Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Director Rowe,
can you put your first poster,
your first demonstrative back up,
please? Put a up. Please
just make sure everybody can see it.
This is the photograph I believe that you took,
your team took of the roof,
the AGR roof. Yeah, that's the one.
OK. So from this vantage point as,
as the law enforcement who are in those windows as
they look left,
they should be able to see the shooter clearly.
They're on the AGR second floor roof.
My question is why is there not a Secret Service
counter sniper on that roof?
So, Senator, we're when we post op,
our is our methodology is to look out,
look at things that can see in on our protectees
so that they can provide that coverage.
But why is there not a a Secret Service counter
sniper there with clear line of sight?
That roof has a clear line of sight to the
former president.
Why didn't you put a Secret Service counter sniper there?
The secret services counter sniper role is to neutralize those
threats that are looking in on us
from where the protectee is.
Not necessarily. Maybe you might want to revise that protocol
in light of
what happened here.
They were protecting the principal and I think the principal
got shot.
I understand that, Sir. So do you think you might
want to revise the protocol?
Let me ask you this.
Who is the lead site agent who made the decision
to leave the AGR building completely outside of the security
perimeter?
Who was that? Senator? I cannot give you that name.
This person is operational. They're still doing investigations.
They're still doing protective visits.
They're being relieved of duty,
Senator. I know their name by duty.
Why have they not been relieved of duty?
They are still cooperating, not only being interviewed by the
FBI,
but also by our Office of Professional Responsibility.
And we will let the facts of the mission assurance
and any further investigations play out.
Is it isn't the fact that a former president was
shot,
that a good American is dead,
that other Americans were critically wounded?
Isn't that enough mission failure for you to say that
the person who decided that that
building should not be in the security perimeter probably ought
to be stepped down?
Senator, I think you're using the word decided.
And I think we need to allow the the
investigation play out to include.
OK, so who did, who did make the decision then,
if it wasn't the lead site agent who made the
decision not to put that in the security perimeter?
Senator, you're zeroing in on one particular agent.
I want to find out exactly what was the entire
decision process.
So I think, yeah, 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 were
as more than one person or perhaps exercise bad judgment.
Well, sure. My question is why don't you relieve everybody
of duty who made bad judgment?
So, yeah, you're right. I am zeroing in on somebody.
I'm trying to find somebody who's accountable here.
And we. So you're 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 who's in charge of the interoperability
of radio frequencies between local law enforcement and and Secret
Service?
Has that person been relieved of duty?
No, Senator, because interoperability is a challenge,
is a greater challenge than just one person.
On that day we had a counterpart system.
It failed. As 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?
No, Sir, they haven't. As the person who decided not
to pull the former president off of stage when you
knew that in your words,
the locals were working a serious security situation,
has that person been relieved of duty?
No, Sir. Again, I refer you back to my original
answer that we are investigating this through a mission assurance.
And as opposed to zeroing in on one,
what more do you need to investigate to know exactly
what?
What more do you need to investigate to know that
they were critical enough failures that some individuals ought to
be held accountable?
I mean, what more do you need to know?
What I need to know is exactly what happened.
And I need my investigators to do their job and
I cannot.
A lot of people didn't do their jobs.
I cannot put my thumb on the scale
otherwise.
The objective the you're asking me,
Senator, to completely make a rush to judgment about somebody
failing.
I acknowledge this was a failure of is it not
prima facie that somebody has failed?
A former president was shot,
Sir. This could have been our Texas school Book Depository.
I have lost sleep over that for the last 17
days,
just like years. Somebody. And I will tell you,
Senator, I will tell you,
Senator, that I will not rush to judgment,
that people will be held accountable and I will do
so within integrity
and not rush to judgment and put people unfairly persecuted,
unfairly persecuted fairly. Sir, we have to be able to
have a proper investigation into this.
Senator, you said earlier that you've got to make sure
that your protocols are followed.
And unless there's a protocol violation,
people wouldn't be disciplined. I would just say to you,
I don't really care that much 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 goers, innocent people who just showed up
on the day,
when they are shot at and critically wounded,
if that isn't a protocol violation,
prima facie you should revise your protocols.
Senator, I think this is where you and I agree
this was a failure and we will get to the
bottom of it.
Well, I hope you're going to do something about it.
Let me ask you something else.
The RealClearPolitics reports this morning that you were directly involved
in denying additional security resources and personnel,
including counter snipers, not just to this event,
but over the last two years that President Trump's,
President Trump's team repeatedly asked for these additional resources and
you personally were involved in denying them.
Is it, is that true,
Senator? As I stated earlier,
that is not true. So you never denied any resources
to former President Trump's team?
No, not me, No, Sir.
And you weren't and you weren't involved in any of
that.
You were never involved in the decision making.
No, Sir, I was not.
Let let me ask you just one or two other
things here quickly.
Well, whistleblowers tell me that in fact,
law enforcement were stationed to be on that roof
and that law enforcement abandoned their post because it was
too hot.
Is that accurate,
Senator? I have heard that as well.
Again,
they posted up inside and I think moving forward,
as I, as I said earlier,
we're going to ensure that state and local counter snipers
are on roofs.
But but do you do you know if someone was
supposed to be on the roof?
Do you know if someone was in fact that's what
the whistleblowers tells me that may or may not be
accurate.
Do you know that to be the fact was somebody
posted to the roof local law enforcement or whomever?
I do not know that to be a fact.
Well,
can I ask you why you don't know that?
Again, Senator, we are looking at this and they should
have been on that roof and the fact that they
were in the building is something that I'm still trying
to understand. I just want to express my frustration,
Director, that 17 days or whatever it's been that you,
that whistleblowers are telling us more than you are and
you don't know,
you haven't ascertained if there was supposed to be law
enforcement on the roof.
That seems like a pretty basic fact.
I'm also told that local law enforcement suppliers offered the
Secret Service drones
and you declined them. Is that true?
So, Senator, one, I've been very transparent and forthcoming.
Your agency has not been transparent and forthcoming.
So please let's not go there.
I have been forthcoming, Sir.
You've been Will. That remains to be seen.
You've been on the job a few days so far.
You've fired nobody. Now the drones.
Thank you, Sir. Were you offered drones?
So there was an offer to fly a drone on
that day.
And 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
we if it was offered.