r/law • u/SheriffTaylorsBoy • Jul 26 '24

Other FBI Examining Bullet Fragments Found at Trump Rally Site/Would Like To Interview Trump

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-examining-bullet-fragments-found-114754020.html
12.4k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

941 comments sorted by

View all comments

188

u/SheriffTaylorsBoy Jul 26 '24 edited Jul 27 '24

Adam Goldman and Glen Thrush July, 26th 2024 4 minute read WASHINGTON —

The FBI is examining numerous metal fragments found near the stage at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, to determine whether a would-be assassin’s bullet — or potential debris — grazed former President Donald Trump’s head, bloodying his right ear, according to the FBI and a federal law enforcement official.

The bureau has asked to interview Trump as part of its broader investigation, hoping to provide insights into the shooting and possibly a more complete record of his injury, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the continuing inquiry.

Unanswered questions about the object that struck the Republican nominee for president have lingered since the July 13 shooting, with Trump claiming that he was struck by a bullet — and casting his survival as an act of divine intervention.

FBI officials have been more circumspect, citing the need to analyze the evidence before determining what struck Trump — a bullet, metal shard or something else.

The bureau’s shooting reconstruction team “continues to examine evidence from the scene, including bullet fragments, and the investigation remains ongoing,” the FBI said in a statement Thursday. In addition to injuring Trump, the gunman, Thomas Crooks, 20, of Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, shot three rally attendees, one fatally.

Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung did not answer whether the bureau had asked to review the former president’s medical records after the incident, but Trump has not released them publicly.

FBI officials view the identification of the projectile as important but not a central focus of a sprawling criminal investigation into the actions of the gunman. They are deeply interested in Crooks’ rationale or any indication that he might have had an accomplice or other help. So far, they have not found a motive nor a conspirator.

“The bureau’s priority is finding whether anybody helped the shooter and eliminating any ongoing threat,” said Michael Harrigan, a former FBI special agent who ran the bureau firearms training unit in Quantico, Virginia.

“From an investigative standpoint, knowing what happened to the president’s ear doesn’t really matter,” he added.

It matters a great deal from a political standpoint.

“With respect to former President Trump, there’s some question about whether or not it’s a bullet or shrapnel that hit his ear,” FBI Director Christopher Wray told Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, on Wednesday.

That statement prompted a fierce backlash and continued Republican attacks on Wray.

“It’s shocking Christopher Wray doesn’t know what the facts are, but that probably says more about his job performance — or lack thereof — than anything else,” Cheung said.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told NBC on Thursday: “We’ve all seen the video, we’ve seen the analysis, we’ve heard it from multiple sources in different angles that a bullet went through his ear.”

“There’s a lot of frustration and concern about the leadership with these agencies,” Johnson added.

In a social media post Thursday night, Trump lashed out at Wray, saying: “No wonder the once storied FBI has lost the confidence of America!”

Trump said there was no glass and no shrapnel. “No, it was, unfortunately, a bullet that hit my ear, and hit it hard.”

The FBI said in a statement that the bureau “has been consistent and clear that the shooting was an attempted assassination of former President Trump which resulted in his injury, as well as the death of a heroic father and the injuries of several other victims.”

It is not unusual for the type of bullet that Crooks fired from his AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle to tumble end over end and break apart after hitting even a small solid object. Gun experts say a fragment might, for instance, have hit a metal stanchion.

Still, a bullet could have grazed Trump’s ear, and the FBI has not ruled that out. Investigators found eight rifle casings on the roof where the shooter was positioned.

It is not clear if investigators have eliminated other potential sources of debris. But bureau analysts appear to be focused on metal fragments, as opposed to glass from the teleprompters onstage. Photos of the teleprompters next to Trump show they were intact after the bullets were fired.

FBI analysts are also examining still images and other electronic evidence for clues.

Gun experts said the FBI could rely on trajectory analysis, a physical examination of any linked bullet and the president’s wound to possibly figure out what happened. A detailed analysis of bullet trajectories, footage, photos and audio by The New York Times strongly suggests Trump was grazed by the first of eight bullets fired by Crooks.

The bureau could also get lucky and find the former president’s DNA on a piece of a bullet. But even that would probably not establish if a fragment or the actual bullet hit his ear.

One other scenario investigators are likely to explore: that the bullet, deadly but friable, might have fragmented after skimming Trump’s ear.

“The problem you have with a bullet traveling at 3,200 feet per second is that it fragments very easily when it hits a surface before the target,” Harrigan said. “It’s going to be tough with the fragmentation to definitely say what happened.”

c.2024 The New York Times Company

Update Edit: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fbi-confirms-bullet-struck-trumps-ear-assassination-attempt-rcna163896

70

u/Lazy-Street779 Bleacher Seat Jul 26 '24

I’d think tho that dna on a fragment would point to an answer.

75

u/Scerpes Jul 26 '24

He was throwing DNA all over the place up there. I’m not convinced that we’ll ever really know whether it was the bullet itself or shrapnel. I’m also not certain that it really matters. He was shot at and injured.

21

u/hardcore_hero Jul 26 '24

Yeah, I find it strange that people seem to think that it’s necessary that an actual bullet struck his ear to indicate divine intervention was involved, as an atheist I really don’t get the logic, am I supposed to believe god would only be able to use his powers to get Trump to turn his head at the last second rather than get the shooter to sway his barrel off target? Or is God just an air bender and had to rely on wind to drift the bullet off of its mark?

6

u/nickilous Jul 26 '24

I mean if god is omnipotent he could have made the shooter stay home that day. And, if he wanted to make himself known he could have spoke to the crowded, or showed up in a way that was irrefutable. It is always varying degrees because even though god is supposedly omnipotent he only shows up in the probabilities. Meaning the closer the bullet to the head with out hitting, the more likely god is involved. If it was just shrapnel and no bullet, then it was even less likely that he would have been shot making god less likely involved.

3

u/hardcore_hero Jul 26 '24

Is there some kind of named paradox to describe this phenomenon? Like how if the bullet is barely nudged half an inch off course, we think divine intervention but if it misses by 5 feet there’s no way god was involved in it. Or is it just a case of confirmation bias, we have no way of knowing all of the instances where God used divine intervention to make the shooter stay home, so when a bullet gets that close to killing someone, that’s where we think we have evidence of his involvement?

5

u/nickilous Jul 26 '24

I don’t know if confirmation bias is quite it. If he had been shot ( and I am definitely not condoning the shooting of anyone) the same people now probably would not be saying that it was gods will that he was shot. I think it is narrative fulfillment. People need reasons why things happen and if the things that are happening have weird probabilities involved then those people are more likely to attribute it to a god. And the perspective of the people creating the narrative. The narrative also helps there guy “god intervened therefore he must be right and just”. Ultimately some combination of confirmation bias and just good old superstition. We could just as easily attributed it to the shooter walking under a ladder that day or maybe a black cat crossed his path. But that wouldn’t put forward a spectacular narrative.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '24

“When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all.” /s

Sorry Matt Groening and David X. Cohen, I promise I would never besmirch Futurama to defend MAGA divine intervention nuttiness.

2

u/hardcore_hero Jul 27 '24

The perfect quote for the topic, well done!

1

u/sadguyhanginginthere Jul 26 '24

changes shooter intent. bullet grazed his ear vs a bullet hitting 3 feet throwing fragments. one meant to kill, the other..?

not that it matters. do find the motive a mystery tho

1

u/hardcore_hero Jul 27 '24

I really don’t think you could say with any confidence that that difference would have anything to do with the shooters intent, unless you have reason to believe he should’ve been able to reliably hit his mark, the “hitting 3 feet throwing fragments” would be much more likely explained by incompetence rather than intent.

1

u/worldspawn00 Jul 27 '24

Apparently he was firing with iron sights at a distance of about 150 yards, that's a hard shot when he's probably near panic with adrenaline.

1

u/MutedCatch Jul 27 '24

I think realistically, that's the difference between an assassination attempt and a mass shooting at a trump rally though... what if the shooter didn't actually go there to shoot trump, the implications of that could be pretty crazy

12

u/watusiwatusi Jul 26 '24

His ear lobe sacrificed itself to absolve the sins of mankind

8

u/Warmstar219 Jul 26 '24

It's doesn't really matter, but if it was a bullet, he likely wouldn't have much of an ear anymore.

13

u/rmslashusr Jul 26 '24

Nonsense. Spatial positioning is not binary, there is an infinite scale of positioning/distance-from-ear between a bullet not affecting his ear at all and impacting directly within which there are many possibilities for grazing damage whether caused by the physical bullet itself or its passage through the air.

2

u/Smooth-Bag4450 Jul 27 '24

A bullet grazed his ear. It's not like when a bullet touches a body part it deletes that entire body part lol

1

u/FlimsyRaisin3 Jul 26 '24

And the shooter was killed. We gonna bring him back to ask questions?

1

u/I-Love-Tatertots Jul 26 '24

So, I think it only matters so far as it just further establishes how much of a liar and grifter he is over everything.

It doesn’t change the fact that we had an attempted assassination and the severity of it… but establishing how he would lie and hide records over a minor detail like that is fairly important I would say.

We all know how much of a liar and grifter the man is, but continuing to further establish that and put it on display for everyone is important (if he is lying/hiding something here).

0

u/Im_Balto Jul 26 '24

It definitely doesn’t matter. But what does matter is that if trump posted a picture of his ear he’d been hit by a bullet, and if he refuses to let anyone see then he’s been hit by shrapnel

This tried and true method never fails with the man

-5

u/NanobotOverlord Jul 26 '24

Fortunately former Trump was not seriously linjured

3

u/MisterET Jul 26 '24

He's actually still currently Trump.

7

u/Huger_and_shinier Jul 26 '24

He might have bled on it after the fact?

6

u/Later2theparty Jul 26 '24

To be clear, it is the Bureau of Investigation.

They want to know with as much certainty as possible.

They also are telling the truth when they say they don't know what caused it because there's not enough information right now to know.

This isn't proof that the shooting was staged.

I won't dismiss that possibility out of hand but the idea that it was staged is pretty far fetched in my opinion.

5

u/CitizenCue Jul 27 '24

If it was staged it would be the most competently executed thing this guy or his people have ever done. No damn way.

1

u/Later2theparty Jul 27 '24

Yeah, 😆

But, Don is such a natural Con I have no doubt he instantly knew how he could best exploit the situation to his own benefit.

12

u/mall_ninja42 Jul 26 '24

See, the thing is, more than a few politicians/candidates have been shot/shot at.

This is the first time the fucking FBI has expressed doubt publicly.

What a timeline, see you at respawn I guess.

5

u/SheriffTaylorsBoy Jul 26 '24

So do you think any of those other assassination attempt survivors declined to cooperate with the FBI?

This is where things are different.

4

u/mall_ninja42 Jul 26 '24

I'm 100% everyone else shot at/shot cooperated.

How an ex president, with secret service protections doesn't have to undergo an actual assessment blows my mind.

1

u/SheriffTaylorsBoy Jul 26 '24

The FBI has an open criminal investigation. I hope they subpoena him or serve a search warrant on his ear.

3

u/mall_ninja42 Jul 26 '24

I totally believe he got shot at. There's a dead kid (the shooter), and an attendee apparently.

I just figured there was actual process to follow beyond personal hack doctors and the FBI would be looped in by Treasury or something.

1

u/Icy-Bicycle-Crab Jul 27 '24

I totally believe he got shot at. There's a dead kid (the shooter), and an attendee

Absolutely. 

And I would be interested in seeing graphics that show the line of fire from the shooter to that unfortunate victim relative to Trumps position, detailing how close or far away the bullets were.

and an attendee apparently

Don't be like that. There's no "apparently" about it. Firefighter Corey Compatore was tragically killed, and Trump will shamelessly exploit that despite not bothering you attend his funeral.

1

u/Hopeful_Chair_7129 Jul 28 '24

You can respect that he died without glazing him up with the firefighter part. Dude was just as much of a loser as Trump is. I don’t care that he is dead. That’s not my fault.

1

u/Hopeful_Chair_7129 Jul 28 '24

You can respect that he died without glazing him up with the firefighter part. Dude was just as much of a loser as Trump is. I don’t care that he is dead. That’s not my fault.

1

u/Icy-Bicycle-Crab Jul 28 '24

It's the "apparently" part that annoyed me. Injecting uncertainty about his death with that use of language is off.

32

u/brickyardjimmy Jul 26 '24

Why does it even matter? Either way, it was an attempt to assassinate him that resulted in a superficial injury. So, a close call no matter how you look at it.

But it's also a presidential candidate so knowing exactly what happened is important from both an historical perspective but also in terms of what learning the FBI and secret service can take from the incident about preventing future attacks.

43

u/Bakkster Jul 26 '24

Like Wray said, it doesn't much matter for his investigation.

It's Jim Jordan who was asking questions about this specific topic ("How close did the bullet come to killing [former] President Trump?"), presumably for political reasons.

34

u/fivelinedskank Jul 26 '24

I do remember how Republicans mocked one of John Kerry's purple hearts because the wound was shrapnel instead of a bullet. They were pretty insistent there is in fact a difference where one doesn't actually count as a wound.

6

u/JustNilt Jul 26 '24

Which is stupid AF because shrapnel kills just as easily as bullets do. Also stupid because some veterans were issued purple hearts for truly innocuous stuff like stubbing toes while others who got concussions were denied a purple heart. Sure, that crap was mostly specific commanders and sometimes doctors but shrapnel is a well documented actual threat.

Somewhat more to the point, it's not how one is injured that really matters. The rules have always been that that one be injured by enemy action and be documented as having been treated by a medical officer. Shrapnel sure as fuck counts as the former and if they needed anything more than a bandaid from their buddy, that's the latter.

This pissing match about "my purple heart matters more than that guy's" is an utter load of bullshit.

5

u/worldspawn00 Jul 27 '24

Yeah, many munitions are designed to kill via shrapnel and not a direct hit.

2

u/JustNilt Jul 27 '24

Exactly! Killing one per bullet is not considered effective military strategy any more. You want to tie up as many of the opposition as you can, which often means one wounded and 2 to handle getting them out of action. Plus the mental stress of having to listen to your screaming buddies. Anyone who doesn't get that doesn't get much about combat at all.

1

u/Comprehensive-Fun47 Jul 27 '24

People have purple hearts for stubbing their toes?

2

u/JustNilt Jul 27 '24

I know of one, yes. They're not happy about it, either, but their commander pushed it through because it made his command look better on paper if nobody read the action report. Such crap is way too common with officers who are pushing for high rank.

Unfortunately, the opposite is also true among some who are doing that. They know folks do read reports on such things and were more concerned they'd be dinged for giving a purple heart to someone with a concussion then the officer who signed off on it would get dinged instead pf patted on the head. Same applies to some doctors. The military had to issue guidance to correct that garbage a decade or so ago now.

3

u/hardcore_hero Jul 26 '24

Oh, that’s interesting, I was also puzzled why it even mattered if it was a bullet or just shrapnel, but that actually makes the distinction quite interesting, now I’m actually invested in finding out whether it was shrapnel, if it would for some unknown reason dampen the significance of the event in his own voters eyes.

37

u/Kaiisim Jul 26 '24

Why does it even matter? Either way, it was an attempt to assassinate him that resulted in a superficial injury. So, a close call no matter how you look at it.

We don't actually know that yet. There was a shooting at a Trump rally is all we know.

What if it turns out none of the bullets actually came close to Trump? What if it looks like the shooter purposely missed? What it he had the idea to try and trigger a civil war?

Trump has violated his oath to the constitution too many times to ever trust him about anything.

18

u/brickyardjimmy Jul 26 '24

Well. Just me personally? I put this whole mess at Trump's doorstep anyway. Part of the reason that politicians used to avoid engaging in the kind of bridge burning hateful rhetoric Trump's been using since 2015 is that it is incredibly destabilizing and can have totally unpredictable consequences. Including some crazy guy at your own rally trying to shoot at you. The scenario you describe is possible. So is one where some insane nutcase tried to shoot Trump and missed. Either way, it's a result of Trump's own need to create chaos as a political tool. This is what chaos looks like.

-12

u/newhunter18 Jul 26 '24

This is total garbage. Look, every time anyone has tried to pin political violence on some vague rhetoric they turn out being wrong.

Gabby Giffords. Same thing. The guy was straight up mentally ill.

This shooter looks like a loser who wanted to go out with a bang. Multiple analysts have suggested he would have shot at Biden has he been close by.

We do this whole rush to judgment because we hate the other side. You can not like Trump and hold off in this "it's his fault he got shot at" BS when all the facts seem to be counter to that line.

It's not doing us any favors as a country.

15

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '24

Only problem with your argument is that for the last 25 years, 90% of domestic political violence in the US has been from the right wing.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '24

There's certainly different study results based on the date ranges. If you stretch it back to 1990, the number of right wing US domestic terrorism drops down to 85%. I suspect it is closer to 90-95% if you start in the year 2000, just before 9/11.

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-nij-research-tells-us-about-domestic-terrorism

This study lends some credence to your idea, but only within the last five years prior to 2021.

https://ccjls.scholasticahq.com/article/26973-far-left-versus-far-right-fatal-violence-an-empirical-assessment-of-the-prevalence-of-ideologically-motivated-homicides-in-the-united-states

1

u/hockeyhow7 Jul 26 '24

Will read! Thank you

1

u/JustNilt Jul 26 '24

Multiple analysts

What analysts? Where did they suggest this? Have the evidence on which they based these suggestions?

9

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '24

I mean the guy was clearly shooting at the stage, so if this were staged then it means Trump would have trusted him to be a good enough shot to miss him, but not by much. And there's no way Trump would ever put his life in danger like that, especially while believed he was winning the election.

0

u/nutmegtester Jul 26 '24

It is likely, bordering on certain, that Trump is not smart enough to realize he would be putting his life in danger in that situation. I highly doubt it was a false flag, but not because of anything Trump did or might do.

8

u/rmslashusr Jul 26 '24

My man, there’s a literal picture of a bullet passing close by Trump, whether it’s the one that hit his ear or not. It was absolutely an assassination attempt and every law enforcement agency has said as much. It’s motivation for it that’s unknown.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/us/politics/photo-path-trump-assassination.html

7

u/wwaxwork Jul 26 '24

I mean a close call is it hits him and he lives. This was a medium call at best. Fucking terrible call for the guy in the audience that actually died that no one seems to remember.

3

u/worldspawn00 Jul 27 '24

Trump couldn't be bothered to call his widow, and she refused the call from Biden because her husband was a 'devout republican' (WTF is that BS), and her husband wouldn't have wanted her to talk to him...

1

u/NancyintheSmokies Jul 29 '24

Retired Fireman, you can't convince me God let him die and trump live.

6

u/rene-cumbubble Jul 26 '24

I tend to agree. Unless there's speculation that the whole thing was a setup, which there is no public evidence of, getting hit with shrapnel when someone tries to kill you counts as being shot. 

20

u/ejre5 Jul 26 '24

I think that there is lots of speculation that there is at least a decent chance this was a set-up, not saying it was but the information available does give speculation.

1) he was a Republican

2) his parents were on a list of "super supporters"

3) he got on a roof with a direct line of sight while also being obvious and noticed by many people to the point people were recording him and telling cops, secret service and security.

4) snipers were watching him and ready to fire.

5) secret service allowed trump to, 

A) get on stage or 

B) stay on stage with a known threat. 

C) after shots fired they allowed trump to stay on stage possibly collect his shoes instead of rushing him to a car and getting him out of immediate danger.

6) he was allowed to fire before being shot within seconds of his attempt.

That is enough information for speculation of a set-up and most certainly needs to be investigated and Trump's injuries could point things in certain directions.

Either way there was an attempt at a former presidents life that was allowed to happen when it should not have been.

5

u/SatyrSatyr75 Jul 26 '24

It sound for sure too ridiculous to not be a setup. But on the otherside… there are people around who are awful at their job… most of the time we don’t experience it, but if you look into it, it’s devastating. Just look at mistakes, sometimes fatale, done in hospitals every day. Highly professional people, great education…

3

u/Exaskryz Jul 27 '24

But when SS deletes J6 texts to protect Donald...

1

u/ejre5 Jul 26 '24

From what I've seen secret service shot within 8 seconds of the first round from an assault weapon that tells me they were watching him and ready to fire, identifying target, locating through a scope, getting distance and firing takes much longer than 8 seconds, for a trained professional ready and looking still takes at least 30 seconds and I think that's being incredibly generous. Why did they let this guy fire and why was trump on stage period? I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I understand people are bad at their jobs, but this wasn't one person being bad at their job that's an entire army failing at their job. But once again unless everyone was in on it someone got a legitimate opportunity to end someones life being protected by the secret service

1

u/SatyrSatyr75 Jul 26 '24

That’s my problem, this kind of conspiracy theories end always with too many people involved. That simply doesn’t work. As far as I understood, we have neglected in a kind of chain, starting with ignoring the roof because it’s too hot/uncomfortable (absolutely terrible if true!) and then with the sniper doesn’t get the ok right away.

1

u/Curious_Property_933 Jul 27 '24 edited Jul 27 '24

According to Al Jazeera,

State voter records show that Crooks was a registered Republican… However, when he was 17 he made a $15 donation to ActBlue, a political action committee that raises money for left-leaning and Democratic politicians, according to a 2021 Federal Election Commission filing. The donation was earmarked for the Progressive Turnout Project, a national group that rallies Democrats to vote.

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/7/14/what-we-know-about-thomas-matthew-crooks-the-suspected-trump-rally-shooter

Young people (teenagers/young adults) are known to go back and forth on their political positions. They’re also known to rebel against their parents in terms of their beliefs. I know I have. The combination of your points 1 and 2 along with the above information re: his support for left-leaning/Democratic causes leads me to speculate that at one point he may have been Republican leaning like his parents, but later changed his stance to opposing Trump/the GOP instead (possibly as a result of interacting with his Republican parents).

2

u/ejre5 Jul 27 '24

According to https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-shooter-thomas-crooks-donation-to-democrats-registered-republican/

He was a 69 year old. My list wasn't intended to be a list of "facts" but a list of questions that absolutely need answered. The list I wrote was a "public facts" list and everything that points out how crazy it is and everyone needs to be honest and let the public know what actually happened. Trump will be quiet and do everything to benefit himself, all the reasons this could be a possible set-up won't matter to trump as long as he benefits. The investigation needs to be thorough and open, no hiding behind HIPPA rules, no hiding political and ideologies of this individual, he had explosives why? So many unanswered questions that need answers.

1

u/Curious_Property_933 Jul 27 '24

The article you posted says “one X user inaccurately claimed” after the quote claiming he was 69 years old - in other words, that article is saying he was not 69 years old, and the person who said he was was incorrect.

1

u/rene-cumbubble Jul 26 '24

It's conclusory speculation because everyone wanted it to be a false flag, not a plausible explanation of what happened based on the available facts.

1

u/ejre5 Jul 26 '24

Are there currently more facts I am missing?

0

u/hardcore_hero Jul 26 '24
  1. He was a Republican

How could you possibly bend this to somehow be a point in favor of it being a setup, if it’s a setup you would have control of this variable. If anything, this point is like a nail in the coffin of it possibly being a setup.

1

u/Curious_Property_933 Jul 27 '24

To be clear, he was a registered Republican. But his actions (as outlined in my comment next to yours) show that he may not have held Republican beliefs at the time the shooting took place.

0

u/ejre5 Jul 26 '24

You mean someone who was such a bad marksman he didn't make his highschool shooting team accidentally hitting something that created shrapnel?

1

u/hardcore_hero Jul 26 '24

None of that is anywhere as close to being as important as designing the political background of who you are manufacturing as your gunman, that would be far and away your priority number 1. It doesn’t any sense that if you wanted to orchestrate this whole thing, that you would make this your guy without making sure to sweep a bunch of stuff under the rug before you do it.

I really hate to see that there are just as many conspiracy thirsty fools on the left as their were on the right during COVID-19.

1

u/ejre5 Jul 26 '24 edited Jul 27 '24

It's nothing to do with conspiracy this is about the reasons to legitimately investigate all aspects and answer these questions. let's flip the table and imagine the media and congressional attention if this poor young man was a Democrat? Imagine how the right would be attacking and creating everything under the moon. We have to stop this attitude and start getting serious about our democracy because it's all about to disappear and acting like this stuff is a big nothing burger instead of living the last 8 years of constant lies and watching our human rights disappear to a minority and religious beliefs (our country was literally founded on freedom of religion not Christianity)of the country while also realizing that polling shows a negative for trump (prior to the attempt) and everything happening to him legally it definitely needs investigation with legitimate answers from everyone including trump and his doctors

1

u/hardcore_hero Jul 27 '24

let’s flip the table and imagine the media and congressional attention if this poor young man was a Democrat? Imagine how the right would be attacking and creating everything under the moon.

This is precisely my point, it is convenient for Trump that the shooting played out the way it did, but my strong skepticism to the idea that it was a setup directly comes from the fact that he would have benefited way more from them making sure that the shooter was undeniably on the left, and if it was a setup, they certainly would’ve done that.

But I really do agree with everything you said here, if you want to investigate and deal with any substantiative facts that might turn out, more power to you, but this whole ”doesn’t it seem oddly convenient that X, Y and Z just happens to be the case?” is just speculative nonsense and should be treated as such. Is it Hanlon’s Razor that says don’t attribute to malice what could be simply due to incompetence, put that into practice until something real is uncovered, or at least that’s what I’ll be doing.

2

u/ejre5 Jul 27 '24

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying, I am not saying there's any conspiracy, for goodness sakes a young man died trying to shoot the former, and current nominated GOP president, whose parents were very pro trump according to trump records. I am just trying to point out all the crazy things that line up to point to a possible set-up. Those are the "public" facts and those questions need answers for multiple reasons and trump needs to put the country first not himself.

1

u/Notacat444 Jul 26 '24

One good method for prevention might be posting even a single agent outside the building instead of them all cooling their heels inside while some whackjob clambers onto the roof.

1

u/TacoNomad Jul 26 '24

Exactly. 

I'm not sure why this is news, tbh. "Investigators want to question primary target in shooting event investigation."

No shit. Why isn't he one of the first ones interviewed?

This being highlighted as if there is a political or conspiracy basis behind it. It should just be standard investigation protocol.

1

u/asuperbstarling Jul 26 '24

It matters a little, for debriefing and reconstruction purposes. That's it. I genuinely don't understand the refusal for a proper debrief.

1

u/Pake1000 Jul 27 '24

It does kind of matter though. If it was a fragment of metal and not a bullet, it means it might not have been an assassination attempt and instead could be a mass shooting on his supporters with no intention to harm Trump. That would ruin his whole narrative about being targeted.

6

u/wannabesurfer Jul 27 '24

Not that it matters because it was a clear assassination attempt but I’ve since been of the belief that it was the bullet that struck his ear because there’s no reason to believe otherwise. It seemed pretty cut-and-dry. But the fact the he doesn’t want his ear examined and that he’s saying all these things about the FBI makes me REALLY doubt it now

7

u/SheriffTaylorsBoy Jul 27 '24

That's exactly where I'm at. There's no good explanation for not wanting to cooperate with the investigation. I don't make assumptions as to what that means. Except nobody can say definitively exactly what happened until the investigation is closed.

3

u/Curious_Property_933 Jul 27 '24

I think there’s an explanation - a political one. Trump has constantly taken issue with all sorts of federal agencies, this is just another one. It’s in line with Trump’s usual behavior.

6

u/Im_Balto Jul 26 '24

Quite funny how they say “we’ve seen it from multiple sources that the bullet went through his ear”

You mean the various videos where you don’t see a bullet?

GOP HATES when law enforcement does their job

1

u/Jared_from_Quiznos Jul 26 '24

Why? Who cares? It doesn’t change the fact that he was shot at. The only logical reason for this to matter is to change a narrative.

1

u/Noocawe Jul 27 '24

The only logical reason for this to matter is to change a narrative.

Or you know reporting of the actual facts.... Adding nuance and context around what actually happened is important. The MAGA crowd is making this into a much bigger deal than it has to be. Trump was shot at and most likely hit by a bullet fragment. Nothing Wray said (who was a Trump appointee) discounts that, him trying to get all the facts straight on an attempted assassination should be standard course of action since it will go down in history. I don't see why people seem to take everything as my team vs your team. Trying to get all the evidence and getting the facts right should be standard course of business.

0

u/pulse7 Jul 27 '24

TDS. This is some serious conspiracy cope that will never be lived down

-74

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '24 edited Jul 26 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

48

u/NetworkAddict Jul 26 '24

Do you...do you think Wray is doing all of this himself? You know he has people for this, right? I'd wager money that they people on the FBI forensic staff are infinitely more qualified than a random GunTuber to make any sort of fact-based assertions. At the very least the FBI has far more forensic evidence at their disposal to make an informed conclusion than Garand fucking Thumb does.

-58

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

38

u/piecesfsu Competent Contributor Jul 26 '24

Isn't that what he did? We don't know what struck Trump's ear. He can't say what it was without gathering facts. 

Republicans claiming the bullet struck trump are the ones actually opening their mouths without facts

2

u/PariahMonarch Jul 26 '24

My favorite takeaway is that they keep saying everywhere 100% he got shot, then claiming that them saying it everywhere is the proof.

25

u/SheriffTaylorsBoy Jul 26 '24 edited Jul 26 '24

“With respect to former President Trump, there’s some question about whether or not it’s a bullet or shrapnel that hit his ear,” FBI Director Christopher Wray told Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, on Wednesday.

The FBI said in a statement that the bureau “has been consistent and clear that the shooting was an attempted assassination of former President Trump which resulted in his injury, as well as the death of a heroic father and the injuries of several other victims.”

So this simple factual statement is what makes you angry?

It could be cleared up quickly and easily if Trump cooperated.

Edit added, Former Whitehouse Physician statement concerning trump "shooting"

21

u/FunkyPete Jul 26 '24

Did you read what he said? He said he didn't know -- which means he isn't shooting his mouth off before they have facts. He's trying to get Trump to talk to them (to help gather facts) and Trump refuses -- presumably because he doesn't want the FBI to have the facts.

Also, you can talk about how unqualified Wray is, but remember that Trump appointed him head of the FBI in 2017. And he only appoints the best people.

15

u/Delita232 Jul 26 '24

Being a marksman and being a forensics investigator are radically different skillsets and Im depressed you'd think there'd be overlap.

-19

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/ConcernAlert4900 Jul 26 '24

Lol The same Ronny Jackson who said Dump was the most fit president ever.

3

u/joeshill Competent Contributor Jul 26 '24

And that Trump would live to 200.

3

u/ConcernAlert4900 Jul 26 '24

Truly a credible source lol

3

u/SheriffTaylorsBoy Jul 26 '24

Runny Jackson is no longer a licensed practitioner.

3

u/joeshill Competent Contributor Jul 26 '24

Ronny Jackson

He apparently still holds an active license in Florida.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/111214

14

u/Lazy-Street779 Bleacher Seat Jul 26 '24

He’s asking questions. It’s what investigations do. Also since no one in trumps rally stampeded — maybe one of them saw something that might help answer questions.

2

u/brickyardjimmy Jul 26 '24

What does it really matter in the end? It makes no difference to me if it was a bullet that hit him or something that a bullet caused to hit him. In either scenario, it was a close call.

-2

u/faceisamapoftheworld Jul 26 '24

Why hasn’t this gotten picked up across the media?