Police said at a news conference after the shooting of Diamon Robinson, 39, that he had “multiple felony warrants” and a parole violation warrant. The warrants were for impersonating a police officer and for stolen license plates, NBC Dallas Fort Worth reported.
…
Crockett, who has been a member of Congress since 2023, said Robinson went by the name Mike King when he worked for her. She said her team “followed all protocols outlined by the House to contract additional security,” adding that it had been approved to hire the man it knew as Mike King.
“The fact that an individual was able to somehow circumvent the vetting processes for something as sensitive as security for members of Congress highlights the loopholes and shortcomings in many of our systems,” Crockett said. “This is incredibly alarming, especially for those members who receive high volumes of credible and sophisticated death threats.”
Crockett added that Robinson’s ability to circumvent the congressional system’s security hiring loopholes was a reason for U.S. Capitol Police to provide security to Congress members.
Elected officials don’t personally conduct the background checks for their staff, that would be absurd. There are entire investigative agencies most people have never heard of whose job it is to run clearances and background checks for federal employees and contractors.
There is implied bureaucratic trust that when an elected official submits a list of names of prospective staff who need background checks, that the results of those checks are reliable and trustworthy once they are completed. Sometimes they’re wrong.
You may not like Crockett, but this is not on her.
…
Keep reading…
Her team didn’t personally conduct the background checks either. Her team submitted names of potential employees/contractors for the security detail, and then the agency responsible for conducting background checks took it from there. It was completely out of her and her team’s hands.
Other commenters and I are trying to explain to you how the process actually works. She is not responsible for the outcome of any background check. The independent agency that conducted it is. When this guy’s background check (wrongly) came back as clear, there was legitimately no reason for her not to hire him.
She was told, by the authority on the matter, that he was good to go. They were wrong, not her or her team.
Without trying to look up how long he worked on her team, could you take a stab at what you think an acceptable timeline for:
The other security team members to notice.
Her accounting team that pays contractors to notice the name on the check doesn’t match the name from HR.
Because to me, it seems like if no one raised red flags till a shootout with police, it speaks to widespread incompetence or disregard for procedure, policy, and regulations.
But to be honest, I have issues sometimes with what should be obvious to an average person.
We are talking about the same people that entered a Dem Senate primary due to manipulation from the NRSC, and we all know how stupid Senate Republicans are.
If people fall for manipulation from those idiots, they’ll fall for stuff like wanted felons applying to security positions under fake names…
Which is why I’m glad there’s no current chance of her rising to a higher political office where her being easily manipulated hurts more people
why would they care? all accounting cares is that the check clears.
If a company hires a person, HR handles the hiring. The person’s manager isn’t involved in all the checks and processes beforehand. The govertment is no different, you have a department for this to centralize. And you still haven’t commented on the real problem, not Crockett, as you wanted this to bend, but about how someone got through that process (which should be far more rigorous than private), and what that means for currently active security. That should be your focus.
You seem to be incapable of understanding how organizations work, and I don’t have time for that kind of determined idiocy or trolling. Blocked.