150
Rep. Jasmine Crockett confirms member of her security team killed by Dallas police
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2026
150 points (99.3% liked)
politics
28978 readers
2045 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.