Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MADem

(135,425 posts)
6. Sounds to me like an integrity issue--"duty to report" and they didn't, when they knew.
Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:40 PM
Apr 2012

It doesn't mean they all were partaking of the goods, just that they may have known about those who were, and perhaps either facilitated the misconduct or willfully ignored it.

It could simply be one of those "loss of confidence" reliefs for cause--someone wasn't keeping track of subordinates when they should have been. It's unpleasant to sack someone who shirks their responsibility, particularly when they're not the ones actually participating in the misconduct, but there can be no exceptions. Particularly now. Obama will be out in the public eye a great deal between now and the general election, there can be no fuckups, no mistakes, no sloppy or lazy secret service agents.

That's if the report is accurate, of course. It does seem like a large number to me as well.

wtf?????? dhill926 Apr 2012 #1
That large a number at one time seems.. Unlikely.. n/t Fumesucker Apr 2012 #2
Unless it was like a blue flu or something... Horse with no Name Apr 2012 #5
Sounds to me like an integrity issue--"duty to report" and they didn't, when they knew. MADem Apr 2012 #6
All government employees have annual training itsrobert Apr 2012 #3
K&R DeSwiss Apr 2012 #4
Makes me SICK elfin Apr 2012 #7
Homeland Security has them now justabob Apr 2012 #12
scary scary stuff grasswire Apr 2012 #8
Prostitutes? They wont be fired... HooptieWagon Apr 2012 #9
Too much undercover work is not necessarily a good thing Major Nikon Apr 2012 #10
See! Even the Secret Service supports working women! FarLeftFist Apr 2012 #11
I find it hard to believe. nt Poll_Blind Apr 2012 #13
It's a little weird, I agree. nt EFerrari Apr 2012 #22
The whole unit was pulled off duty - but we don't know how many were actually involved. Tx4obama Apr 2012 #14
In this case take your political blinders off nadinbrzezinski Apr 2012 #15
Everything is political if it has to do with The President. Tx4obama Apr 2012 #17
No dear, security violations are not political nadinbrzezinski Apr 2012 #18
The Secret Service director is a Bush II appointee. Tx4obama Apr 2012 #19
And...so you think this is a huge conspiracy nadinbrzezinski Apr 2012 #20
I never suggested it was a conspiracy. The buck stops with him. Tx4obama Apr 2012 #21
You said you wanted to know if these guys were republican nadinbrzezinski Apr 2012 #24
Just because I'm wondering if they are republican ... Tx4obama Apr 2012 #25
They will make it about the embarrassment nadinbrzezinski Apr 2012 #16
Another area of your expertise? nt Union Scribe Apr 2012 #28
Actually sort off nadinbrzezinski Apr 2012 #31
Columbian hookers have a legendary reputation... dogknob Apr 2012 #23
...for being 14. Poll_Blind Apr 2012 #29
They're saying the entire unit was recalled... countryjake Apr 2012 #26
* * * * * Additional Information * * * * * Tx4obama Apr 2012 #27
Yup, the advance team. nadinbrzezinski Apr 2012 #32
hmmm...wouldn't wanna be that hotel employee... countryjake Apr 2012 #33
One article stated that one agent engaged prostitutes. bluestate10 Apr 2012 #30
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Secret Service agents wit...»Reply #6