Of course they did. It would have been able to interfere with their planned hit on DJT.
Of course they did. It would have been able to interfere with their planned hit on DJT.
. . “The whistleblower alleges that the USSS repeatedly declined offers from local law enforcement to utilize drone technology to secure the rally. They claim that after the shooting took place, the USSS reversed course and requested local law enforcement to deploy their drone technology to surveil the site in the aftermath of the attack.
According to one whistleblower, the night before the rally, U.S. Secret Service repeatedly denied offers from a local law enforcement partner to utilize drone technology to secure the rally. This means that the technology was both available to USSS and able to be deployed to secure the site. Secret Service said no.
The whistleblower further alleges that after the shooting took place, USSS changed course and asked the local partner to deploy the drone technology to surveil the site in the aftermath of the attack.
It is hard to understand why USSS would decline to use drones when they were offered, particularly given the fact USSS permitted the shooter to overfly the rally area with his own drone mere hours before event.”
The whistleblower further alleges that the drones offered by local law enforcement had capabilities not only to identify active shooters but also help neutralize any threats. . .
Archive (archive.today)
>.
.
“The whistleblower alleges that the USSS repeatedly declined offers from local law enforcement to utilize drone technology to secure the rally. They claim that after the shooting took place, the USSS reversed course and requested local law enforcement to deploy their drone technology to surveil the site in the aftermath of the attack.
>According to one whistleblower, the night before the rally, U.S. Secret Service repeatedly denied offers from a local law enforcement partner to utilize drone technology to secure the rally. This means that the technology was both available to USSS and able to be deployed to secure the site. Secret Service said no.
>The whistleblower further alleges that after the shooting took place, USSS changed course and asked the local partner to deploy the drone technology to surveil the site in the aftermath of the attack.
>It is hard to understand why USSS would decline to use drones when they were offered, particularly given the fact USSS permitted the shooter to overfly the rally area with his own drone mere hours before event.”
>The whistleblower further alleges that the drones offered by local law enforcement had capabilities not only to identify active shooters but also help neutralize any threats.
.
.
[Archive](https://archive.today/kPZEW)
(post is archived)