Cheatle Resigns and for Good Cause.

"The worst performance I have seen in any congressional hearing."

The above sub-heading is from comments by New Mexico Representative Nick Langworthy during the testimony of Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle. It sums up the hearing and the reason for her just-announced resignation about as well as anything.

I began this article as a summary of yesterday’s hearing, including the bipartisan condemnation of Cheatle’s testimony. For the most part the discussion that follows is unaltered from what I wrote before learning of her intent to resign, just minutes before the publication of this article. But it remains relevant because her resignation does not solve the problem.

Yesterday the House Oversight Committee held its first hearing on the attempted assassination of President Trump, and the murder and serious wounding of two others. The sole witness on the first day was the soon-to-be-former Director of the Secret Service, Kimberly Cheatle. I watched almost all of her testimony while making contemporaneous notes.

Here are my big-picture takeaways based upon what I heard and my initial reactions:

1. With a few exceptions, the committee members, Democrat and Republican alike, did a good job of attempting to explore the facts about shootings and the Secret Service’s performance.

2. There was great bipartisan frustration with Cheatle’s refusal to answer many questions and her failure to have produced any of the documents that the committee had requested.

3.  There also was overwhelming bipartisan support for Cheatle’s resignation or termination.

4. Although Cheatle gave up very little helpful information (as many committee members from both parties repeatedly pointed out), I did note a few facts that were new (at least to me), or not widely known.

There were a few political sideshows and unhelpful efforts play to the cameras, but these merit little attention when analyzing the witness’ testimony.

I will discuss the above four points and provide some general observations. I will give appropriate credit to Republicans and Democrats alike and my limited criticisms of the members’ questioning will be equally bipartisan and fair. I will close with a further recommendation, based upon her failures at the hearing coupled with her tardy resignation.

Caveat: I have not yet seen a transcript and have not gone back to review a video of the hearing. The quotes below are from my notes made hurriedly while watching the hearing on TV. I cannot vouch with 100% certainty that they are verbatim word-for-word quotes, but I believe they are accurate and that they accurately capture the essence of what was said.

1.     An overall decent job by representatives both parties.

I was expecting a partisan brawl and was happy to see that instead the hearing was a bipartisan effort to get relevant facts from a witness who should have been able to provide them. As we all know, many committee hearings are characterized by unhelpful political gamesmanship. Partisans from each party often seem to be more interested in scoring points to oppose the other party’s position, than in and a real search for the relevant facts, which often is lost in the squabble.

With some exceptions, however, yesterday’s hearing avoided that sort of rank partisanship. In the end, not a single member defended Cheatle’s abysmal performance.

The result was, as a close Democratic friend said to me shortly after the hearing, perhaps “the best bipartisan effort on anything in the last 10 years.”

And the bipartisan condemnation of her testimony doomed her chances of remaining as USSS Director as she repeatedly promised to do during the hearing.

At the outset, in his opening statement Chairman James Comer made clear that Director Cheatle had not appeared voluntarily but had been subpoenaed to explain the reasons for the disaster at the Trump’s campaign rally and the Secret Service’s response to it.

Initially I was somewhat disheartened because when Ranking Member Jeremy Raskin responded with his opening statement, he devoted it almost exclusively to the Democrats’ gun control agenda. He referred to the attempted assassination of a presidential contender as, “this AR–15 attack” as if fault lay with the weapon. He then made a pitch for more gun control legislation, particularly for what he characterized as “weapons of war.” He did that throughout the hearing and was joined by several other Democrats. I do not want to digress into the gun control debate here, so I will abstain from any analysis of those comments. And my initial negative reaction to Raskin’s attempt to use the hearing to advance the Democrats’ anti-gun agenda was overcome when Democratic committee members began to question Cheatle and demonstrated a bipartisan desire to get at the truth.

2.     Cheatle’s lack of transparency and stonewalling.

The most significant thing about Cheatle’s responses was her blanket refusal to provide almost any useful information about the shooting, the investigation, or any other specifics about the attempted assassination. In some instances, she used the ongoing FBI investigation as an excuse not to respond. For some questions, that is a legitimate position to protect an ongoing investigation. But she used it to justify a blanket refusal to answer any questions that could be the subject of the FBI investigation, even if they would not compromise any investigation. For other questions, her refusals appeared to be based upon a lack of knowledge that was either deliberate or the result of extremely poor preparation.

Cheatle gave every appearance of being there only because she was compelled to attend by subpoena and that her purpose was to defend herself and to avoid any damaging admissions. She gave no indication that she was there to answer questions forthrightly and to provide the Committee with the information that they were seeking. Pennsylvania Democrat Summer Lee exemplified the bipartisan frustration with Cheatle’s persistent refusal to give meaningful responses when she fired back at one of Cheatle’s typical non-responsive answers with, “This is a joke.”  And Representative Dan Goldman of New York, normally a take-no-prisoners partisan, questioned why Cheatle was providing fewer answers than she had given to the media. 

Some examples of her inability and refusal to answer include those below. Please excuse the partial but lengthy list, but there were a lot of refusals and non-responsive answers. These are also questions that still must be answered.

Without waiting for an FBI report, what was her evaluation as Director of the Secret Service of what went wrong and why?

• Whether operators from Iran and Al Qaeda would be more capable than the 20-year-old shooter in question.

• Whether the Secret Service ever considered pausing the rally in view of the reports of a suspicious person lurking about.

• Why there was a delay of more than a minute in getting President Trump off the stage.

• How many shell casings were found on the roof of the building?

• How many explosive devices were found?

• Was the shooter a “lone gunman?” Was their a second shooter on the water tower?

• Whether the Service became aware of a threat to President Trump and whether they saw the shooter before the Secret Service sniper made the fatal shot.

• Why the building from which the shooter fired was not secured or flagged as a threat. Why was it left “outside the perimeter?”

• Why was the roof of a building within easy gunshot range of the podium left unguarded?

• Whether the failure to secure the rooftop was a “major security failure.”

• Whether she was standing behind the “slope of the roof argument.” Her non-response to that question was typical: “There was overwatch provided.” She did not attempt to explain how overwatch made the roof unsafe as she had contended in her interview with ABC news.

• In response to a question from Democrat Maxwell Frost of Florida, Cheatle admitted that the Service had been alerted about a “suspicious person” 2–5 times. But she could not identify any action taken in response to those reports.

• Why has the Service experienced excessive staff turnover (almost 50% in one year)? Her CYA non-answer? “We are committed to hiring the best. Our men and women place service over self and a culture to get the job done.”

• Whether the USSS is experiencing a “staffing crisis” in view of her excuse that they were short-handed as an excuse for not providing security specifically requested by the Trump team.

• Whether the American people’s loss of trust in the government is a “problem.”

3.     Virtually all committee members agree: Cheatle must go.

Democrats as well as Republicans called for Cheatle to resign or be fired. Representative Ro Khanna of California, asked Cheatle if she knew what President Reagan’s Director of Secret Service, Stuart Knight, did after Regan was shot. She first said that “he remained on duty.” Khanna corrected her and pointed out that he had resigned, because his principal had been shot on his watch. Khanna asked Cheatle if she would tender her resignation, since such a disaster had occurred on her watch and “colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree you should consider resigning.” She refused to do so. She emphatically repeated that refusal in response to the same question from other committee members, including a number of Democrats who pressed for her resignation. Maryland’s Kweisi Mfume added, “If you say you have no intent to resign, people are perplexed.”

Congressman Khanna’s questioning and Cheatle’s answers and evasions can be seen in the video below. It is worth watching also because her non-responses to her questions are typical of her evasive tactics throughout the hearing.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Chairman Comer stated that he and Ranking Member Raskin would be sending a joint letter demanding her resignation. That sentiment was repeater throughout the hearing by Committee Members from both parties.

4.     Some additional general observations that still must be answered.

Cheatle’s resignation does not solve the problem of her refusals/inability to respond. These issues must still be addressed. And I have a further recommendation at the end of this article.

   No one was in charge of approving the security plan.

The committee obtained a few grudging admissions from Cheatle as well as a few remarkable admissions. One came in response to a question by Texas Representative Michael Cloud, who asked who ultimately approves and signs off on the Secret Service’s security plan. Everyone seemed to agree it is the critical document that the Committee needed to see, and Cheatle has not yet provided it. Her answer? No one. At first, she tried to evade admitting that, by saying that multiple people approve and sign off on any security plan because there are a number of different aspects requiring different expertise on any such plan. But when pressed by Representative Cloud as to who is the one person who gives final approval, she indicated that there was no such person. No one was responsible for approving the entire plan. That must be fixed.

   Rangefinder? Not a suspicious device.

Several Committee Members questioned Cheatle about reports that the USSS knew that the shooter had a range finder but that this had triggered no alarms or additional scrutiny at the rally. She first appeared to say that people often brought range finders to outdoor political events and that this was not a cause for concern. Unfortunately, most of her answers about this were cut off before she finished. But at one point in response to questions from Democrat Stephen Lynch, she said that range finders were not prohibited items and she did not know if the shooter was questioned about it when he went through the security check. Later, she acknowledged that a range finder “could be suspicious” but that it was not viewed as a threat.

Range finders are sometimes used by hunters, golfers, and snipers to measure distances. Because most provide some degree of magnification, it is certainly conceivable that some innocent spectators might bring them to an outdoor rally or even an indoor concert to get a close-up view of the stage. But in view of their use by hunters and snipers to determine the range and calculate bullet drop, it is bizarre that the USSS does not prohibit them at political events.

   The Secret Service works too hard?

Another revealing moment came when Cheatle was questioned about why the Secret Service came in 413th out of 459 sub–agencies whose employees had been polled about their job satisfaction. After some evasion, she said that the reason for this low ranking was that the Secret Service agents work in a “challenging environment” because they often have to work long hours each day, sometimes seven days a week for several weeks at a stretch. She noted that they frequently must work on weekends and holidays, and miss birthdays and other family events.

So, according to its Director we know why the Secret Service has such low morale: They work hard. I could only shake my head and think in wonder about how any member of the military special operations community, who has missed countless birthdays, anniversaries, high school graduations, and other celebrations that are must-do events for most of us, would respond to this excuse. Or consider the sailor who has just come back from working ‘round the clock, seven days a week, on a nine-month cruise in the Red Sea. I could sum up their reaction with an abbreviation in two letters, which I shall leave to your imagination.

The next director will face a real challenge in restoring morale in the Secret Service. But it is critical to our national security.

   AOC’s attack.

One of the big surprises of the day, at least for me, was the questioning by Alexandria Ocasio–Cortez. Cheatle had just answered a question from Texas Republican Pete Sessions by saying that she hoped to have the Secret Service’s internal investigation completed within 60 days. AOC tore into her: “The notion of having an answer in 60 days is not acceptable.” It went downhill for Cheatle from there. Ranking Member Raskin chirmed in a short time later saying, “60 days won’t do it for us.”

AOC also asked why the Secret Service “protective perimeter was shorter than the effective range of an AR–15.¹ Cheatle responded that there were “a number of factors” to explain this, but she gave no specifics regarding the perimeter at the rally.

   No visit to the shooting site.

Cheatle confessed to Representative Pat Fallon of Texas that in the nine days since the shooting she still had not inspected the site of the shootings. That is a damning admission from someone who pays lip service to being responsible for reporting to Congress and the American people about the reasons for the USSS failures. It is inconsistent with any professed desire to be able to respond intelligently to questions from the Committee. But it is consistent with her response when Republican Lisa McClain asked her when she began preparing for yesterday’s hearing: She didn’t recall. Then McClain fired back:

The Secret Service has a leadership problem. You must answer to the American people if you want to keep your job. What are you, afraid of? You don’t know when you started preparing for the biggest hearing of your life?

But not only did Cheatle not recall when she began preparing, she didn’t even take the basic step of visiting the site of the shootings to better prepare herself to answer the Committee’s questions.

   Clinging to the “sloped roof” defense. Is that still USSS policy?

 Cheatle also acknowledged to Rep. Fallon that the USS has “no written policy regarding sloped roofs.” That is a damming admission in view of her prior excuse that no agents were put on the roof of the building from which the shooter fired, because it had a sloped roof. See my discussion of that in “A New Cut on the Incompetence and Cowardice of the Director of the Secret Service.” Fallon drew a nice comparison when he noted that the slope of the roof in question was approximately equivalent to that of a normal wheelchair ramp. But Cheatle never withdrew her prior lame excuse for the lack of agents on the roof. 

   A couple of cheap shots by Republicans

South Carolina Republican, Nancy Mace, added some inflammatory comments that were neither helpful nor appropriate. Like virtually every other questioner, she was understandably frustrated at Cheatle’s blatant lack of transparency. She pointed out that the Washington Post and Politico had obtained a leaked copy of Cheatle’s opening statement, even though it had not been provided to the Committee. That was a fair criticism, but Mace then added, “That’s bullshit.” She doubled down later with, “You’re full of shit today.”

Mace violated only proper congressional decorum, but she also failed one of my fundamental rules for cross-examination: “Show, don’t tell.” If Mace’s arguments and evidence are sound enough, the American people will conclude that Cheatle is “full of s**t,” but it will be their conclusion, not hers.

Republican Tim Burchett of Tennessee also broke my “Show, don’t tell” rule when he told Cheatle that she should be fired because “you are a DEI horror story.” Although I have seen that replayed on TV, which is probably what Burchett wanted, the American people would have been better served with a recitation of objective facts supporting his argument, instead of another ad hominem attack.

Revealing comments by C-SPAN.

I watched the last several hours of the hearing on C-SPAN. After chairman Commer had gaveled the hearing to an end, someone near the C-SPAN microphone muttered in a low voice, “Wow!” Someone else replied, “That’s what we call a smackdown!” They were talking among themselves, not directing their comments to the audience. But they inadvertently provided a fair summary of the tone and temper of this hearing.

What now?

There is no point in calling Cheatle back to testify, even if she was properly prepared to do so. But someone has to answer the questions that she could not or would not answer. The other responsible person is Cheatle’s boss, Alejandro Mayorkas. As the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security he is ultimately responsible for the USSS, even if Cheatle was supposed to exercise more day-to-day oversight. But with her resignation, the Oversight Committee should subpoena Mayorkas, put him under oath, as they did Cheatle, and demand that he give Congress and the American people the information they all are seeking. And he should be required to prepare properly, just as any witness should who is called upon to give Congress information that it needs to properly perform its constitutional duties.

1. AOC and others seem not to know what an AR is or that, for example, it is the caliber and cartridge that determine its range and killing power, not the style of the rifle.