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.
AIPAC didn’t keep you safe, comprador?
Yikes, great background checks being done there. How embarrassing.
now think about top secret clearances
and how many of the trump team that were allowed to not have them
Unless he was the cleanup man once she became useless.
Man, I’m really glad Republicans didn’t manage to sneak her into the general for Senate…
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.
Police followed Robinson into a hospital parking lot Wednesday, NBC Dallas Fort Worth reported. He then barricaded himself in his car until police used tear gas to make him come out and then pulled a weapon, authorities said. Officers shot and killed him.
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.
Either her team was completely incompetent (which ultimately comes back on her) or they just didn’t give a fuck their security team member gave them a fake name.
How do you not catch that shit for any position, but especially security?!
And she still can’t accept responsibility for shit…
I read the aricle as this falls on the House’s procedures for hiring, that her team followed and trusted. Meaning that if there was one, there can be others acively serving as security right now for any representative.
Given everything else federal that’s been gutted, this isn’t a big surprise.
What indication did you see that this was just about her team?
Via this method, how many foreign agents might be bodyguards for Congress?
And if not they now will be trying.
Are you that dense that you think that she’s personally did the background check and verification/validation of this person on her security team?
That’s not how any of this works here buddy especially when you yourself quoted
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.
So her team followed what was recommended and required by Congress but somehow it’s her fault for following what was recommended and required by Congress. Sigh…I guess I really shouldn’t expect so much from American society that has a average reading comprehension level of a sixth grader.
Are you that dense that you think that she’s personally did the background check and verification/validation of this person on her security team?
Her team contracted him…
She choose her team…
I know I’m basically repeating what I just said tho:
Either her team was completely incompetent (which ultimately comes back on her) or they just didn’t give a fuck their security team member gave them a fake name.
But I don’t know how to make it any easier to explain.
So her team followed what was recommended and required by Congress
I’d be shocked if “verify this is the same person as the paperwork says” isn’t a step…
Again, her team followed the protocol outlined by Congress, that process that Congress says to follow to ensure a person is eligible and safe to hire, her team throws it to them to check and things comes back with a thumbs up for hiring.
See when you follow the rules and procedures outlined by someone else and the procedure showed deficiencies in the process, an adult would point out the deficiency in the process, fix the process, and not blame the person who followed the process. But again, sixth grade reading comprehension level.
As for
I’d be shocked if “verify this is the same person as the paperwork says” isn’t a step…
And now you’re just throwing out bullshit conjecture as fact, it’s quite a pathetic attempt to bolster your flawed argument with made up crap just because you don’t like Crockett.
Did you read the article far enough to get to where she defends him and said he should have been able to work security anyways?
Like, do you not see any responsibility on the rest of the security team to notice someone wasn’t who they said?
Who were they making paychecks out to? He was a contractor, congress wasn’t writing the checks.
And I know I’ll have to say it again “if the people she hired for vital positions were incompetent, she was incompetent”.
And now you’re just throwing out bullshit conjecture as fact
I don’t play war thunder but I assure you that’s a part of it…
I mean, just think logically, if they don’t verify the person in front of them is the person on the paperwork, what’s the point of any it?
Well that’s a great non-sequitur that does nothing to help your argument.
Crockett said the description of Robinson’s past doesn’t “fit with the person we came to know as Mike King.”
“The man we knew showed up with respect, care, and commitment to protecting others,” Crockett said in a post on X that included her statement.
“We are praying for the friends and family of the man that we knew as Mike King. Mike had been in and around our team for years. There was never any reason to suspect that he wasn’t who he held himself out to be,” she said in her statement.
“He never endangered our team, worked diligently, coordinated with local law enforcement, and maintained positive relationships throughout the community,” said Crockett, who recently lost the Democratic Senate nomination in Texas to state Rep. James Talarico.
She added that as a public defender, she believed in “redemption” and “second chances.”
She said an initial review of Robinson’s “limited criminal history” showed he had no violent offenses.
Her being a normal, compassionate, empathetic human being and not saying “this guy deserved to be killed by police”, oh the horror!! And once again, a big ol’ non-sequitur that does nothing to do with or help your argument.
Again, back to the original discussion, no getting off track. Team follow procedure, team hands off background check to the place outlined by procedure, procedure comes back and says “good”. The root is a bad procedure, not her team so blame procedure, not the persons following a bad procedure. It’s not a hard concept to understand here but you still seem to be on some sort of holy crusade to try and prove that she should have done more despite the safeguards that was supposed to work failing.
Not hard to understand but again sixth grade reading comprehension and war thunder apparently. But hey you do you there buddy you have a good one and bless your heart.
ETA: So just more non-sequiturs and then a big ol’ ad-hominem about bigotry when no one was even talking about her race. Pathetic and to the block list for being this disingenous.
a great non-sequitur that does nothing to help your argument
If you don’t understand someone’s train of logic, the best way to understand is asking them to fill in more gaps, so you can understand…
Not hard to understand
I agree, but clearly you’re still having difficulty.
I also agree that we’re not going to fix it here, some people are refusing to look at her as a leader, and want to defend her leadership based on her personal demographics.
I don’t have much patience for bigotry, even when it’s well intentioned.
I think the understanding is pretty clear, that you are blaming the victim of a badly defined process here.
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.
Elected officials don’t personally conduct the background checks for their staff, that would be absurd.
…
Either her team was completely incompetent (which ultimately comes back on her) or they just didn’t give a fuck their security team member gave them a fake name.
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.
She is not responsible for the outcome of any background check.
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
Her accounting team that pays contractors to notice the name on the check doesn’t match the name from HR
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.
Even if it was bad luck on her part and both her team, and the House procedures were as correct and well followed as they could have been, it’s a good thing she isn’t the candidate right now, because that would be that.
