Access to this page has been denied
thehill.com
px-captcha
  • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.worldEnglish
    37·
    22 days ago

    At one point Monday, the firm’s prior private security firm — whose contract was ended after it coordinated with DOGE — also appeared at the building, at one point “proceed[ing] to walk toward the Institute’s gun safe,” pushing USIP staff to ignite its lockdown policy.

    Are all private security firms that corruptible?

    • Crikeste@lemm.ee
      6·
      22 days ago

      And at what point are they armed trespassers? And if the institute has guns…… Why the fuck aren’t they picking them up and defending the institute? What are they for? To sit in a safe, only for you to cry when someone walks toward them?

      The fuck.

    • thefartographer@lemm.ee
      6·
      22 days ago

      Can you really corrupt something that’s already corrupted? Someone else offered them more money and they’re for-profit security. Their morals rest on the bottom line.

      • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        22 days ago

        Yeah, but you’d think that doing something like this would impact their ability to get future clients.

        • thefartographer@lemm.ee
          2·
          22 days ago

          I think they just sent out a bid to all the billionaires: will invade any government entity for our true overlords

      • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        21 days ago

        I’m assuming it was originally for use by the private security personnel, since they knew where it was and apparently expected to be able to access it.

        And/or, the institute may have a strict no-guns policy and the safe is for visitors to store their firearms when entering.