Connect with us

Northeast

Democrats skip testimony from GOP lawmakers with sniper experience at Trump assassination attempt hearing

Published

on

Democrats skip testimony from GOP lawmakers with sniper experience at Trump assassination attempt hearing

Democratic lawmakers on the House task force investigating the attempted assassinations of former President Donald Trump skipped the final portion of the panel’s first hearing Thursday, which featured the two Republicans who have been conducting their own “parallel” investigation into the shooting.

Reps. Eli Crane, R-Ariz., and Cory Mills, R-Fla., two Republicans and both military veterans, took part in the second portion of the hearing, but the Democratic minority fumed behind the scenes that their leadership was not informed of their testimony until late Wednesday afternoon, Fox News sources said. Some Democratic lawmakers were not informed until Thursday morning, however.

The move was seen as the first bipartisan split in what has been a united effort to investigate the incident thus far. 

The Trump assassination attempt task force, led by Reps. Mike Kelly, inset left, and Jason Crow, inset right, have formally launched a probe. (Getty Images)

SECRET SERVICE BOSS SAYS VITAL INFO NOT RELAYED OVER RADIO, DELAYING RESPONSE TO WOULD-BE RALLY ASSASSIN

Advertisement

“We did not receive notice of the second panel until late yesterday. We didn’t have an opportunity to present our own witnesses,” Crow said when asked about Mills and Crane. “[Task Force Chairman Mike Kelly, R-Pa.] and I are still very committed to having this be bipartisan, consensus-based, and it’s my hope that we can return to that … approach going forward.”

Kelly similarly told reporters that this would not impede the task force’s bipartisan mission and said that he invited Mills and Crane to testify because of their expertise, welcoming their assessment of the security perimeter for the rally. 

He brushed off Democrats’ absence during their portion of the hearing, suggesting that some members may have had flights out of Washington, D.C., per KTLA.

“If you want to participate, you can participate. If you decide not to, you can make that decision too,” Kelly said of the members. 

Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., the ranking Democrat on the panel, said lawmakers were frustrated, but he made clear that it was not aimed at Thursday’s witnesses.

Advertisement

“We did not receive notice of the second panel until late yesterday,” Crow said. “It’s unclear to us what testimony will be provided by these witnesses that relates to today’s hearing.”

The first portion of the hearing, the panel heard from a former Secret Service agent, as well as local and state law enforcement officials who were present at the July 13 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, where one attendee was killed and Trump himself was shot in the ear. 

Reps. Cory Mills, R-Fla., a military veteran, took part in the second portion of the hearing. (David Dee Delgado)

TRUMP SHOOTING: TIMELINE OF ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW GUNMAN EVADED SECURITY

Witnesses and lawmakers repeatedly signaled that a lack of clear communication of security plans from the Secret Service helped lead to a 20-year-old gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks, being able to open fire on the rally from a rooftop just outside the security perimeter.

Advertisement

“In the days leading up to the rally, it was not a single mistake that allowed Crooks to outmaneuver one of our country’s most elite group of security professionals. There were security failures on multiple fronts,” Kelly said. 

“The communication between the Secret Service and local and state partners was disjointed and unclear,” Crow said. “It was the fault of the Secret Service, because the Secret Service is ultimately responsible for the protection at events like that. They did not do their job. They did not provide the clarity and the guidance to local law enforcement. That was pretty clear to me,” Crow told reporters.

One bullet grazed Trump’s right ear, while firefighter Corey Comperatore was fatally struck. Rally-goers James Copenhaver and David Dutch were also shot and injured.

One key question has been why there were no law enforcement personnel on top of the AGR building where Crooks eventually climbed up and took his shots, considering that it was so close to the rally stage and afforded a clear line of sight to Trump.

“A 10-year-old looking at that satellite image could have seen that the greatest threat posed to the president that day” was the building near the stage, said Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas.

Advertisement

Former President Donald Trump just seconds after the Butler, Pennsylvania, assassination attempt. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

The panel — comprised of seven Republicans and six Democrats — has spent the last two months analyzing the security failures at the rally, conducting nearly two dozen interviews with law enforcement and receiving more than 2,800 pages of documents from the Secret Service.

 

An interim report released Wednesday from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which is also conducting an investigation, said the Secret Service failed to give clear instructions on how state and local officials should cover the building where the gunman eventually took up position. The report also said the agency didn’t make sure it could share information with local partners in real-time.

Multiple lawmakers indicated that they are looking to hear from Acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe again, particularly after Congress recently allocated $230 million in additional funding for the agency.

Advertisement

Fox News’ Elizabeth Elkind and The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Read the full article from Here

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Boston, MA

MWRA’s solution to sewer overflows stirs outrage – The Boston Globe

Published

on

MWRA’s solution to sewer overflows stirs outrage – The Boston Globe


This is also an economic issue. Toxic blooms from stormwater runoff recently threatened the Head of the Charles Regatta, and such conditions will imperil other landmark events and economic development if the MWRA compounds the runoff issue by maintaining its current course on CSOs.

We’ve been here before: When Conservation Law Foundation brought its lawsuit to force the cleanup of Boston Harbor, some members of the media called it a waste of billions of dollars. That faulty notion is reprised in the editorial. Yet today the harbor’s revival proves that clean water investments yield extraordinary returns to our economy, such as a value of ecosystem services estimated between $30 billion and $100 billion.

Advertisement

This is also a matter of the rule of law. MWRA deserves credit for magnificent achievements in cleaning up the harbor over decades. From my experience having enforced the federal Clean Water Act throughout those same decades, I would argue that MWRA’s current approach to CSOs violates both the letter and spirit of the law.

Brad Campbell

President and CEO

Conservation Law Foundation

Boston

Advertisement

The writer is former regional administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency’s mid-Atlantic region and former commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

Improving water quality presents difficult tradeoffs

Your recent editorial on the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority’s updated CSO control plan resonated because it recognized what’s driving so much of the public’s emotion: a sincere, shared hope for cleaner, healthier rivers. Those of us who work in water and wastewater feel that same pull. Combined sewer overflows should continue to decline, and this plan was always meant to evolve. The goal — for advocates, MWRA, and our communities — is the same: real improvements in water quality.

The challenge, as your editorial noted, is that progress now requires confronting difficult tradeoffs. After 40 years of major gains, the remaining decisions are more complex — and far more costly. MWRA was created to lead the region’s environmental turnaround, and the MWRA Advisory Board was established alongside it to ensure that those decisions kept affordability in mind — not to block investment but rather to make sure families and communities could sustain it.

When tradeoffs fall directly on households, people deserve clarity about what each dollar accomplishes. MWRA is funded entirely by its communities, which means every dollar becomes a higher sewer bill for the residents who cherish these rivers.

Advertisement

Massachusetts has some of the most engaged, informed residents anywhere. Let’s give them the full story in the formal comment process and trust them to help shape the path forward.

Matthew A. Romero

Executive director

MWRA Advisory Board

Chelsea

Advertisement

The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not represent those of the full advisory board.

Agency’s proposal lets the sewage win

The editorial “The MWRA’s tricky balancing act” regurgitates MWRA’s misleading argument for dumping sewage in the Charles River while it misses the heart of the public’s concerns. The agency’s proposal to reclassify the river is no meaningless thing; it’s a permanent concession to have sewage discharged into the Charles forever. The proposal would not only remove any accountability for MWRA to end its discharges. It would actually increase the amount of sewage entering the river in the future as storms worsen. It would be a drastic step backward for a mainstay of Greater Boston that’s taken us decades to bring back to life.

There was no misunderstanding about MWRA, Cambridge, and Somerville’s proposal that has to be “explained” to its critics. The authority faced justified alarm from outraged residents legitimately questioning why we would abandon past cleanup efforts and increase sewage discharges to the river.

The editorial paints solutions as impossible and unrealistic. But the Boston Harbor cleanup — also dismissed as too hard at the time — is now one of metro Boston’s greatest economic wins. Clean water is an investment that pays off.

Advertisement

A sewage-free river is not a pipe dream. It’s what we deserve and what MWRA must deliver.

Emily Norton

Executive director

Charles River Watershed Association

Boston

Advertisement

Residents deserve more information, transparent process

The proposals on the table from MWRA, Cambridge, and Somerville addressing combined sewer overflows would not get us closer to a swimmable or boatable Charles or Mystic River.

For instance, the proposal does not promise to “eliminate CSOs in the Alewife Brook entirely,” as your editorial claims. It predicts only that there would be no CSOs in a “typical” year of rainfall. So the current proposal essentially guarantees continued releases of CSOs in the Alewife Brook, the Mystic, and the Charles, and probably at an even greater level than now.

As environmental advocates, we understand that costs must be weighed against benefits. But the current proposals provide minimal (and yet to be known) benefits, far less than the editorial asserts.

Massachusetts residents deserve more information and a transparent public process where they can weigh in on whether the costs are worth the benefits for treasured public resources.

Advertisement

The headline that appeared over your editorial online asks: “Is making the Charles swimmable worth the cost?”

For our part, the question is: Is freeing our rivers from sewage worth the cost? Our answer remains a resounding yes.

Patrick Herron

Executive director

Mystic River Watershed Association

Advertisement

Arlington





Source link

Continue Reading

Pittsburg, PA

Independence boys and girls basketball sweeps Pittsburg

Published

on

Independence boys and girls basketball sweeps Pittsburg


Pittsburg, Kan. (KOAM) — The Lady Bulldogs take down the Purple Dragons 49-45.The boy’s team defeats Pittsburg 56-49.Check out the highlights in the above video.COPYRIGHT 2025 BY KOAM NEWS NOW. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THIS MATERIAL MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED, BROADCAST, REWRITTEN OR REDISTRIBUTED.



Source link

Continue Reading

Connecticut

Twin Peaks Restaurant planning to open 3 locations in Connecticut

Published

on

Twin Peaks Restaurant planning to open 3 locations in Connecticut


DALLAS (WTNH) — A New London-based group is partnering with a Texas-based restaurant planning to open its first locations in Connecticut. 

New London Hospitality has signed a new area development agreement with Twin Hospitality Group Inc., the parent company of Twin Peaks Restaurant, for the development rights of three future locations in the state, according to a press release from Twin Peaks. 

The release lists New Haven, Hartford, Waterbury, Danbury and Stamford or Bridgeport as potential markets. 

According to the release, New London Hospitality is run by Deepak Verma and Kam Singh, who have experience in the hospitality industry and have worked with major hotel brands including Hilton, Red Roof Inn and Choice Hotels. 

Advertisement

“Deepak and Kam bring a powerful combination of hospitality expertise and operational discipline,” Twin Peaks CEO Kim Boerema said in the release. “Their experience growing multi-unit concepts makes them ideal partners as we enter Connecticut. We are confident they will help anchor Twin Peaks as a new favorite for sports fans throughout the state.”

Twin Peaks describes itself as “the ultimate sports lodge featuring made-from-scratch food and the coldest beer in the business, surrounded by scenic views and wall-to-wall TVs. At every Twin Peaks, guests are immediately welcomed by a friendly Twin Peaks Girl and served up a menu made for MVPs.”

“Twin Peaks delivers everything guests want in a sports bar — scratch-made food, 29-degree draft beer, and the best place to catch every game,” Verma said. “We look forward to introducing the brand’s signature lodge experience and welcoming Twin Peaks girls to Connecticut, establishing a new home base for local sports fans and food enthusiasts.”

Twin Peaks was founded in 2005 in Lewisville, Texas, a suburb of Dallas. There are 114 locations in the United States and Mexico. The closest location to Connecticut is in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending