I don’t know the timeline exactly-is it possible they learned there were armed people present during the speech and he just blew them off?
It’s my understanding that people in the crowd outside of the security zone of the rally were observed to be armed, not in the rally itself which was controlled by the Secrets Service and had metal detectors set up to screen attendees. That could be true of any event. The point is that Trump believed that people were not entering the security zone because they knew the metal detectors would catch them and they would be arrested, so his answer was to ask that the metal detectors be removed and let the crowd in because they were not there to harm him.
Being armed outside of the security zone doesn’t automatically make you an imminent threat to the POTUS unless you have a weapon that can reach him from a distance. Handguns would most likely not be threat, but a sniper rifle might be depending upon the distance. Outside of the secure area is under the control of local authorities and the Secret Service would have asked for their assistance. Given that this was in DC you would think that the SS would have an overwhelming presence on the ground and high up in buildings along with cameras. Still they would depend on local police to pick up people outside of the zone.
Its their job to define and secure the immediate area around the POTUS, not the entire city. Also to assess the risk. Taking away the metal detectors was obviously an unacceptable risk. As was driving the POTUS to the Capitol building knowing there were armed threats in the crowd, especially in a vehicle other than the Beast.
Like, maybe, a gun?
Depends on the gun and the distance.
The few clips I’ve seen of Trump’s 1/6 speech 
show him standing behind some sort of glass/plastic shield it looks like.
Was that for rain drops, or lead.
There is usually a bullet proof shield up when a secret service protectorate is giving a speech in an outdoor setting.
Noted. 
From what I understand the Secret Service did their job as well as they could on 1/6, they kept the POTUS safe. They did not remove the metal detectors as was suggested by the POTUS. They did not drive the POTUS to an unsecure location in a secondary security level vehicle. And they have kept their mouths shut about hearsay statements concerning the personal actions of the POTUS in public.
If the POTUS was prone to throw temper tantrums it was kept among people in their general sphere of work who would have been talking about them anyway, not public statements. If I am incorrect could someone point me to a public statement from the SS concerning the POTUS behavior on 1/6? Other than the standard nothing happening here statement that they almost always give.
Versions of the story have been circulating for months.
I had forgotten the detail that Mo Brooks was dressed the way he was at the rally because he needed something baggy on to hide the bulletproof vest he was wearing. That plays differently now that we know that they knew before and during the speeches that there were weapons in the crowd for absolute certain.
On a related topic, there were a few references to there being Glocks at the rally played during the hearing, but for certain at least one report of an AR-15 out beyond the enclosed and controlled area. Depending upon the specific weapon-- those can have a pretty damn large effective range. Without doubt the SS were all over that threat and if anyone went form carrying to brandishing any weapon whatsoever that day, they would be so much meat seconds later. From the recordings, it was very obvious that there were agents in the crowd outside the enclosed and controlled area, and that they were calling in weapon sightings and positions. In addition, I trust the agency’s professionalism to determine how large the controlled area needed to be and how many layers of protective screens would be required.
In one sense that is the principle difference between the professional protective agents and Trump. The professionals plan for what is possible and make defending against that level of threat the minimum measures taken, Trump wanted to travel with the armed nutjobs because he makes his decisions based upon not what is possible but upon what he feels is most likely to happen. That is why he so often finds himself in legal trouble; he often misjudges which risks are reasonable.
This is just another gossip spreading artical. No named sources. Just repeating the same thing does not make it firsthand information.
Why do we insist on getting caught up in this loop that goes no where instead of the key talking points. The POTUS incited an armed mob to overthrow the government!
Because the only thing left to the Trump Sycophant Brigade is the Red Herring Fallacy.
What job? What was the title of this job? How much did it pay? When did it start? Who else knew anything about this job?
The answers are obvious, no job, just another Trump lie, and nonsensical except in his insane world where people lie to congress because they weren’t offered a job that no one ever heard of before.
Love it.
A–righty then!
(Gift link)
…
On the other hand, if Mr. Trump is clearly, unquestionably guilty of committing a serious crime — not just arguably so — the department might have little choice. Central to our system of justice is the principle that no one is above the law.The Justice Department has investigative powers that the Jan. 6 committee does not, and there are critical questions that remain unanswered. Mr. Garland should have no higher priority than using these powers to investigate all of those involved in one of the darkest days in American history.
…
Personally, I think no one knows this better than Merrick Garland.
And I more than half expect someone to announce his intention to seek the nomination of the Republican party for president tomorrow.
Merrick Garland?
Now that would be a twist!
I can’t wait, if only for the reaction by Trump, and the increased intraparty tensions that would undoubtedly follow.
Trump is getting nervous. I’ve heard reports he’s anxious to announce so he can publicly begin his campaign against the “witch hunt.” It was the most predictable response ever.
But oh, then the sweet, sweet money pipeline would have to be directed to campaign expenses and not solely into his pocket.
What to do… what to do…
If Trump declares, it will make things more complicated for Garland. So I was heartened to learn the DOJ declined to charge Meadows with contempt of Congress. My idle speculation with no proof whatsoever is that it’s a signal they’re flipping Meadows.
Despite people who are confusing the Committee’s evidence with what’s required in a court of law, hearsay is not good enough for a trial court. Meadows’ testimony would be precisely what is needed. Flip Eastman, Clark and Meadows, and you’ve got Trump.