The Secret Service suspended six staffers without pay or benefits after Trump assassination attempt
On July 13, 2024, Trump, who was the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination at the time, was at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, when a 20-year-old gunman fired at him.
A bullet grazed Trump's ear, prompting Secret Service agents to shield him with their own bodies. As Trump was being swept away to safety, he raised his fist in the air and mouthed, 'Fight, fight, fight.'
The gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks, killed one person and injured two others before a Secret Service sniper fatally shot him.
Secret Service Deputy Director Matt Quinn has now told CBS News six agency staffers were put on unpaid leave for 10 to 42 days after the attempt on Trump's life.
The agents were denied benefits during their suspension, and when they came back to work, they were placed into restricted duty or roles with less operational responsibility, according to the CBS report.
Quinn admitted the attempted assassination was an 'operational failure' for which the Secret Service is 'totally accountable'.
But the deputy director defended the decision not to fire the six agents outright.
"We aren't going to fire our way out of this,' he said. 'We're going to focus on the root cause and fix the deficiencies that put us in that situation."
Then-Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle stepped down from her leadership role shortly after the Butler incident and subsequent calls for her resignation.
A bipartisan House task force found 'various failures in planning, execution, and leadership' that, mixed with 'preexisting conditions,' created 'an environment in which [Trump] — and everyone at the campaign event — were exposed to grave danger,' according to a 180-page report.
The report identified 'preexisting issues in leadership and training' at the Secret Service. That included agency staffers 'with little to no experience in advance planning roles [who] were given significant responsibility, despite the July 13 event being held at a higher-risk outdoor venue with many line of sight issues, in addition to specific intelligence about a long-range threat.'
Another assassination attempt on Trump at his Florida golf course on September 15, 2024, was foiled by a Secret Service agent who fired at suspect Ryan Routh before a single shot was fired at Trump. Routh faces federal charges for the assassination attempt.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
37 minutes ago
- The Guardian
We're becoming inured to Trump's outbursts – but when he goes quiet, we need to be worried
In the global attention economy, one titan looms over all others. Donald Trump can command the gaze of the world at a click of those famously short fingers. When he stages a spectacular made-for-TV moment – say, that Oval Office showdown with Volodymyr Zelenskyy – the entire planet sits up and takes notice. But that dominance has a curious side-effect. When Trump does something awful and eye-catching, nations tremble and markets move. But when he does something awful but unflashy, it scarcely registers. So long as there's no jaw-dropping video, no expletive-ridden soundbite, no gimmick or stunt, it can slip by as if it hadn't happened. Especially now that our senses are dulled through over-stimulation. These days it requires ever more shocking behaviour by the US president to prompt a reaction; we are becoming inured to him. Yet the danger he poses is as sharp as ever. Consider the events of just the last week or so, few of them stark enough to lead global news bulletins, yet each one another step towards the erosion of democracy in and by the world's most powerful country. On Wednesday, Trump threatened to impose 50% tariffs – yes, he's climbed back on that dead horse – on Brazil, if the judicial authorities there do not drop the prosecution of the country's Trump-like former president Jair Bolsonaro, charged with seeking to overturn his 2022 election defeat and leading a coup against the man who beat him, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. As concisely as he could manage, Lula explained, via social media, that Brazil is a sovereign country and that an independent judiciary cannot 'accept interference or instruction from anyone … No one is above the law.' This is becoming a habit of Trump's. He made the same move in defence of Benjamin Netanyahu last month, hinting that Israel could lose billions in US military aid if the prime minister continues to stand trial on corruption charges. In both cases, Trump was explicit in making the connection between the accused men and himself, decrying as a 'witch-hunt' the efforts to hold them to account. 'This is nothing more, or less, than an attack on a Political Opponent,' he posted, of Bolsonaro's legal woes. 'Something I know much about!' It's easy to make light of the transparent effort by Trump to forge an international trade union of populist would-be autocrats, but he's not solely moved by fraternal solidarity. He also wants to dismantle a norm that has long applied across the democratic world, which insists that even those at the top are subject to the law. That norm is an impediment to him, a check on his power. If he can discredit it, so that a new convention arises – one that agrees that leaders can act with impunity – that helps his animating project in the US: the amassing of ever more power to himself and the weakening or elimination of any rival source of authority that might act as a restraint. He is being quietly assisted in that goal by those US institutions that should regard themselves as co-equal branches of government – Congress and the supreme court – and whose constitutional duty is to stand up to an overmighty executive. Republicans in Congress have now approved a mega bill that they know will leave future generations of Americans drowning in debt and deprive millions of basic healthcare cover. Even so, they put aside their own judgment and bowed to the man who would be king. Less discussed was the bill's extraordinary expansion of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or Ice. Its budget has been increased by a reported 308%, with an extra $45bn to spend on detention and $29.9bn for 'enforcement and deportation'. It will soon have the capacity to detain nearly 120,000 people at any one time. And, remember, latest figures show that about half of all those detained by Ice have no criminal record at all. No wonder even conservative critics are sounding the alarm. The anti-Trump Republicans of the Bulwark warn that within months, the 'national brute squad' that is Ice will have twice as many agents as the FBI and its own vast prison system, emerging as 'the primary instrument of internal state power'. In this view, Trump has realised that corrupting the FBI is a tall order – though still worth trying – so he is supplanting it with a shadow force shaped in his own image. As the Bulwark puts it: 'The American police state is here.' Those most directly threatened might share clips of masked Ice agents snatching suspected migrants off the streets and manhandling them violently, just as reports circulate of appalling conditions in Ice premises, with people held in 'dungeon-like facilities', more than 100 crammed into a small room, denied showers or a chance to change clothes, and sometimes given only one meal a day and forced to sleep on concrete benches or the floor. But it is hardly a matter of national focus. Because it is not accompanied by a neon-lit Trump performance, it is happening just out of view. The same could be said of a series of recent decisions by the supreme court. They may lack the instant, blockbuster impact of past rulings, but they accelerate the same Trump trend away from democracy and towards autocracy. On Tuesday, the judges gave Trump the green light to fire federal workers en masse and to dismantle entire government agencies without the approval of Congress. Earlier, the supreme court had ruled that Trump was allowed to remove Democrats from the leadership of government bodies that are meant to be under politically balanced supervision. More usefully still for Trump, last month the judges limited the power of the lower courts to block the executive branch, thereby lending a helping hand to one of the president's most egregious executive orders: his ending of the principle that anyone born in the US is automatically a citizen of the US, a right so fundamental it is enshrined in the constitution. In ruling after ruling, the supreme court is removing restraints on Trump and handing him even more power. Small wonder that when one of the dissenting minority on the court, Ketanji Brown Jackson, was asked on Thursday what kept her up at night, she answered: 'The state of our democracy.' Meanwhile, Trump is succeeding in his goal of cowing the press, extracting serious cash from major news organisations in return for dropping (usually flimsy) lawsuits against them, a move that is having the desired, chilling effect. It all adds up to the steady erosion of US democracy and of democratic norms whose reach once extended far beyond US shores. Even if it is happening quietly, by Trump's standards, without the familiar sound and fury, it is still happening. The work of opposing it begins with noticing it. Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Boeing settles with Canadian man whose family died in 737 MAX crash
July 11 (Reuters) - Boeing (BA.N), opens new tab reached a settlement with a Canadian man whose family died in the March 2019 crash of an Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 MAX, the man's lawyer said on Friday. The terms of the settlement with Paul Njoroge of Toronto were not released. The 41-year-old man's wife Carolyne and three young children - Ryan, 6, Kellie, 4, and nine-month-old Rubi - died in the crash. His mother-in-law was traveling with them and also died in the crash. The trial was scheduled to start on Monday in U.S. District Court in Chicago and would have been the first against the U.S. planemaker stemming from two fatal 737 MAX crashes in 2018 and 2019 that together killed 346 people. Boeing also averted a trial in April, when it settled with the families of two other victims in the Ethiopian Airlines crash. The planemaker declined to comment on the latest settlement. The two accidents led to a 20-month grounding of the company's best-selling jet and cost Boeing more than $20 billion. In another trial that is scheduled to begin on November 3, Njoroge's attorney Robert Clifford will be representing the families of six more victims. Boeing has settled more than 90% of the civil lawsuits related to the two accidents, paying out billions of dollars in compensation through lawsuits, a deferred prosecution agreement and other payments, according to the company. Boeing and the U.S. Justice Department asked a judge earlier this month to approve an agreement that allows the company to avoid prosecution, over objections from relatives of some of the victims of the two crashes. The agreement would enable Boeing to avoid being branded a convicted felon and to escape oversight from an independent monitor for three years. It was part of a plea deal struck in 2024 to a criminal fraud charge that it misled U.S. regulators about a crucial flight 737 MAX control system which contributed to the crashes.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Federal judge says voiceover artists AI lawsuit can move forward
A federal judge in New York has allowed a lawsuit to move forward from two voice over artists alleging their voices were stolen by an AI voice judge dismissed artists Paul Skye Lehrman and Linnea Sage claims that their voices were subject to federal claims from the artists of breach of contract and deceptive business practices, as well as separate copyright claims alleging that the voices were improperly used as part of the AI's training data, will, however, move Lovo Inc. had asked for the case to be dismissed entirely. The company has not yet responded to the BBC's request for comment. The judge's decision comes after a flood of cases from artists against artificial intelligence companies alleging misuse of their work to train AI artists' attorney, Steve Cohen, has called the decision a "spectacular" victory for his clients, saying he was confident a future jury will "hold big tech accountable". Lawyers for Lovo had called the artists' allegations a "kitchen sink approach" saying the artists' claims failed to make an actionable claim against the artists, a couple living in New York City, filed a proposed class action lawsuit in 2024 after learning alleged clones of their voices were for sale via Lovo's text-to-speech platform couple claim they were separately approached by anonymous Lovo employees for voiceover work through the online freelance marketplace was paid $1200 (around £890). Sage received $800 (almost £600).In messages shared with the BBC, the anonymous client can be seen saying Lehrman and Sage's voices would be used for "academic research purposes only" and "test scripts for radio ads" anonymous messenger said the voiceovers would "not be disclosed externally and will only be consumed internally". Months later, while driving near their home in New York City, the couple listened to a podcast about the ongoing strikes in Hollywood and how artificial intelligence (AI) could affect the episode had a unique hook – an interview with an AI-powered chatbot, equipped with text-to-speech software. It was asked how it thought the use of AI would affect jobs in when it spoke, it sounded just like Mr Lehrman."We needed to pull the car over," Mr Lehrman told the BBC in an interview last year. "The irony that AI is coming for the entertainment industry, and here is my voice talking about the potential destruction of the industry, was really quite shocking."Upon returning home, the couple found voices with the names Kyle Snow and Sally Coleman available for use by paid Lovo later found Sage's alleged clone voicing a fundraising video for the platform –while Lehrman's had been used in an advertisement on the company's YouTube company eventually removed the voices, saying both voices were not popular on the case is now set to move ahead in the US District Court in Manhattan.
