THE TRUMP ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT: INITIAL SPECULATIONS
By now all of us have heard the news of the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump at his last campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania before the GOP convention next week in Milwaukee. Already the speculations abound, as do the warnings from grim-faced news commentators not to make matters worse by speculating. I don't intend to make matters worse, but I do intend to speculate a bit, based on the initial reports I've heard on the radio, some emails I've already received from many of you pointing out obvious anomalies and problems with the story thus far, and I intend to rehearse a few of these that I've noticed, and to pass along my initial high octane speculations.
But first, and for the record, I must put something on the table right up front. I was home reading some research material while listening to a local talk radio station when the show was interrupted when the first reports of the assassination attempt were aired. Let me state clearly an unequivocally that I do not for a moment believe that this incident was anything less than the result of a conspiracy, and I will maintain this view even if it is conclusively proven that there was "only one shooter" in the latest rehash of the Lone Nut narrative. I will maintain this view for all the reasons rehearsed below.
Timing
My first difficulty with the incident is that it could not have been a merely one off nor impulse. Consider only its timing: it occurs after a disastrous three weeks for the Bai Den Dzhao (mis)administration: a horrid debate performance, mangled personal references and mangled introductions at the NATO summit, a less than stellar performance in his interview with George Stefanapoulos. It occurs mere days before the opening of the GOP convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and presumably the rally was either for the purpose for Mr. Trump to make his Vice-Presidential announcement, or to at least drop strong hints of it, and finally, it occurred - as noted - mere days after the NATO summit, with an increasingly pointless NATO trying to justify its existence with more saber-rattling at Mr. Putin.
One of the most glaring features of the timing element is the following remark allegedly coming from the Bai Den Dzhao White House, mere hours before the assassination attempt, that Bai Den Dzhao supposedly told his donors that "It's time to put Trump in the bullseye."
The possibilities are all disturbing here. Assume, for a moment, that Mr. Biden did not say this to his donors. After all, anyone can say anything on a social media platform. The problem with this view is that Mr. Biden has on other occasions resorted to similarly hot rhetoric. On the other hand, assume that the remark is genuine; does this mean that Mr. Biden himself made it? Or did someone else on his staff make it? Was it a signal? Or was it a plant to tar Mr. Biden with an incriminatory brush before the assassination attempt, (and we all know that certain people are anxiously searching for a way to force Mr. Biden to withdraw his candidacy)? The timing here disturbs, and whatever the truth behind the remark may be, it's the first in a chain of anomalies and problems.
Security Stripping
The next major problem that many have already noted is the familiar pattern of security stripping around Mr. Trump. Anyone familiar with the basic facts of the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln or of John F. Kennedy will know that in both cases the murdered Presidents' security had been reduced to a lackluster minimum, and standard security precedures were violated. Mr. Lincoln's request for a particular security guard was turned down by Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, and the security he was assigned was conveniently not at his post when John Wilkes Booth entered Mr. Lincoln's box at Ford's theater that April Good Friday evening in 1865, and shot him in the head. As for John F. Kennedy, we've all seen the videos of the secret servicemen being warned away from the presidential limousine as it left Love Field in Dallas on the morning of the assassination, and we've seen the newsreels of the open windows along the motorcade route, a clear violation of normal security procedures. And there were specific military intelligence units in the area that, contrary to normal procedure, were also ordered to stand down. In short, both presidents' security was stripped in order to facilitate their murders, and that means, simply, that there was a conspiracy involved in both cases.
In this regard we're all familiar with the recurrent stories not only of Trump's campaign not having adequate secret service security, but more importantly, the denial of secret service security for presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., whom one would think would be an obvious candidate not only for such protection, but for an extra dose of it, given that his famous uncle and his own father were both victims of assassinations.
There does appear to be security stripping around this event as well, as there is this video of an attendee at the rally stating how he had tried to warn authorities of the shooter on the nearby rooftop, without any success:
What is interesting here is that this interview was given to a BBC reporter... Again, one has to remain mildly skeptical (given the BBC's track record of interviews on such occasions as... oh... say.,.. 9/11. But this individual is not the only one who made such attempts to warn the security:
So the question is why was nothing done, and more importantly, why was a building rooftop a mere hundred and fifty yards or so away from the rally not considered to be within the security perimeter of the event? Consider how close this building was, according to the following arial view:
Then there is the conflicting business of Mr. Trump's security: some reports have already aired that his campaign was offered, but turned down, extra security, but former Secret service agent-turned-news-commentator Dan Bongino is having none of it:
https://x.com/dbongino/status/1812295745921257983?s=19
Given that protection for Robert F. Kennedy Jr has been refused, for the moment one has to question why there is a consistent pattern of security stripping of opposition candidates by members of the administration.
The Lone Nut Narrative
Conveniently, the alleged shooter on the roof was himself shot, and so far, details have not been shared. We know only that he was young, and so far the authorities are refusing to comment on whether he acted alone. I hope that this brief resume of "odd things" about the incident will be enough to at least raise the possibility that there are other players behind him. The Timing Issue alone would seem to strongly imply this. But assume, for a moment, that he did act alone, that he is a "lone nut". It must be remembered that mind manipulation technologies can produce, and use, lone nuts in wider assassination conspiracies. Think only of Sirhan Sirhan and the fact that he rots in prison for being convicted of the murder of U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy Sr., when all witnesses placed him in front of the senator, and when the fatal wound came from behind him.
All this brings us to the biggest problem, as I see it, of the whole incident:
The Motive and Risk Calculus, and the Doctrine of Mens rea:
There is a very peculiar and complex calculus to this incident, which may be gleaned by noticing its two major variables: motive, and risk (and here please note that I am only speculating on the more obvious scenarios: there are some that are not so obvious). From the standpoint of motive and the doctrine of mens rea (or "real mind"), stated intentions and hot rhetoric, such as Trump being an existential threat to "our democracy", or comparisons of him to Adolf Hitler, or signals or messages about putting Mr. Trump "in the bullseye" can, under law, be viewed as statements of motivation and intention of the real mind in the context of a criminal act. In this respect, given the reality of the incident, there are a whole lot of people in positions of leadership within Mr. Biden's Party of Chaos, and his administration, who have managed to paint a big rhetorical target of mens rea on themselves. However, while this variable is strong, the risk variable is not, for the simple reason that if such an attempt had been successful, most of the country would have been outraged, and given the record of hot and violent rhetoric and the lawfare used against Mr. Trump, this would backfire badly. Similarly, the risk factor in case the attempt was not successful does not help either; it merely ends up by making Mr. Trump appear more sympathetic. Thus on the basis of this strange calculus one may, I think, rule out anyone from Biden's immediate circle being involved in such a plot, nor would any of them, including Biden himself, have the intelligence to pull it off(note that I am not ruling out the participation of people in the deep state of his administration). Even so, the same nasty calculus of risk holds true there.
If we rule out a purely domestic agenda as indicated by these difficulties of mens rea, then we are left with other motivations of a more international flavor and agenda, where the risk variable appreciably declines(though never disappears): Mr. Trump's policies pose threats to at least some (not all) of the objectives of Mr. Globalooney: he is not in favor of a globalism without room for national sovereignty; he has not been in favor of direct confrontations with Russia; he avoided direct confrontations with Iran and Syria, and has supported Israel. This would make him a principal target of some Islamicist groups, some of the more extreme Ukrainian neo-Nazi groups, and so on. In addition to these possibilities, one must also recall Mr. Trump's repeated efforts to reign in the international criminal cartels, particularly with respect to human trafficking, which is a lucrative business, and one which Mr. Trump has made it very clear he would again attempt to shut down.
The bottom line for me, at this stage of the developing story, is thus: (1) we are looking at a conspiracy, but (2) in spite of the over-the-top heated rhetoric coming from Mr. Biden and his Party of Chaos, the risks of direct involvement in such an incident are too great. If there is such involvement it is at lower and more peripheral levels; (3) the incident has the appearance of having deep players, with enough influence to security strip the President; and (4) by the process of examination of the motive-and-risk calculus, it would appear that the motive and agenda behind the attempt are of an international character and implication.
Or to put it even more succinctly: we're looking at another "coalescence of interests", and therefore, at a carefully planned assassination...
...which did not work.
And that last fact means that the narrative spun around it will be even more crucial than ever to a correct understanding of its full ramifications, and that's a tall order in the current politico-cultural environment, because few people are likely to believe any final narrative the government may proffer...
See you on the flip side...
No comments:
Post a Comment