Well Tommy, not surprisingly I completely disagree with you.

1. Your 99.99 percent of the time is not relevant in this instance. This was a STATE Dinner, which are rare events for all White Houses. A better question would be: How many State Dinners has a representative from the social secretaries office NOT been at the gate.

2. According to Roxanne Roberts (Washington Post columnist who was at the dinner” IMMEDIATELY advised/questioned two White House Staffers on the presence of the party crashers. This reporter noticed their names were NOT on the list, yet they were announced. She asked TWO staffers and neither had a good answer for her.

3. Apparently these staffers did NOTHING, given the SS’s comment that they learned about the crashers from their Face Book pictures.

So, the WH KNEW they were there and DIDN’T report this to the secret service, even after they were asked by a reporter……so…..there was NO concern on the part of these staffers.

If Deseree doesn’t testify, perhaps the two staffers should? Clearly, their names were on SOME list because they got the clearance to go forward, they were announced (and it’s not the secret service who does that announcing).

Subpoena Rogers, and stop laying all the blame at the feet of the Secret Service.

Thank you very much Mr. Christopher! I’ve been saying the same thing you just did. Also, since someone brought up Roxanne Roberts, perhaps she could be blamed for not telling the Secret Service? I’m being sarcastic because Rogers was not supposed to be at the door. Now, if you want to know who said that, try Bush’s social secretary. She told this to Larry King. I’m still trying to find out who this person is. As for the Secret Service not finding out they were crashers until they saw it on facebook, that’s a lie. They let them in when they weren’t on the list. That was their first clue that they were not supposed to be there. For anyone including the idiots in that hearing to keep asking if a social staffer had been there, would this have happened, that’s a sad commentary on the SS. As I said yesterday, if you have to be told by a social secretary not to let in people who aren’t on the list and can’t produce the pyhsical invite, you’re not much of a SS agent and should be fired!

Hey Rox — the White House Social secretary has stated they will modify their procedures, and REVERT back to how it was done by the more experienced social secretaries — they will from this day forward, have a social secretary representative stationed with the secret service for these types of major events. So by reverting back to the way things have been done in the past, the social office has pretty much admitted they screwed up.

I say issue the subpoena to Rogers.

No, by getting suspended with Pay and admitting that they screwed up is why they’re at home and Rogers is just fine. You’ve also convenently ignored what Tommy’s article just stated. 99.9% of the time it’s the SS who clears guests for the Whitehouse. Not the social secretary. Do you by any chance know the name of Bush’s social secretary? The change in procedure is an admission that the SS can’t do something as simple as not admitting guest who are not on their lists and don’t have an invite!

Conveniently by the way is how it’s spelled. I’m getting better at manual spelling. Yeah for me!

Clearly Rox you didn’t read my comment.

The 99.99% cannot be applied to an event that is rare and is is not comparable to daily access to the White House for other events. It was a State Dinner with a PM (which honestly shouldn’t have been a state dinner, if one understands protocol), but hey — this is the amateurishness of the current administration.

As opposed to the amateurishness of an administration that was warned in August of 2001 about possible attacks in the US but, ignored them and BOOM! We’re hit with one of the worst attacks in US history? Or the one where the Secret Service allowed not one, but two shoes to sail past Bush’s mellon before they even moved? That amateurish admin!

Your misrepresentation of the PDB does not surprise me one bit. Typical lefty.

Subpoena Rogers.

For not being the door monitor?

Perhaps if the SS had used one of the 4 phone numbers given to them by Rogers to call the 4 other staffers that she designated, they might not be sitting at home right now in disgrace! If the Secret Service says it’s their fault and you say it’s not, are you saying that they’re lying?

I agree with Tommy on this. If they were not on the list what is there for Rogers to testify about? And now the White House is going to place a social secretary at the door at all events? Why to make sure the secret service can read? I give them more credit than that. They screwed up. They admit they screwed up. This is a law enforcement issue not a political one.

Well….I simply won’t brush off the social secretary like this. First off, the State Dinner is not just ANY social event. Secondly, why are you ignoring the fact that the reporter questioned two WH staffers immediately upon the announcement and yet neither of those staffers raised the issue with the secret service? You may not be interested in those answers, but I sure am. Two staffers were advised by a reporter there was a breach….and you are not interested in why those staffers didn’t raise it to a guard at the event? This reporter talked to the staffers WHEN THEY WERE ANNOUNCED, not after the Handshake, but BEFORE they got into the room.

The Secret Service did screw up, they admitted they screwed up. The staffers screwed up too, wouldn’t you say? Why would you give them a pass?

Having the social secretary take some responsibility is not a political issue either, it is a protocol issue. I doubt Dan or Tommy would say the social secretary holds no responsibility if it was a protocol mess up in a republican White House….but hey, that is just my guess.

Subpoena Rogers and the two white house staffers.

I totally agree with TfT.
This is a major issue and Congress should continue to issue subpoenas.
Lots of them.
And then watch the Executive Branch try to hide behind that little separation of powers clause.
I mean, the last administration used it to their benefit on matters much more important than where Ms. Rogers was and why she wsan’t standing there WHEN THEY WERE ANNOUNCED.
It’s obvious this administration does not know how to throw a party!
Let me see… can I throw out any other meaningless buzzwords?
Oh yeah, TOTUS, PDB, amateurishness.
Hey, my break at WalMart is over.
Back to checkstand number 23.

NotsoAnonymous (posing here as TinafromTampa) is a stalker extraordinaire and once again makes her presence known with a meaningless post. Oh so typical. Go back to tvnewser and find a new person to stalk.

I will be expecting an investigation.. oh.. they already have an investigation? I don’t know are they? Maybe we can find out in a month whether or not.. LIKE FORT HOOD. Maybe they need 93 days to ponder the idea of an investigation into that too.

Sounds like a Prima Dona to me. Rumor has it she always keeps a table set up for those who are not invited. This wasn’t a mistake so to speak it was normal for her. She went into the dinner like a special invited guest. Guess she does not like being treated like “help”. If I’m not mistaken, Desiree Rogers got her job the Chicago way which is through patronage. These jobs are rewarded to political friends and family as a reward for their support. No real work is actually expected. Ms. Rogers and the Obama’s seem to forget that he White House is not Chicago. Last I checked the Social Secretary is a real job in DC. that comes with real responsibilities. I guess in the end it’s easier to blame the Secret Service for any negative fallout.

Hey, Tommy: I gotta run and don’t have time to Google your past works. Since you think “settling scores” is a bad, bad thing nowadays, do me a favor and post links to your condemnation of Scott McClellan’s book about being W’s Press Sec (and being the worst ever until Gibbs).

Looking forward to proof of your consistency.

The job Desiree Rogers is doing as social secretary is a completely separate issue. Assigning her blame for a security breach is not only unfair, it is dangerous. It distracts from the very serious bottom line: the Secret Service is solely responsible for safeguarding the White House and the President. Period, end of story.

Tommy Christopher wrote:

The job Desiree Rogers is doing as social secretary is a completely separate issue. Assigning her blame for a security breach is not only unfair, it is dangerous. It distracts from the very serious bottom line: the Secret Service is solely responsible for safeguarding the White House and the President.

Hold on, Tommy — what exactly IS “the job Desiree Rogers is doing”? You know what it is? I submit that you don’t — and that the new-and-improved “transparent” White House doesn’t want us to know, either.

The new procedures Desiree Rogers instituted DID NOT WORK. Even after the Washed-up Post leak obviously designed to provide further cover for Rogers, there is no record I have been able to find of such an egregious breach of security on the grounds of the White House. But as a new, valued appointee and a close friend of the President and the First Lady, if she said procedures have to change, who had the clout? She, or the USSS? Here’s a clue to my answer to that question: Remember what former Secret Service officer Gary Aldrich said Chelsea Clinton called the USSS guards assigned to her? (A: “My personal trained pigs.”)

You are quick to dismiss the pre-BHO WH account of Cathy Hargraves as that of a “disgruntled former staffer.” Does being “disgruntled” mean she is incapable of telling the truth, Tommy? The fact remains, nobody slid their way into the White House during a state dinner when they should have – Hargraves said she was a key stopgap, and that her position was eliminated with apparently nobody assigned to replace her. So why are some people CYAing cronies when the security of the POTUS and other world leaders may be at stake?

Period, end of story.

You know what I love about the internet, Tommy? It used to be that when someone with a media megaphone said “Period, end of story,” it really was. But now, I can answer right back “No, it’s not.”

People like you want to make sure that only half the story is told, that the USSS takes all the blame, and that it’s impossible that there is a fraction of culpability to be shared.

Why don’t you want to know it all? What are you afraid of finding out, Tommy?

Gee, I came to this site under the mistaken impression it would be an independent take on media coverage and issues. Turns out it’s really just Mediaite staffers hawking their own political biases disguised as media criticism.

Of course Desiree Whatsherface is at fault! She should have been performing her duties as Social Secretary instead of fawning and gushing over the guests. Is she the one who waved in the CONVICTED FELON, Robert Kramer? This Liberal LOSER is married to a Chicago Congresswoman and went to prison for Bank Fraud, Income Tax Evasion, etc. He wrote a manifesto on taking over Health Care that Obama has been following to the letter. How is it that a CONVICTED FELON gets waved into the White House? Who waved him in? Why? Obama has a lot of questions to answer but don’t hold your breath for Mr. Transparency to enlighten we little people. I can’t wait to IMPEACH this corrupt bunch of criminals after we take back the HOUSE!

My bad. The Convicted Felon who attended the White House State Dinner’s name is actually ROBERT CREAMER, not Kramer. If any “journalist” would like to win a Pulitzer he/she might start investigating what is going on in the White House and why the POTUS has so many friends and associates who are FELONS, COMMUNISTS, SOCIALISTS, MARXISTS, MAO-LOVING SCREWBALLS, FORMER DOMESTIC TERRORISTS, AND A GAY PEDOPHILE SYMPATHIZER WHO IS IN CHARGE OF “SAFE SCHOOLS!!” This Administration has more weirdo’s and nutwads per square inch than any in the history of this country. INVESTIGATE AND REPORT! I double dog dare ya!