out. >> isn't the fact that a former president was shot, that a good american is dead, other americans were critically wounded, isn't that enough mission failure to say the person that decided that building shouldn't be in the security perimeter should be stepped down? >> you are using the word decided and we need to allow the investigation play out to include -- >> who did make the decision? if it wasn't the lead sight agent, who made the decision? >> you are zeroing in on one particular agent.

i want to find out exactly what was the entire decision process. i think i want to be neutral and make sure that we get to the bottom of it and interview everybody in order to determine if there was more than one person who exercised bad judgment. >> why don't you relieve everybody of duty who made bad judgment? i'm zeroing in on somebody. i'm trying to find somebody who is accountable. you are telling me 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 radiofrequencies between local law enforcement and secret service? >> no. it's a challenge -- is a greater challenge than just one person. on that day, we had a counterpart system. it failed spectacularly. >> the person who made the decision to send donald trump on the stage, has that person been relieved of duty. >> no, sir. >> has the person who decided

not to pull the former president off the stage when you knew the locals were working a serious security situation, has that person been relieved of duty. >> no, sir. i refer you back to my answer that we are investigating this through a mission assurance. as opposed to zeroing in on one -- >> what more do you need to know -- what more do you need to investigate to know that there were critical enough failures-- >> i need to know what happened and i need my investigators to do their job. i can't -- >> a lot of people did not do their job. >> i cannot put my thumb on the scale. >> what do you mean? >> you are asking me to make a rush to judgment about somebody failing. i acknowledge, this was a failure -- >> is it not prima facie that somebody failed? >> this could have been a texas

schoolbook depository -- >> fire somebody. >> i will not rush to judgment. i will do so with integrity and not rush to judgment and put people unfairly persecuted. >> unfairly persecuted? we have people who are dead. >> we have to have a proper investigation into this, senator. >> you said earlier that you have to make sure your protocols are followed. unless there's a protocol violation, people wouldn't be disciplined. i would say, i don't care about your protocols. i think if your protocols don't provide for the fact that when a former president is shot, when an american is killed, when other rally -- innocent people who showed up, when they are shot at and critically wounded, if that isn't a -- >> this is where you and i agree. this was a failure. we will get to the bottom of it. >> i hope you will do something about it. let me ask you something else.

you were directly involved in denying additional security resources and personnel, including countersnipers over the last two years that president trump's team repeatedly asked for. you personally were involved in denying them. is that true? >> as i stated earlier, that's not true. >> you never denied resources to former president trump's team? >> not me. not personally. >> you weren't involved in that? >> no, sir. >> you were never involved in the decision making? >> no, sir, i was not. >> let me ask you one or two other things quickly. whistle-blowers tell me that law enforcement were stationed to be on that roof and that law enforcement abandoned it because it was too hot. is that accurate? >> i have heard that as well. they posted up inside. i think moving forward as i said earlier, we will ensure they are on roofs. >> do you know if someone was supposed to be on the roof? do you know if -- that's what

the whistle-blower tells me. do you know that to be the fact? was something 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 i'm trying to understand. >> i want to express my frustration, director, that 17 days or whatever it has been that you -- whistle-blowers are telling us more than you are. you haven't ascertained if there were supposed to be law enforcement on the roof. that seems like a basic fact. i'm told that local law enforcement suppliers offered the secret service drones and you declined them. is that true? >> senator, one, i've been transparent and forthcoming. >> your agency has not been transparent and forthcoming. please, let's not go there. >> i have been forthcoming. >> that remains to be seen. you have been on job a few days.

you fired nobody. the drones -- were you offered drones? >> not on that day. i think the ability of local law enforcement to provide an asset, we probably should have taken them up on it. >> senator cruz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. i agree with what you said, that the individual -- secret service personnel demonstrated remarkable bravery. that being said, it's different from the decision of leadership. secret service leadership committed catastrophic security failures. the worst security failures for the secret service since 1981, since the attempted assassination of president ronald reagan.

it's 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's an untrue assertion that a member of the former president's team requested additional security resources and those were rebuffed. this is false. we added as part of the increased campaign travel tempo. was this tweet accurate? >> with respect to butler, pennsylvania, it's accurate, sir. >> it's 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 talking about the media reporting of assets requested, there are times when assets were unavailable and not able to be filled.

those gaps were staffed with state and local law enforcement tactical assets. >> i'm reading from "the washington post" july 20, 2024, secret service said to have denied request for more security at trump events, opening paragraph. top officials denied requests for resources and personnel sought by donald trump's security detail in the two years leading up to his attempted assassination. according to four people familiar with the request. is that right, that repeatedly the trump detail asked for more resources and repeatedly secret service leadership turned that down? >> that is not accurate, senator. assets are requested. there's a process that's made. >> how many requests did the trump team or the detail ask for? >> i can get you that number. >> you don't know now? >> i can speak to the ones that were reported in "the washington post." we can go through them. >> you don't know how many requests there were? >> in general, how many requests

since 2021 that the former trump detail made a request for assets? >> you have had two weeks. you had a spokesperson put something out false. did you approve this when it went out? >> i don't know if i did or didn't. >> has this spokesperson -- is he still employed? your predecessor, did she approve this statement? >> senator, our team -- they send out statements. they do put them out. >> did she approve this statement? >> i don't know if she did or did not. >> you don't know if you did? >> i don't recall approving it. >> 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? >> senator, i will commit to providing responses and getting you the information that you are seeking.

>> let me ask you something. who makes the decision to deny those requests? >> which requested? the ones in "the washington post"? >> the process is that a detail will make a request for staffing, technical assets, that is handled between the field office and the detail. it goes up to a logistics office between our -- >> there's a bureaucracy. is there a decision maker? >> it's a process. >> is there one? >> senator, it's a conversation. it's not just an absolute -- >> let me tell you what i believe. i believe that the secret service leadership made a political decision to deny these requests. i think the biden administration has been full of partisan politics. did the same person who denied the request for security also repeatedly deny the requests for security to robert f. kennedy

junior whose father was murdered and whose uncle was murdered? did the same person make that decision? >> senator, what i will tell you is that secret service agents are not political. >> you are not answering my question. leadership -- >> i will get to your answer, if you will allow me. >> i have a simple question. did the same person deny the trump requests that also denied the rfk requests? >> senator, that is not a yes or no question. one, there's a process for a candidate nominee to receive protection. >> does the buck stop anywhere? >> it's a bipartisan process that -- >> it's a bipartisan process -- >> for a candidate. >> you are not -- >> mr. kennedy submitted a request that was referred to the c-pac. >> the failures on that day were catastrophic. 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's not true. >> that's been widely reported. >> it's not true. there was one airport agent that went on the manpower request for the trump detail. they handled the arrival -- >> what was the relative size of the trump detail compared to the detail assigned to the president of the first lady? >> senator, the former president travels with a full shift like the president. >> what's the -- the exact same size? >> on the day of in butler, the agents surrounding him, the same surrounding the president today. there's a different between a sitting president who also not only -- >> hold on. you are using president in a way that's not clear. is it your testimony that in butler, pennsylvania, donald trump had the same number of agents protecting him that joe biden has at a comparable event? >> i'm telling you, the shift. the close protection shift

surrounding -- >> yes or no? >> i'm trying to answer. >> is it the same number of agents or not? >> senator, there's a difference between the sitting president of the united states -- >> what's the difference? >> the difference -- national command authority to launch a nuclear strike, sir. there are other assets that travel with the president that the former president will not get. >> you are refusing to answer -- >> the number of secret -- >> 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 assigned to joe biden. i'm not asking why you assign more to joe biden. i'm asking, is the difference, is it 2x, 3x, 5x? >> i will get you that number. >> senator marshall, you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

there were ten buildings within sniper range of president trump. why was the building used by the sniper not in the security zone? >> that's a question i have asked. there was a decision that we were going to construct the site and it was going to maintain within the butler farm site. that building, that agr was on the outer perimeter. it's something that -- having been there and walked it, i had a hard time understanding -- >> there's no protocol that says anything within 300, 500 yards, direction line of the president, should be in or out of the security zone? there's not a protocol that describes that? >> senator, what we try to do is either control the high ground or mitigate line of sight concerns. >> you have stated that on multiple occasions, president trump's team was denied more of a detail, more assets.

who denies that? who is the person that denies that? >> senator, there's a process. there's a conversation had with the detail. >> there's got to be -- who is the person? is it a level within the d.c. agency? is it in the pittsburgh office? >> it has nothing to do with the pittsburgh office. it's a conversation between not only the detail, the field office, but also -- >> i don't want to know the conversation. i want to know who makes the decision. >> the decision, sir, is -- it's our process between the office of protective operations and office of -- >> is there a title? >> we call it the war room. it's where all of our logistics files into. >> it's a room that makes the decision. >> it's a staffing and assignment officer. >> is the secret service required to do --

>> we do a meeting where we start the -- >> it's require -- is it part of your standard operating procedure? >> the police meeting is what initiates the advance. that's 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 that meeting actually happened? >> if we do, sir, i will get them to you. >> you are saying it didn't happen on the day of the event? >> i think what you are referring to is a briefing that the state and locals would have done with themselves. we did a briefing with our 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? that meeting never happened. that's why we need to get these

people in to talk to us. this is why the fbi needs to speak up sooner than later and say that meeting did or didn't happen. surely, there's documentation of that meeting one way or the other. is there documentation of that meeting? >> senator, i can tell you that our -- what you are referring to is the countersniper team to butler esu. our personnel met with the team lead from butler esu. they discussed areas of concern, areas of responsibility. that did happen at the site on that day. >> director, i think you would agree there were multiple individual and institutional failures the day of the assassination attempt. you have a $3 billion budget. you are 2,000 employees short. in 2022, the secret service had a 48% departure rate. that tells me you have a cultural problem or just gross

incompetence. which is it? >> i would challenge that 48% departure rate. let me get you statistics we have. it's not 48%. >> go back to the multiple failures that we saw on an individual basis. i think it proves there's incompetence or some type of a cultural problem. >> i know you are not calling our workforce incompetent. i know we don't have a cultural problem. we are dedicated to making sure that we don't have mission failure. let me get you the hiring numbers we have. i think you will actually see that we have done very welfarely recently. we are trying to make sure we have the numbers we need. of course, we need more people. everybody does. let me get you those numbers. let your own eyes see. >> would you disagree when it's reported that almost 50% of the rank and file officers don't trust leadership within the secret service?

>> senator, i think it's the right of every worker to talk bad about their boss. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. 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 that an online profile of the shooter may have been found. you said it contains anti-immigrant and anti-semitic postings. have you found anything further in the shooter's profile? >> senator, this was just discovered, as i mentioned. it's being closely analyzed right now. we need to verify it is, in fact -- it belonged to the now deceased shooter and he made these comments. that's why i felt it important in the interest of transparency to share that here.

addeded is the caveat, we are checking. it's the first real indication where he is expressing what are described as extremist views and talking about political violence. >> i take it that once you determined it was, in fact, the shooter who posted these kinds of comments, you will let the public know as well as the committee? >> absolutely. >> it's very important that many of the perpetrators of mass shootings have these kinds of postings online that are very anti-immigrant, anti-semitic, anti-everything, and it's important as we determine the profile for many of the 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, disinformation, everything else along those lines. what kind of firearm, what kind of weapon did crooks use in the assassination attempt? >> 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 awash in guns. in your view, shouldn't 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 here. i'm not going to comment on something like that.

>> i know that there's a hesitancy to ask about firearms and all of that. i should think as a law enforcement person, you probably have some opinions along those lines. you don't want to articulate what to many people in our country, there's a causal factor, easy accessibility of guns. i want to ask that question because i think it's important that the american people understand that we are a nation that is awash in guns. we have more mass shootings than any other country. and yet, we are unable -- we have been unable to pass a law 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, i wanted to articulate that as -- like an elephant in the room, nobody wants to address, including our

law enforcement officers, i am disappointed in that, but obviously, we have work to do to create a safer environment and to prevent persons who have these kinds of perspectives and who are -- i would say who have these kinds of profiles to have such easy accessibility to the kind of firearms that can cause mass death and destruction. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator langford. >> thank you for the testimony today. director, future vice president j.d. vance was in my state in oklahoma city. i talked with some of the secret service folks there. they are doing a terrific job. i got a chance to thank them for the tasks they are doing. i know the oklahoma folks in secret service, and they are 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 and wants to avoid. pass on our gratitude for the work they do and for what's happening out there. >> i will. >> i want to ask you about some of the interviews. you have done more than 400. for the countersniper team that was local law enforcement that was on the second floor overlooking that rooftop, have they been interviewed? >> yes, senator, i believe each of them have been interviewed. >> do you know if they were at their post at that time able to look across? they were at that post? do we know they were at that post at 6:08 to 6:11? >> my understanding -- i want to be fair. i have not read the reports, but i've been briefed on some of it. they were at times during the time frame we are talking about here on post within the agr building. i do believe -- i would want to confirm this -- one or more did venture out in an effort to

locate and isolate -- >> we understand they were looking for this individual that was suspicious, that they left the post to try to look for him on the ground at different points to see if they could get a different perspective. what we are trying to figure out, during that period that he climbed on the roof, that they were able to see him if they were able to look left as has been acknowledged in this -- in the photos up there? >> senator, i don't know the exact timing and movement of each officer that was out there. what i would derive from it is they were focused on locating the shooter -- the suspicious person at the time. as we have seen, the one officer attempted to get on the roof directly. there were efforts going on in the final minutes on the video to try to get to this person. >> we have one officer boosted up by another to look on the roof, because people on the ground said, there's someone up there and they have a gun. they climbed up to see it. he turned around with a rifle.

he came down. at that point, he gets on the local radio that he has and says, there's someone on the roof with a gun. is that correct? >> yes, senator, i believe that's accurate. >> what's the rest of the radio communication? we heard the first call. we know it's 30 seconds from the time he called in to the actual first shot rang out. what else was discussed on the radio during that 30-second time period? >> i don't have -- we have the radio communications. they were the local radio communications. we do have that as part of the investigation. the key points to me that local officer communicating that he sees the individual, he is armed. that's at 6:11 and some seconds. he identifies it as a long gun. the shots, which happened quickly together, i believe happened within probably 30 seconds of that. >> we are talking about over the radio. there's a command center there. all radios, including local --

they are all being listened to to review. there's a statement that has the word gun in it that's coming out across a radio. we know that first communication. we don't know what came back and forth. we would like to get transcripts of that conversation done of local law enforcement. coming into the command center, there's also the word gun coming through one of the radiofrequency. i would think that would be communicated across the spectrum. 30 seconds is not long. but it's an nfl play plus a huddle and the next play. that's quite a bit of time to move to protect the president. within two seconds they were gathered around him. trying to figure out where the word gun got lost in radio communication here and what else was said. >> certainly, we will share the communications with you and the committees. i will note, from my notes, there was effort within those minutes and seconds, once the

gun was announced, there's other communications where the local police are talking about deploying a qrf and responding they have the building surrounded. >> typically, i would assume for secret service, if they hear gun, they are moving to protect the detailee, the person they are protecting, the protectee, they are moving quickly at that point if that's what's coming out. that's what i'm trying to figure out, how that didn't get communicated out to the people that were directly in front of the former president at that point. the last question i have is, was there any overhead drone? we talked about counterdrone. any visibility to see the field and all the operation? >> no, sir. as was asked by another senator earlier, it appears there was an offer by a state or local agency to fly a drone. i'm getting to the bottom to why

we turned that down. >> thank you. >> senator kennedy, you are recognized for your questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. 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? >> senator, there's no doubt in the fbi's mind whether former president trump was hit with a bullet and wounded in the ear, no doubt. there never has been. i've been part of this investigation since the very beginning.

that has never been raised. >> you are sure? >> yes. >> 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? >> it was a bullet, senator. >> fired by crooks? >> yes, sir. >> that hit president trump in the ear and almost killed him? >> 100%, senator. >> glad we cleared that up. i don't want to get off the subject here. did the fbi just settle two lawsuits, one wholly, one in part, in which the fbi agreed to give peter struck $1.2 million and miss lisa page $800,000? >> it's my understanding, senator, the department of justice was involved in that, not the fbi. >> the fbi had nothing to do with it? >> there may have been consultation.

>> does the fbi have to sign off on it? >> i don't know the answer to that. i don't believe so. i would want to confirm that. >> i would like you to -- this would be the same lisa page who said to mr. struck, trump is not ever going to become president, right, right? mr. struck said, no, no, he won't, we will stop it. that's who i'm talking about. i need to know if the fbi signed off on this lawsuit. >> we will get that answer for you. >> i need to know who signed off on it. did you sign off on it? >> i absolutely did not and would never sign off -- >> did chris wray sign off on it? >> i don't believe he did. >> you don't know -- >> 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 that agreed to do this? >> i don't know who -- >> the client has to agree to it. you are the client. >> understood. i will direct you to the department of justice to answer those questions. >> get me that information, if you would. help me understand this. the assassin fired his first shot, as i understand it, at 6:12 p.m. he was about 140, 150 yards away. it's been reported that the snipers, the government snipers, saw him on the roof 20 minutes before. not two minutes, 20 minutes before. is that correct?

>> senator, that is -- that's the first time i'm hearing this. that is not correct based on the information i have right now, sir. >> when did the fbi snipers see him on the roof? >> secret service snipers -- >> i'm sorry, you are right. >> i apologize. when did secret service snipers, one of whom ultimately shot the assassin, first see him on that roof? >> sir, immediately upon the shots being fired, our snipers -- >> i know that. when did they first see him? you have a guy on a roof. you have snipers in an elevated position. they can look down on the roof. you have a guy lying there with a gun pointed at the former president of the united states. they shot him. good for them. he is now dead as woodrow

wilson. that's a good thing. i'm sorry. god forgive me. it's a good thing. when did the snipers first see him? >> as soon as he presented himself as a target and a threat to the president, sir. >> when was that? >> he fires initially a volley, i believe it was three shots -- >> he fired at 6:12 p.m., the first shot. >> yes, sir. >> within 15.5 seconds, he is neutralized. >> here is what people are asking. crooks was up there. the snipers at some point saw him. >> yes, sir. >> because they killed him. >> yes, sir. >> when did they first see him? it has been reported repeatedly that the snipers first saw him 20 minutes before. that's more than a quarter in an

nfl football game. >> yes, sir. >> you don't know the answer? >> i do know the answer. i'm telling you that -- >> what is the answer? >> they did not see him. >> they never saw him? >> they did not. >> how could they not see the guy? how could they not see him? they're in an elevated position. they are checking rooftops. they are looking around. there's two government snipers. how could they not see him? there he was big as dallas lying there with a gun. pointed at the president. >> i believe he was obscured by that roof. he did not pop up -- >> the roof is flat with ridges. >> he is below the line where they would have seen him. he did have concealment -- i'm not say it's cover. he did have concealment and gets into firing position and fires.

>> you need to answer these questions. get me that information about those lawsuits. >> senator rosen, you are recognized. >> thank you. thank you for holding this important hearing on the asement -- the attempted assassination of former president trump. it's critical this committee get to the bottom of what happened so we can prevent any future security failures and ensure nothing like this happens again. given it took place in a rural area -- we talked about connectivity issues. was law enforcement at a disadvantage due to a lack of or limited connectivity? why is the secret service not adopted a dedicated satellite enabled wi-fi connection which would facilitate integrated communication, enable device connectivity and allowing for the sharing of real time

intelligence? >> thank you for the question. based on what i have seen, radio connectivity was an issue that day. with respect to the satellite broadband, that's something i have tasked our cio and we are getting support from the department of homeland security on. we will start to leverage whatever asset we have to ensure that connectivity. >> i can tell you, we have ratings in homeland security, special event ratings that we have for things like the super bowl. we have have it in las vegas. they do bring these mobile units to be sure that we have all the dedicated wi-fi, cell service and integration necessary for securing a huge event. i look forward to hearing about that. thank you. i want to talk about intelligence for lone wolf actors. although we have not been made aware of any specific intelligence they had on the shooter before the event, we do

know we have intel on iranian threats against the former president. again, acting director, could you talk to us about how you use intelligence compared to lone wolf actors, like the attempted assassination that we have here in crooks. what are the specific challenges with the intelligence collection as a mitigation tool? >> first, let me say, the secret service is not a member of the intelligence community. we are the biggest consumers of information. we receive that information regularly, especially as it pertains to our productive mission and the people we protect. we have the fbi through their task forces.

our agents are basically embeds and are able to follow up on investigations. 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 that the intelligence community and fbi produces. we ingest them and we use that to adjust our protective posture. we do this daily, weekly, all of the time. it's not only for protective -- for protectees, but also events and sites we protect on a permanent or temporary basis. with respect to a lot of the people that come to our attention and in the case of the assailant, to me, as i overlay

him over top of, say, john hinckley, 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 is a loner, an individual who was focused on donald trump and joe biden. hinckley traveled the campaign and 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 the secret service -- 1981 was a watershed moment for us. we have people that are fixated on carrying out an attack against the president of the united states or one of our protectees. 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 or used a search engine about the president, the former president. so 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. what we try to wrestle with is trying to line up and see people as they are starting to head down a pathway towards violence. it's something we have spent a lot of time and resources to try to gain a better understanding so we can help our agents in the field as they are doing these cases and these investigations to be able to make a determination, is somebody a threat or do they need mental health or do they need some other type of service? >> thank you.

i appreciate. thank you. >> i want to express the admiration and respect for the bravery and skill of the officers on site that day, secret service officers, as well as 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 who those men and women were who jumped on mr. trump. i said, those are his bodyguards. what are they doing? protecting him from a bullet. he said, actually? for real? i said, yes. i said there are men and women in the secret service and law enforcement and military willing to die for our country. it's an important lesson i think that everyone should take away from this, that you had brave men and women on the ground there who were doing their job to protect this country, to protect a former president and a nominee for president as they do every day for so many others. there were failures in the

planning and preparation for this event. we have heard that the shooter had a golf range finder. was that not on the list of prohibited items at an event like this? >> currently, it is not on the list. we will make that change, senator. >> john kennedy can't get into an lsu football game with a flask. >> i can't. >> he probably can but he is not supposed to. it seems like common sense you don't need a laser range finder at an event like this. it feels like a lot of that was lack of common sense being exercised. are officers not empowered on the front line to use common sense to say, if a guy has laser range finder, he should be detained or stopped and asked why he is carrying it around? if you have a building like this that's not secure, someone, even the front line lowest level most junior officer should be able to

send up the red flag and say, we need to halt everything and figure out what the hell is going on. do officers not feel empowered to use that common sense? >> i would hope they would. i can tell you from our uniform division officers that run our screening, they do a tremendous job. something may or may not be on the list, they are well trained. they do exercise that good common sense. >> i want every one of your officers to hear that their acting director wants them to exercise common sense. it doesn't have to be policy or protcol or procedure. thank you for that. it was reported that that president trump's detail had requested more resources and those had been denied. she said that she did not deny those resources. you said this morning that you did not either. so who did? the secret service is not the post office? it's not this past bureaucracy. like, i'm not surprised to hear

that you knew the counter sniper. it's a small agency and you have a lot of career officers. surely, you've gotten to the bottom by now of whose desk this request landed and who denied it? >> senator, sometimes when they make a request, they may not have the asset available. for example, there may be, instead of the detail may say, hey, we want 15 magnetometers. well, we'll look at it based on what the event size, we'll say, hey, listen, we're going to send 10 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 countersniper or something like that, because i know that's been the subject of some media reporting, where they have requested countersnipers we do have a finite number of countersnipers. and so, what we try to do is, if we cannot fill that asset, and that's where we'll say, hey, we can't fill this assignment,

however, through the field office, they will use local law enforcement resources. and so, in those situations, for example, in the one that has been the subject of a lot of reporting with pickins, south carolina, they in fact, did use local assets to be able to do that. and there were three countersniper teams. they -- one of them was formerly with the secret service uniform division. and so, they actually used the same practices that we used. so it's not that there was a drop in the capability. they actually used the best practices that we would use. so the asset may be denied by secret service between the war room and that conversation with the detail in the field, but it doesn't equate to a vulnerability or a gap. >> one final question about the iran threat. as you know, iran made credible threats against several former trump administration officials, many of whom still have

government-provided security details to this day. miss cheatel removed secret service protection from robert o'brien last year. were you involved in that decision? >> so, senator, he was a memorandum protectee. meaning that the president authorized protection for him. we do not weigh in on who gets protection -- >> so you're still protecting some others. i won't reveal their names. you are still protecting others, and other personal security offices in the federal government are protecting others, other officials, i won't reveal their names. who made the decision that robert o'brien no longer needed a security detail, despite iran's ongoing credible threats? >> i can tell you, sir, it wasn't the secret service. we don't factor into that decision at all. >> can you take a look at why that happened, now that you're in charge and consider the possibility that he might still need that protection, given all of his counterparts in the trump administration still have protection. >> i will do so, senator. >> go ahead. >> no, you go ahead.

>> i'm not going to reveal the protective details, but i'm pretty confident that the agency can get this done. and i think it needs to get done if you look at the kind of ongoing threats that he and all these others face. >> i will, sir -- >> and despite all the resource constraints we talk about today, he's not the president of the united states, he doesn't have an 18-car motorcade, i think he needs that protective detail, and now that you're in charge, i'm asking you to take another look at that and talk to your supervisors in the department to see if you can spare that small, limited amount of resources. >> i will, sir. >> senator walsh, you're recognized for your question. >> thank you so much. first of all, thank you both for the tremendous work you do and for all the folks behind you and under you, so thank you for that. i kind of want to follow up a little bit on senator cotton. you know there's three issues that have been raised. one is the selection of who gets

protection and you've addressed that just now. the other is whether it's a budget issue, which i don't think necessarily think it is. and then there's the operational question. was this an operational failure? it appears to me that that's where the focus should be. and 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. and this is what senator cotton, i think, was talking about with common sense. you know, you mentioned that the sniper was authorized immediately to act. he wasn't checking in with anyone, right? and he took out the shooter as quickly as he could. but according to the timeline, you had local law enforcement captured two photographs of the shooter at 5:10.

at 5:32, local law enforcement officers spot a suspicious person who turned out to be the shooter with a phone and a range finder. at 5:46, the alert was so significant that snipers text photos of the shooter from where he was initially spotted to the uss lead sniper. i mean, how is it that where you had these experienced law enforcement people who understand the gravity of the responsibility of protecting the presidential candidate, the former president, none of these actionable observations resulted in action. i'll direct that first to you, deputy director. >> thank you, senator. from the fbi standpoint, we're simply collecting the facts. we've interviewed most of the officers, now we'll end up interviewing all of them --

>> good, acting director roe. >> so, on that senator, i think there was a sense of this guy as standing out, and that's why he came to the attention of local law enforcement -- >> no, i get that. that's my point. he did stand out. >> correct. >> but nothing happened. there were alerts, but like -- >> there were alerts. >> but you've got somebody suspicious. why didn't somebody go interact with this suspicious person, like, right away? >> and they were attempting to locate him. i can't answer that question as to why, if they took a picture of him and they thought he was unusual, suspicious, not acting normal, why there wasn't, and i think, again, there was probably, an assumption on the part of that officer that took that picture that, oh, some uniform or somebody will go eventually and walk up to this -- >> well, see, that's what seems like an operational failure. somebody else will do it.

so 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. and this guy was wandering around for quite a while. >> he was. i can't put myself in the mind of that officer. >> i'm not asking you to do that. i'm asking, this is operationally, how does the process work, okay? so 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've got the range finder, they were in place where it really wasn't about seeing the rally. it was, as we see, it was a place where you get a good view

of former president trump. i mean, that is a leadership issue, right? >> so, senator, that officer didn't work for me. that was a state and local officer that made that observation, took that picture, so, i can tell you from the secret service perspective, and we do this routinely, is that when people come to our attention, we locate them, we go up, we do a field interview or try to do a consensual encounter. >> that's the operational thing i'm talking about. if you do it within secret service, you all are in charge, and you are relying on local law enforcement assets. those folks -- and they did their job here, 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 -- be transmitted through the secret service, maybe in the earlier briefings, but, you know, where you say, you know, folks, you see somebody suspicious, you engage that

suspicious person. >> i don't disagree, senator. and it goes back to my comments at the beginning of the hearing that we need to be very direct to our local law enforcement counterparts. so they understand exactly what their expectations are. >> i yield back. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator tillis, you're recognized for your questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. mr. roe, do you have a picture -- i think i was watching your testimony earlier -- do you have a photograph of the vantage point from the secret service snipers -- >> i do. >> and both -- there were two, is that correct? >> that's right, stage left and stage right. >> i don't know if you have a vantage point of both of them or not. i know you had one for the one who ultimately shot -- >> that's the vantage point of the sniper who neutralized the assailant. >> is it a similar vantage point for the other -- would they have also been impaired in terms of actually seeing him until he popped his head up? >> so