The Fuzzy Mic

Guardians of Democracy: Insights from the Secret Service

• Kevin Kline • Episode 94

Share episode

Send us a text

On this special episode of The Fuzzy Mic, we break from our usual format to confront the disturbing recent assassination attempt at President Trump's campaign rally.

We contextualize this event within historical precedents like Theodore Roosevelt's 1912 shooting. With invaluable insights from a retired Secret Service Agent, we reveal the intricate security challenges at high-risk political events and underscore the difficulty in thwarting attacks by determined perpetrators.

But the conversation doesn't stop there; we trace the roots of political rage back to the early days of American politics, examining the tumultuous relationship between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Despite the somber tone, we remain optimistic, highlighting America's resilience and progress since 1800.

As we close this intense discussion with a touch of humor and a heartfelt thank you, inspired by NBC News anchor Jose Diaz-Balart, we remind you to keep faith in a brighter future and to cherish the time we spend together. Join us for a thought-provoking episode that delves deep into our political landscape and its enduring challenges.

Speaker 1:

Welcome to the Fuzzy Mike, the interview series, the podcast, whatever Kevin wants to call it. It's Fuzzy Mike, hello, and thank you for joining me. Well, this is going to be quite possibly the furthest departure from a normal episode of the Fuzzy Mike that there could ever be. Why? Because I'm going to do something that I rarely do in private and never do in public, and if you're watching this on YouTube, you'll notice that I'm fully clothed. So, no, it's not that Jeez people. No, I'm going to enter the political realm for a bit. I'm going to do this because of what happened this past Saturday at President Trump's campaign rally the shooting, the assassination attempt, the Russian false flag, the CIA-led Antifa strike, the WWE-style storyline created by Trump himself to garner more votes and secure an election win those are all descriptions I've either heard or read in the media and or in the comment section of online news stories. By the way, regarding the getting shot to secure the win theory, well and I learned this from my sister-in-law, who is a college professor and historian If, as someone has suggested, this was a purposeful design to get shot, thinking that would secure an election win, getting shot is not an automatic path to the White House. We know this because October 14, 1912, during a campaign speech in Milwaukee, theodore Roosevelt was shot in the chest. He survived, ended up losing the election to Woodrow Wilson. This is our country Again. If you're watching this on YouTube, you'll notice that I have a red, white and blue shirt on Not an accident. I was wearing an all red shirt for a video shoot that I had to do, but I decided to change into this multicolor shirt because I didn't want the appearance that I was favoring one party over another. So I changed and I picked this shirt. I did purposely, because it has the three colors of America, the concept I'd like to see all of us get back to.

Speaker 1:

Whether you love Donald Trump or hate Donald Trump, there is no denying that Donald Trump was the 45th president of the United States of America. I am adamant about this. The office of the president of the United States of America is to be respected, regardless of if your person is occupying that office or if their person is Period. No US president should ever be shot. We've had four presidents assassinated In 1865, it was Lincoln. In 1881, it was Garfield, william McKinley in 1901, and John F Kennedy in 1963. Additionally, three presidents have been injured in attempted assassinations Ronald Reagan while he was in office in 1981, ronald Reagan while he was in office in 1981, as the aforementioned, theodore Roosevelt and now Donald Trump. None of those should have ever happened. Yet here we are and this shooting will get as scrutinized, or even more than Kennedy's shooting was I say even more than JFK because we have more TV channels, so more camera crews. Plus, with our phones, we're all professional photographers, so there's more footage, both still and moving.

Speaker 1:

Now I am very fortunate to know two members of the US Secret Service. One is still active and the other is retired. For the people who are calling into question the actions on Saturday of the Secret Service, I'm going to say this and it's based on personal knowledge and interaction the two men I know that are in the Secret Service are of impeccable character, the highest morals, deepest devotion to their profession and their country. I'm going to say that again the two men I know in the Secret Service are of impeccable character, the highest morals and deepest devotion to their profession and country. My retired friend. Of all the people I've known in my life, he ranks at or near the top of class humility, dedication and selflessness. He is why I do not believe any narrative that claims the Secret Service did anything wrong or even had a hand in the attempt on 45's life. I'd love it if my personal endorsement of my friend CF's character was enough to put to rest any Secret Service conspiracy theories. But I'm a realist and I know that beliefs are hard to damn near impossible to change through opinion only. Well, you're in luck because I'm going to share with you a message that was sent to me and it's written by my retired Secret Service buddy. He writes let's talk about the mechanics of this assassination attempt.

Speaker 1:

Number one the service, meaning secret service, cannot control out to rifle distance. It's impossible without quadruple the manpower, at least Two. So what's the answer? Outside the perimeter, you do a good survey and assess problem areas outside your perimeter and assign some badass motherfuckers to scan those areas for threats and train them to kill out to 1,000 meters without hesitation and without asking for permission. Again, this is insight from a retired Secret Service member. Number three what is the drawback of that plan? There might be six dozen problem areas, from dense tree lines that need close scrutiny to buildings with up to dozens of windows facing the event that could each pose a potential problem. Scanning means it takes time to return to problem area and recheck it for security changes. Number four you can post a police officer to stand at every threat area, but again, manpower constraints are an issue. You have to find ways to pare down your footprint to available manpower and still have answers to the security holes.

Speaker 1:

We're only halfway through this and already you're getting the sense that it's a no-win situation. Number five this is textbook example of someone oh, what we're seeing with the Trump shooting. This is textbook example of someone willing to trade their life for the protectee's life. The Secret Service looks like they did everything right in the plan. Maybe there are problems We'll see but I see none so far. If someone hopes to get away with it, they are easier to thwart because they will take less risk. But if you are truly ready to die for your attempt, it makes preventing the attack infinitely more difficult.

Speaker 1:

This isn't me saying this, this is my friend CF, retired Secret Service Personnel. Reason number six the response from the detail was textbook. Was it sloppy A little bit? But come on, have you ever done anything, even if you practiced it 100 times perfectly, the first time, you had to do it under the worst stress of your life? Of course not If you really want a tiny quibble from me again, my friend CF Secret Service member, I would have had the press pushed off the riser before I moved him. President Trump, but that is so minor as to almost be a joke to bring up Number seven.

Speaker 1:

They responded very quickly. Human processing of information, formulating a plan and then implementing that plan, is never going to be zero seconds. I'll stop there. I will insert my own thought here. We saw this with the Sully flight that landed in the Hudson. They tried to blame him for not making a faster decision. They tried to blame him for not making a faster decision. You only have X amount of seconds to make this decision and zero seconds is not an option. The human brain doesn't work that way. Back to CF. You can train that response time down, but it will never be instantaneous. They were on him quickly and they executed the extraction quickly. According to CF, trump is 6'3 and over 300 pounds, surrounding him with body armor, and moving as a unit to the armored limo is difficult. It's going to look unwieldy. They responded within the scope of their training and we should all be proud of them.

Speaker 1:

Everyone Number eight, someone claiming they quote told the cops there was someone on the roof with a gun. End quote. So what? Do you have any idea how long that process takes, from telling the officer to the officer, relaying it to the services? The officer was likely assigned a post. He cannot leave his post period. Leaving his post means opening a huge hole in the security plan. Telling that information to an officer could be a diversion to get that officer to leave his post. To get that officer to leave his post.

Speaker 1:

Finally, number nine so he calls it in relays to the service. The service identifies the area and radios the appropriate assets to monitor and respond. This is not a five-second process. A gunman can get on the roof and start taking shots in a couple of minutes or less, far faster than the response team can get there. The counter snipers can get on him quickly and neutralize the threat, but they still have to scan to find him and engage.

Speaker 1:

In the end, the only answer to the problem is more manpower. The Secret Service doesn't set its own budget. It can only do what it can with the funds available. And here's the final line of my friend CF's message. I beg of you, ignore the pundits on TV, especially those from outside the Secret Service that have no idea how difficult close protection of a high value protectee is. That's the end of the message. It made a ton of sense to me, and it should, because it was written by an actual Secret Service agent, one who's trained for the job, one who's done the job. So if the secret service isn't to blame, then what is found? An interesting opinion piece the other day and it shed a very bright light on what is to blame.

Speaker 1:

The headline of the article read the attempted assassination of trump is not nearly as surprising as it should be. It appeared on thehillcom and it was written by Jonathan Turley. Jonathan Turley is a public interest law professor at George Washington University. I figured the article was going to cite the somewhat commonplace of our presidents being shot, so therefore it should come as no surprise. Commonplace, klein, what? Yeah? As I listed earlier, we've had four US presidents assassinated and now three who have been shot at and survived. Seven of our 46 presidents have been shot. Had two guns not misfired on January 30th 1835, that stat would be eight out of 46. But Andrew Jackson doesn't make the list because a bullet never struck him. Seven out of 46. I've asked this question so many times. It begs to be asked again why would anybody want that job? Anyway, that's not what the article was about. In addition to his professorship, jonathan Turley authored a recently released book entitled the Indispensable Right Free Speech in an Age of Rage. I'm not going to read the entire article, but here are some excerpts from the article.

Speaker 1:

For months, politicians, the press and pundits have escalated reckless rhetoric in this campaign on both sides. That includes claims that Trump was set to kill democracy, unleash death squads and make homosexuals and reporters quote disappear. President Biden has stoked this rage rhetoric Again. This is not me saying this. This is from the article written by Jonathan Turley. In 2022, biden held his controversial speech before Independence Hall, where he denounced Trump supporters as enemies of the people. Biden recently referenced the speech and has embraced the claims that this could be our last democratic election.

Speaker 1:

We are living through an age of rage. It is not our first, but it may be the most dangerous such period in our history. Some of us have been saying for years that this rage rhetoric is a dangerous political pitch for the nation. While most people reject the hyperbolic claims, others take them as true. They believe that homosexuals are going to be disappeared, as claimed on ABC's the View, or that Trump death squads are now green-lighted by a conservative Supreme Court, as claimed by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. Rage is addictive and contagious. It is also liberating. It allows people a sense of license to take actions that would ordinarily be viewed as repulsive. We know all too well how unhinged people can find justification in the incendiary rhetoric of our politics.

Speaker 1:

This moment did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred in a time when our leaders long abandoned reason for rage. That's the end of that part of the article. What's scary as turley points it out but doesn't say why is that this is the most dangerous age of rage period in our history. I have a theory why. A couple of reasons. First, the 24-hour news cycle, the number of channels we have that we choose from, it's programming and information overload. Outrageous comments are said and instantaneously released. When are emotions most high? Right after something occurs or is said. Back, when it was only newspapers, there was time lag. Now there's no lag time. Everything is immediate today. The second reason why this is the most dangerous age of rage period in our history, and this is where we tie in the focus of the fuzzy mic to this episode, and this is where we tie in the focus of the fuzzy mic to this episode. More than 20% of the US adult population live with a mental illness. Jonathan Turley says that this is the most dangerous age of rage period in our history. Now, if you're like me, maybe scratching your head at that statement, I thought that we were in unprecedented times with the political hate speech being spoken in our country right now. We've had other age rage periods before in America. Believe it or not, we have, and the perpetrators of this previous age of rage will shock you, because it did me. Jonathan Turley writes we have come full circle to where we began as a republic.

Speaker 1:

In the 1800 election, federalists and Jeffersonians engaged in similar rage rhetoric as today. Federalists back in 1800 told citizens that if Thomas Jefferson were elected quote murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed and the soil will be soaked with blood and the nation black with crimes. End quote Jeffersonians warned that if John Adams were re-elected quote chains, dungeons, transportation and perhaps the gibbet, which is a gallows, awaited citizens and they would instantaneously be put to death. Both sides stoked the public's anger and fears, and violence obviously was seen across the nation. In our current age of rage, politicians have sought to use the same anger and fear to rally support at any cost. This is the cost. End of the article. This is the cost End of the article.

Speaker 1:

I was unaware that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were the original purveyors of rage rhetoric. Thomas Jefferson, john Adams Boy, you think you know people. Now I don't want to leave this on a sour note. It's basically been a sour note the entire episode I know. So let me offer this observation that we can end with. We've grown a lot since 1800 when rage rhetoric was introduced into American politics. So the positive there and this is going to sound presidential state of the union-esque is that we've gotten through this kind of divisiveness before and seen unity and prosperity on the other side of it. So we can get past it again and go on to greater prosperity as a country.

Speaker 1:

Thank you, and God bless America. Wait, sorry, I got a little carried away there For laughter on the weekly. How's that for hipping it up, dang? Sorry, I got a little carried away there For laughter on the weekly. How's that for hipping it up, dang Klein, a regular old making the stallion you so hip For laughter. Check out the Tuttle Klein podcast. New episodes every Wednesday. I'm going to end this with what I believe to be the greatest sign-off ever created by a broadcaster. It comes from NBC News weekend anchor Jose Diaz-Balart, and it's exactly the way I feel about you for joining me and listening to the Fuzzy Mike every week. Jose always says thank you for the privilege of your time. Damn, jose, that's so good. That's it for the Fuzzy Mike, thank you. The Fuzzy Mike with Kevin Kline. Fuzzy Mike.