Finished, first time i've done one of your shows in one segment.
Glad to see you do see some things unaccounted for by Ken McCarthy ("Brasscheck."). Particularly the "circle and move' maneuver by the USSS which ... takes a break, in violation of the rules, so that Trump can do a pose. But you leave an aspect of that unaddressed: How did Trump *know* there wasn't another shooter out there, if he wasn't in on it? I forgot who said this, but he/she said that a trained military person would have a hard time even standing up after a near-miss or even limited impact, let alone pose like that. Unless absolute safety was guaranteed!!
Domcrin makes a really good point in an earlier comment.
"The wound to that part of Trumps ear would have absolutely gushed blood but no sign on his hand or shirt collar, just some paint marks across his cheek. "
If the blood wasn't fake, why did the bleeding stop so fast? Even if this was a cut inflicted by a razor-like dart? I've accidentally touched the edge of a razor blade, with a tip of a finger, and had bleeding which lasted not only 90 seconds (the time he was down) but 5 minutes. There should have been a lot more blood on his ear and indeed collar and beyond. One can argue there is no blood on his hand because his ear didn't start bleeding right away, not my experience with razor blades, but this doesn't explain the lack of stains or the limited amount of blood.
All the perspectives you presented were by Republicans. You stated that they are the only ones to talk about the matter critically, that Democrats complained about the shooter missing. Eh? The only perspectives are Democrats and Republicans? How about the many people who think this entire thing was a show, people like Tim Truth and Ryan Cristian (The Last American Vagabond)? How about Kit Knightly of Off Guardian (problematic for sure), who wrote this item,
Trump Assassination Attempt – The stories so far. Are we witnessing the birth of a new meta for propaganda narratives? Kit Knightly, 7/17/24. Conclusion:
"Meanwhile the “left”, fresh from four years of demonizing “anti-vaxxers” and “election deniers” can suddenly be hoist by their own petard and called “assassination deniers” by the right. It can be argued that supplying the “Left” with their own “conspiracy theories” is a potential stroke of genius, because now any social media crackdown on “extreme language” or “denial” (or whatever they choose to call it) can hit both “sides” equally and be spared accusations of bias, and will always be supported by one side of this fake divide.
Both “Left” and “Right” are also pretty clear right now on whose stock has risen most as a result of this – Trump. Obviously. It makes him look tough and brave, paralleling the shooting of Ronald Reagan in 1981. It’s given him an iconic image that speaks wordlessly to the deep heart of America – bloody but unbowed, fist-raised in defiance.
And, if you believe the Deep State pulled the trigger, it also furthers Trump’s (unearned & increasingly ridiculous) reputation as some kind of threat to the establishment. Combine this with Biden’s disastrous debate performance, the (mysteriously halted) talk of taking him off the ticket, and anonymous Democrat insiders reportedly “resigned” to defeat and it’s not hard to see this might be part of the groundwork being laid for a second Trump term.
Barring future developments of course. Oh, and it’s also helping to heat up divisive “civil war” rhetoric.…which might be the entire point. How better to finally take down the old empire & instate the new “improved” version a little further east?"
You yourself have said that either the blood coagulated unusually fast or was fake. Especially given it was the ear. We do know Trump lied about his hand being bloody. And we do know that there's no blood on his collar or anywhere else on his clothes, still photos were taken, not just a video. BTW, isn't it amazing all the photographers who had been ushered to the front of the stage right before the event so they were there at the moment to take both photos and videos?
My investigation is proceeding and I would never have said it WAS fake, only that it looked so. We do not know what first aid was applied. You ASSUME it was NOT blood. You can do that, for a minute. I have also repeatedly said we must remain open to all possibilities. And we must admit we will never have analysis of that red stuff so we must use a reasoning process.
I am building a case for why Trump was not directly involved, down to the motives, the tactics, who the potential perps were, the impact on him...I am reasoning this out. He was already going to win this "election." There was no reason for him to be involved in a stunt like this.
You seem to not like Trump. Neither do I but I don't let that bias my view of the facts. And you may not know this but one of my hobbies is studying how the USSS manages the president(s) under different circumstances, borne out of concern for their safety and a fascination with security and police work generally. And that's how I can get these guys to comment to me on the fly when they know our politics differ totally -- they still respect my drive to get the story right.
FWIW, i'm not assuming it's not blood, i'm pointing out, like Domcrin, that if it's blood then amazingly none of it splashed on his collar or any of his clothes while he was down. We will never know the full details of what happened.
I don't think this was about having him merely win, but winning in a wipe-out, legitimating his taking power and exercising a statist crackdown on all forms of dissent.
I don't like Biden either, in fact i detest them both, or Bobby Jr, or anyone who wants to be a flunky for the ruling elite, their enforcer. All this talk about how such violence is totally inappropriate, but zero about how the US client Israeli Zionist regime murdered over 90 people in Gaza the day before the Trump event, in the process of trying to assassinate an Hamas leader.
We really have no idea what is being planned, but I agree with your assessment that this has the ring of being phony. As I mention in another comment, I am listening to Roger Stone's book about the Kennedy killing, and it was pointed out that Kennedy could have been taken out without doing in front of the whole world. An accident, a heart attack, quiet death...not like it isn't done. But doing so in front of the world dramatically and horrifically was a psyop, a psychological operation that horrified the people. Shock and awe, baby! Sending numerous messages.
You can see close-up pictures of the blood dripping on to & running down his face while hunched over behind the podium. It is clearly still quite runny then.
In the video you can literally see Trump's hand come away bloody before he goes down. Are you suggesting that blood on was added in post-production with CGI? The blood on his hand can clearly be seen in both video footage & in still images.
I get it, I'm so cynical that I tend to think everything is fake these days. But I withhold my ultimate judgement until when/if the dust settles, call em like I see em in the meantime, & keep contemplating, CUI BONO???
Tim Truth Annihilate Trump's WWE Kayfabe, 7/18/24, 2 minutes
And, CUI BONO indeed? Are you arguing that Trump represents a threat to the Deep State? He did not in 2016 or 2020, or now. PETER THIEL, on the Trump team, as Deep State as anyone, likewise Mark Andreessen, Ben Horowitz, Elon Musk.
Trump is not making any of these decisions. He is clueless. He does not know the rules. He is not a USSS agent nor is he their boss. THEY know what to do; THEY and their bosses (they are taking commands via radio) know what to do. Trump is gonna be Trump. He should never have had that opportunity and he canNOT give orders to USSS.
Yes and he was the one who would not have known there was no justification for an "all clear" once the kid was shot. The USSS is the one who is supposed to know that they cannot assume he was safe; they are the one who is supposed to have green, yellow and red escape paths -- this was code red. Why didn't they disappear him off the back of the stage, out of direct view? Etc etc etc
Again, my comment is that even a combat vet would be wary of standing up after supposedly being shot at, let alone posing. Wouldn't you be scared, no matter what anyone told you, USSS or otherwise? I would be, just instinct.
that is the difference between a trained military person or even a street person where shootings are commonplace vs an untrained, inexperienced civilian who is confused & shocked. the civilian has no idea what just happened, especially adding in the 3 jumping on top of him. he would be totally disoriented, trying to assess.
we do not know what he was told there or what he was asked.
if u have not experienced violence it is hard to realize what your instinctive reaction would be as you try to come back to your senses.
To me he looks stunned and scared, and there are five people holding him up. He is literally propped up. He also has instincts like an animal and the politician in him pumped his fist and by that time they had cut the mic. To me his reaction seems exactly what I would have expected. That is why it works for so many people -- it's an actual sincere moment.
So much pantomime you could figure several stories out in the melee. Most significant but least noticed points in this pantomime: The iconic photo of Trump fist pumping, how the flag appears from nowhere. How the photographer was allowed to photograph at the point when every single person was told to get down.
The police marksmen on the roof fires the only heard gun shots just at the point of Trump touching his ear.
He fires 3 shots, the gun moving on recoil but shooting wildly off target on the shots 2 & 3.
The wound to that part of Trumps ear would have absolutely gushed blood but no sign on his hand or shirt collar, just some paint marks across his cheek.
Trump is the figure. The really interesting stuff is going on in the audience behind him. We must study figure and ground. Trump is the figure, in essence, the distraction.
Will check out, once done doing my newsletter. I must dissent here.
"I mention the Brasscheck video. Here it is. As I may have mentioned, I don’t care that he’s a Trump supporter unless that biases his analysis — and don’t see it doing so. I am interested in his breakdown of the three potential scenarios he sees, which is exactly the kind of approach I use. "
The guy dismissed a fourth potential scenario, a variation of the 3rd but with Trump fully in the know and cooperating, because "He's a decent guy, he's not Machiavellian." This does blatantly bias his analysis, from the word go, and i find it mind-boggling that yo think otherwise.
I will listen, even if i disagree. I merely pointed out that his bias did influence his analysis. He dismissed the very possibility out of hand. And i'm seeing this a LOT in pro-Trump people who are outraged by the event, putting forth Trump as a threat to the "establishment," never mind the involvement of people like Peter Thiel of Palantir in Trump ranks.
You are not arguing facts here, Jeff. I love you, but too much rhetoric and arguing with me. Argue with my facts and take a part my analysis using a reasoning process. I am leaving all of my facts and reasoning out in the open.
I'm not arguing with you. I'm merely pointing out that Ken McCarthy dismissed a possibility out of hand. As all Trumpists appear to be doing.
I'm in the process of checking out the latest from Ryan Cristian, a long one, he talks about Trump supporters adopting Cancel Culture when it comes to anyone who suggests there are questions as to whether this was an actual attempt to assassinate Trump. I have many problems with him, especially his being a VPAC the last couple of years. But he seems to be on to something. See where it goes.
Big deal, he thinks Trump is a good guy. You would have to show, exactly, how that biases his reasoning on the OTHER points. Not just that Trump did not do it because he's a good guy. I am making a strong case for his not being involved for other reasons, just like I can make a strong case for Dybya not being involved in 9/11, which most would disagree with.
The guy at the top is almost always left out -- for good reasons. Many of them. The element of surprise must go to him as well because that is part of the credibility of the maneuver. Also I don't see why he would have needed this kind of event to win the election. He was going to win anyway. But I can see why he would need to be clipped back and brought under control.
I look carefully at Brasscheck's analysis of the facts, irrespective of his pro-Trump bias. One of my gifts as an editor is to strip the ideas of others down to their bare reasoning process and to account for the new facts they introduce. I have gotten some of the best information from people I disagree with, including serious adversaries.
I also listen to the things that crazy people say, looking for potential gems. Listen, not believe. Evaluate, not swallow whole.
What I love about Brasscheck is he knows how to work under multiple scenarios simultaneously. This is the right approach. Then you overlay those scenarios on the fact pattern and see what fits and how it fits.
That he might leave one scenario out does not mean the others are automatically invalid. They must be examined closely, step by step. Brass is the only one who has said we need to consider other weapons.
Whirring sound! Wow. Trump said that. Weird thing to lie about. Blood is not -- blood is drama. Obvious lie.
Would you make the assessment that LBJ (the guy at the top once the Kennedys were out of the way) was not in the know? It is highly likely HE put out the hit using his buddies in the mob/CIA/FBI and the Cuban exiles..not all of them knowing all the logistics but loyalists doing what they were told. I wouldn't be surprised to find this was rehearsed. I disagree with your body language analysis of Trump, as well.
Well, that one re Dubya not being involved in 9/11 i WILL argue with you about if you ever make that argument, he was not surprised when told.
"What I love about Brasscheck is he knows how to work under multiple scenarios simultaneously. This is the right approach. Then you overlay those scenarios on the fact pattern and see what fits and how it fits."
Simply pointing out that he left out one scenario, not saying the others are invalid, but that his analysis is incomplete, and you yourself state he hasn't explained some facets. Simply saying his perspective has been self-limited.
I have only seen 25 minutes of the latest 4 hours of video by Cristian so i can't say he doesn't bring up other possible weapons.
Why did Trump lie about the blood, repeatedly? Was he told to? I don't know.
I disagree with your analysis. I did not see Trump acting scared shitless. Plus Trump out and out lied when he said his hand was covered with lots of blood after he swiped his ear. There was NO BLOOD. Later the NYT photog comes up with and image with a little blood on his hand. We. must remember in this age of deep fakes for everything no images can be trusted. As you point out, the agents moved Trump into position for the photog, even ducking down so he can stand looking fierce with his fist raised. There is no way they could know there was no danger. I am listening to Roger Stone's The Man who Killed Kennedy on audible while I work. I read it years ago and found it to be believable. If someone wanted Trump out, he would be taken out already. This was not an assassination attempt. It was a spectacle. We likely will never know all the details. But I would lay money down that it was planned and a big show. I don't agree that Trump was taken by surprise. I think the entire "election" dog and pony show is simply a spectacle to keep us all watching. That's not to say that everything went like clockwork, but as we can learn from the Kennedy assassination, if discrepancies are discovered, they are immediately covered up with more propaganda and lies to obfuscate ...even more conspiracies to divert attention.
I just listened to this. And watched Tim Truth's video, as well.
For various reasons, I've learned to observe what is not "center screen".
When I observe the audience behind DDT (my name for DJT.), If there is a situation with a shooter, it's our survival response / nature to protect ourself. Which in that situation would be to get down, roll up in ball, so to speak, run, etc... Yet those people barely seem concerned other than an initial flurry of movement. And the one big guy in the gray shirt is doing this ridiculous pan movement (pan as in scanning) such as a bad actor might do.
Quite a number of those people behind the podium appear super nonchalant considering what they, supposedly, just witnessed.
Also I appreciated hearing your process of analysis - in the early section of the audio
i went and watched trumps speech & rendition at the RNC. i heard "whizzing" past & him say that he was watching the crowd from down there. i went looking for the original footage again and was surprised to not see blood smear on face.
i now think, after listening to him tell it...he knew.
i can think some are credible but not accept every word...
i cannot say who as i think there are numerous agencies with just a few pulling the strings. i also think there can be a lot just following orders that know nothing but their lil piece of the pie.
1st well presented! loved it! ms levi was totally credible imo.
red hat guy i thought was credible. guy after him, no. the interview, agree with u. the congressman (?) was making excellent points. murphy, great!
i think trump was sent a message.
i think the amount of blood was right for that part of the ear but i find the blood lacking on his hand curious. tendency is too touch it, feel it. as for stagecraft an agent coulda smashed a blood pellet on his ear while he was down..its possible & in confusion prez might not even have known or realized. either way message sent.
yrs ago i watched brass check & some others. i liked his approach & sources.
i have been researching online since 96 but my way was to share the actual articles & documents for others to read. the one thing i totally liked in this was his bringing the sample tech, that little weapon, testified to & shared with Congress decades ago as a real life, indisputable example of what so many want us to forget is really available. there is a lot publicly disclosed on tech, official govt & military academy sites that is ignored.
one thing i notice a lot is what i call the playing stupid...let me explain. procedure, protocol & standards manuals have been established & written, are updated often & have been set in place for prob a century. american standards, ansi & ascii has now been converted to international standards. there are standards written for everything, ever facility, industry along with full protocol & procedure down to minute detail. it seems to have become the norm to leave these out of any conversations, investigations, hearings & reporting like they dont exist, we dont know these things & like winging it. which i think leads to confusion, distrust, appearance of stupidity & the people unaware & uninformed
i also noticed initially with Uvalde implications of confusion about who was the lead agency on scene. who was actually in command of the scene with multiple agency response.
the reason i mention this, is there appeared to be allusion made as to law enforcement confusion or uncertainty. for now SS is the target & rightly so. if i remember correctly they would be the highest command with each other agency clearly informed of their role & specific duty. once upon a time all of this protocol was known, instructed & clearly spelled out to each. now with so much military presence, federal law enforcement overlapping with sheriffs, state & local police, i wonder if miscommunication or lack of communication or lack of protocol is a real issue or exploited for accountability.
two final thoughts...metal roofs are noisy, every movement is heard on them down below.
crime scene protocols seem to have vanished. if there were really victims & a death, it wasnt customary to see them lugged off like they were roadkill. i realize the principal is the immediate concern but sheezus, the lack of medics, ambulances presence, reactions, customary evidence, like yellow tape, of death/homocide/shootings is too often missing. is this what we, the people, have become now? a dead animal to be carted off & disposed of? this concerns me in this.
and that huge honking ear bandage 3 days later on that wound was ridiculous. js. show must go on!
For anyone interested in going back and looking at past assassinations (of course this was not one) this piece from 6 years ago looks at Roger Stone's book about the event. We must learn from the past. https://litbyimagination.blogspot.com/2018/11/roger-stones-jfk-assassination-thesis.html. The end looks at Stone's relationship and backing of Trump. Contrary to Riches' analysis, I think Trump has shown himself to be compliant with what is needed from him. Take his choice for VP...and bringing in all the billionaires necessary, or as Jeffrey Strahl said, way more than necessary.
I am still looking for a theory from your direction. Bread and circuses is not enough. I am looking for your theory and that of Jeff that explains most of the available facts and also accounts for Trump's comportment at the RNC.
Let’s consider Red Hat Guy’s contribution along with other witnesses — testimony of an alleged gunman moving shortly before the incident. This, while the patsy is in place. This creates confusion. And he is certain that the guy is the shooter — OK that does not check out.
As for the dart, they are — I am told — accurate to 100 yards. So if you put someone right in the (side) audience with a camera using a computer-guided shot, it’s the only way to be assured of a graze/superficial injury. They would be within 50 to 100 feet and it would all go unnoticed and they tell him it was a bullet.
My gun friends say there is no way to guarantee a graze wound with a rifle; you either hit or you miss. Finally why does USSS expose him during a circle and move? The whole point is not to. How do they know “the treat is neutralized”? In a real situation they would have to assume one or more additional snipers.
And Trump describes a whirring sound — not the of bullets. His injury is not consistent with a gunshot. I am sure he was not in on it. Way too dangerous. No motive. No ability to control or direct. He had to be a stooge.
In the end, this theory supports a plausible motive. I think that all the USSS guys were CIA, and the optics audience behind him was all CIA assets. Signaling and video taping like nothing is going on.
In my mind, I’m comparing Crooks to Adam Lanza and the horrific event of the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting. I realize that there are most likely different factors regarding family influences and of course total different scenarios but both boys seem to have had major low self esteem . The part of the program describing Crooks being selected to be in the Blackrock video, and then being maybe told he was part of a “junior sniper” in training by placing him in the position on the roof, is another very interesting and plausible concept. All parts of this event and many others in our past that no matter how deep you dig, we may never know the exact truth. Oh, what a convoluted world we live in.
Finished, first time i've done one of your shows in one segment.
Glad to see you do see some things unaccounted for by Ken McCarthy ("Brasscheck."). Particularly the "circle and move' maneuver by the USSS which ... takes a break, in violation of the rules, so that Trump can do a pose. But you leave an aspect of that unaddressed: How did Trump *know* there wasn't another shooter out there, if he wasn't in on it? I forgot who said this, but he/she said that a trained military person would have a hard time even standing up after a near-miss or even limited impact, let alone pose like that. Unless absolute safety was guaranteed!!
Domcrin makes a really good point in an earlier comment.
"The wound to that part of Trumps ear would have absolutely gushed blood but no sign on his hand or shirt collar, just some paint marks across his cheek. "
If the blood wasn't fake, why did the bleeding stop so fast? Even if this was a cut inflicted by a razor-like dart? I've accidentally touched the edge of a razor blade, with a tip of a finger, and had bleeding which lasted not only 90 seconds (the time he was down) but 5 minutes. There should have been a lot more blood on his ear and indeed collar and beyond. One can argue there is no blood on his hand because his ear didn't start bleeding right away, not my experience with razor blades, but this doesn't explain the lack of stains or the limited amount of blood.
All the perspectives you presented were by Republicans. You stated that they are the only ones to talk about the matter critically, that Democrats complained about the shooter missing. Eh? The only perspectives are Democrats and Republicans? How about the many people who think this entire thing was a show, people like Tim Truth and Ryan Cristian (The Last American Vagabond)? How about Kit Knightly of Off Guardian (problematic for sure), who wrote this item,
https://off-guardian.org/2024/07/17/trump-assassination-attempt-the-stories-so-far/
Trump Assassination Attempt – The stories so far. Are we witnessing the birth of a new meta for propaganda narratives? Kit Knightly, 7/17/24. Conclusion:
"Meanwhile the “left”, fresh from four years of demonizing “anti-vaxxers” and “election deniers” can suddenly be hoist by their own petard and called “assassination deniers” by the right. It can be argued that supplying the “Left” with their own “conspiracy theories” is a potential stroke of genius, because now any social media crackdown on “extreme language” or “denial” (or whatever they choose to call it) can hit both “sides” equally and be spared accusations of bias, and will always be supported by one side of this fake divide.
Both “Left” and “Right” are also pretty clear right now on whose stock has risen most as a result of this – Trump. Obviously. It makes him look tough and brave, paralleling the shooting of Ronald Reagan in 1981. It’s given him an iconic image that speaks wordlessly to the deep heart of America – bloody but unbowed, fist-raised in defiance.
And, if you believe the Deep State pulled the trigger, it also furthers Trump’s (unearned & increasingly ridiculous) reputation as some kind of threat to the establishment. Combine this with Biden’s disastrous debate performance, the (mysteriously halted) talk of taking him off the ticket, and anonymous Democrat insiders reportedly “resigned” to defeat and it’s not hard to see this might be part of the groundwork being laid for a second Trump term.
Barring future developments of course. Oh, and it’s also helping to heat up divisive “civil war” rhetoric.…which might be the entire point. How better to finally take down the old empire & instate the new “improved” version a little further east?"
You were not there. You don't know the bleeding stopped. You cannot conduct an examination in a three-second, moving, remote video view of a wound.
You yourself have said that either the blood coagulated unusually fast or was fake. Especially given it was the ear. We do know Trump lied about his hand being bloody. And we do know that there's no blood on his collar or anywhere else on his clothes, still photos were taken, not just a video. BTW, isn't it amazing all the photographers who had been ushered to the front of the stage right before the event so they were there at the moment to take both photos and videos?
My investigation is proceeding and I would never have said it WAS fake, only that it looked so. We do not know what first aid was applied. You ASSUME it was NOT blood. You can do that, for a minute. I have also repeatedly said we must remain open to all possibilities. And we must admit we will never have analysis of that red stuff so we must use a reasoning process.
I am building a case for why Trump was not directly involved, down to the motives, the tactics, who the potential perps were, the impact on him...I am reasoning this out. He was already going to win this "election." There was no reason for him to be involved in a stunt like this.
You seem to not like Trump. Neither do I but I don't let that bias my view of the facts. And you may not know this but one of my hobbies is studying how the USSS manages the president(s) under different circumstances, borne out of concern for their safety and a fascination with security and police work generally. And that's how I can get these guys to comment to me on the fly when they know our politics differ totally -- they still respect my drive to get the story right.
FWIW, i'm not assuming it's not blood, i'm pointing out, like Domcrin, that if it's blood then amazingly none of it splashed on his collar or any of his clothes while he was down. We will never know the full details of what happened.
I don't think this was about having him merely win, but winning in a wipe-out, legitimating his taking power and exercising a statist crackdown on all forms of dissent.
I don't like Biden either, in fact i detest them both, or Bobby Jr, or anyone who wants to be a flunky for the ruling elite, their enforcer. All this talk about how such violence is totally inappropriate, but zero about how the US client Israeli Zionist regime murdered over 90 people in Gaza the day before the Trump event, in the process of trying to assassinate an Hamas leader.
We really have no idea what is being planned, but I agree with your assessment that this has the ring of being phony. As I mention in another comment, I am listening to Roger Stone's book about the Kennedy killing, and it was pointed out that Kennedy could have been taken out without doing in front of the whole world. An accident, a heart attack, quiet death...not like it isn't done. But doing so in front of the world dramatically and horrifically was a psyop, a psychological operation that horrified the people. Shock and awe, baby! Sending numerous messages.
Yep, shock and awe. Like 9/11 too. The collapses and mass casualties were "necessary" towards that end.
You can see close-up pictures of the blood dripping on to & running down his face while hunched over behind the podium. It is clearly still quite runny then.
Show us photos of him while hunched over, please!
can you provide a sample or two? efc@chironreturn.org
In the video you can literally see Trump's hand come away bloody before he goes down. Are you suggesting that blood on was added in post-production with CGI? The blood on his hand can clearly be seen in both video footage & in still images.
I get it, I'm so cynical that I tend to think everything is fake these days. But I withhold my ultimate judgement until when/if the dust settles, call em like I see em in the meantime, & keep contemplating, CUI BONO???
I do not see any blood on his hand, either right before he goes down or once he gets up.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/vxZahJROjXq2
Tim Truth Annihilate Trump's WWE Kayfabe, 7/18/24, 2 minutes
And, CUI BONO indeed? Are you arguing that Trump represents a threat to the Deep State? He did not in 2016 or 2020, or now. PETER THIEL, on the Trump team, as Deep State as anyone, likewise Mark Andreessen, Ben Horowitz, Elon Musk.
yes cui hedge fuud bono? this is the War of the Hedges
edited
Trump is not making any of these decisions. He is clueless. He does not know the rules. He is not a USSS agent nor is he their boss. THEY know what to do; THEY and their bosses (they are taking commands via radio) know what to do. Trump is gonna be Trump. He should never have had that opportunity and he canNOT give orders to USSS.
My comment was NOT about Trump making decisions, but about him not being scared to stand up, let alone to do a pose, he was the one who asked for it.
Yes and he was the one who would not have known there was no justification for an "all clear" once the kid was shot. The USSS is the one who is supposed to know that they cannot assume he was safe; they are the one who is supposed to have green, yellow and red escape paths -- this was code red. Why didn't they disappear him off the back of the stage, out of direct view? Etc etc etc
Again, my comment is that even a combat vet would be wary of standing up after supposedly being shot at, let alone posing. Wouldn't you be scared, no matter what anyone told you, USSS or otherwise? I would be, just instinct.
that is the difference between a trained military person or even a street person where shootings are commonplace vs an untrained, inexperienced civilian who is confused & shocked. the civilian has no idea what just happened, especially adding in the 3 jumping on top of him. he would be totally disoriented, trying to assess.
we do not know what he was told there or what he was asked.
if u have not experienced violence it is hard to realize what your instinctive reaction would be as you try to come back to your senses.
To me he looks stunned and scared, and there are five people holding him up. He is literally propped up. He also has instincts like an animal and the politician in him pumped his fist and by that time they had cut the mic. To me his reaction seems exactly what I would have expected. That is why it works for so many people -- it's an actual sincere moment.
So much pantomime you could figure several stories out in the melee. Most significant but least noticed points in this pantomime: The iconic photo of Trump fist pumping, how the flag appears from nowhere. How the photographer was allowed to photograph at the point when every single person was told to get down.
The police marksmen on the roof fires the only heard gun shots just at the point of Trump touching his ear.
He fires 3 shots, the gun moving on recoil but shooting wildly off target on the shots 2 & 3.
The wound to that part of Trumps ear would have absolutely gushed blood but no sign on his hand or shirt collar, just some paint marks across his cheek.
Trump is the figure. The really interesting stuff is going on in the audience behind him. We must study figure and ground. Trump is the figure, in essence, the distraction.
Will check out, once done doing my newsletter. I must dissent here.
"I mention the Brasscheck video. Here it is. As I may have mentioned, I don’t care that he’s a Trump supporter unless that biases his analysis — and don’t see it doing so. I am interested in his breakdown of the three potential scenarios he sees, which is exactly the kind of approach I use. "
The guy dismissed a fourth potential scenario, a variation of the 3rd but with Trump fully in the know and cooperating, because "He's a decent guy, he's not Machiavellian." This does blatantly bias his analysis, from the word go, and i find it mind-boggling that yo think otherwise.
I dismiss that for my own reasons. I think he was actually hurt, and I give other reasons for the improbability of his involvement.
I will listen, even if i disagree. I merely pointed out that his bias did influence his analysis. He dismissed the very possibility out of hand. And i'm seeing this a LOT in pro-Trump people who are outraged by the event, putting forth Trump as a threat to the "establishment," never mind the involvement of people like Peter Thiel of Palantir in Trump ranks.
You are not arguing facts here, Jeff. I love you, but too much rhetoric and arguing with me. Argue with my facts and take a part my analysis using a reasoning process. I am leaving all of my facts and reasoning out in the open.
I'm not arguing with you. I'm merely pointing out that Ken McCarthy dismissed a possibility out of hand. As all Trumpists appear to be doing.
I'm in the process of checking out the latest from Ryan Cristian, a long one, he talks about Trump supporters adopting Cancel Culture when it comes to anyone who suggests there are questions as to whether this was an actual attempt to assassinate Trump. I have many problems with him, especially his being a VPAC the last couple of years. But he seems to be on to something. See where it goes.
Big deal, he thinks Trump is a good guy. You would have to show, exactly, how that biases his reasoning on the OTHER points. Not just that Trump did not do it because he's a good guy. I am making a strong case for his not being involved for other reasons, just like I can make a strong case for Dybya not being involved in 9/11, which most would disagree with.
The guy at the top is almost always left out -- for good reasons. Many of them. The element of surprise must go to him as well because that is part of the credibility of the maneuver. Also I don't see why he would have needed this kind of event to win the election. He was going to win anyway. But I can see why he would need to be clipped back and brought under control.
I look carefully at Brasscheck's analysis of the facts, irrespective of his pro-Trump bias. One of my gifts as an editor is to strip the ideas of others down to their bare reasoning process and to account for the new facts they introduce. I have gotten some of the best information from people I disagree with, including serious adversaries.
I also listen to the things that crazy people say, looking for potential gems. Listen, not believe. Evaluate, not swallow whole.
What I love about Brasscheck is he knows how to work under multiple scenarios simultaneously. This is the right approach. Then you overlay those scenarios on the fact pattern and see what fits and how it fits.
That he might leave one scenario out does not mean the others are automatically invalid. They must be examined closely, step by step. Brass is the only one who has said we need to consider other weapons.
Whirring sound! Wow. Trump said that. Weird thing to lie about. Blood is not -- blood is drama. Obvious lie.
Would you make the assessment that LBJ (the guy at the top once the Kennedys were out of the way) was not in the know? It is highly likely HE put out the hit using his buddies in the mob/CIA/FBI and the Cuban exiles..not all of them knowing all the logistics but loyalists doing what they were told. I wouldn't be surprised to find this was rehearsed. I disagree with your body language analysis of Trump, as well.
Well, that one re Dubya not being involved in 9/11 i WILL argue with you about if you ever make that argument, he was not surprised when told.
"What I love about Brasscheck is he knows how to work under multiple scenarios simultaneously. This is the right approach. Then you overlay those scenarios on the fact pattern and see what fits and how it fits."
Simply pointing out that he left out one scenario, not saying the others are invalid, but that his analysis is incomplete, and you yourself state he hasn't explained some facets. Simply saying his perspective has been self-limited.
I have only seen 25 minutes of the latest 4 hours of video by Cristian so i can't say he doesn't bring up other possible weapons.
Why did Trump lie about the blood, repeatedly? Was he told to? I don't know.
I haven't listened to Vagabond yet, it's along one, but plan to next.
I disagree with your analysis. I did not see Trump acting scared shitless. Plus Trump out and out lied when he said his hand was covered with lots of blood after he swiped his ear. There was NO BLOOD. Later the NYT photog comes up with and image with a little blood on his hand. We. must remember in this age of deep fakes for everything no images can be trusted. As you point out, the agents moved Trump into position for the photog, even ducking down so he can stand looking fierce with his fist raised. There is no way they could know there was no danger. I am listening to Roger Stone's The Man who Killed Kennedy on audible while I work. I read it years ago and found it to be believable. If someone wanted Trump out, he would be taken out already. This was not an assassination attempt. It was a spectacle. We likely will never know all the details. But I would lay money down that it was planned and a big show. I don't agree that Trump was taken by surprise. I think the entire "election" dog and pony show is simply a spectacle to keep us all watching. That's not to say that everything went like clockwork, but as we can learn from the Kennedy assassination, if discrepancies are discovered, they are immediately covered up with more propaganda and lies to obfuscate ...even more conspiracies to divert attention.
VIA EMAIL
Hi Eric,
I just listened to this. And watched Tim Truth's video, as well.
For various reasons, I've learned to observe what is not "center screen".
When I observe the audience behind DDT (my name for DJT.), If there is a situation with a shooter, it's our survival response / nature to protect ourself. Which in that situation would be to get down, roll up in ball, so to speak, run, etc... Yet those people barely seem concerned other than an initial flurry of movement. And the one big guy in the gray shirt is doing this ridiculous pan movement (pan as in scanning) such as a bad actor might do.
Quite a number of those people behind the podium appear super nonchalant considering what they, supposedly, just witnessed.
Also I appreciated hearing your process of analysis - in the early section of the audio
Keep up the excellent work!
Carol
do u see blood on his face here? i am viewing on my phone. would somebody with a computer look & tell me plz? thnx
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ENIkHL10iZs
wapo had this same footage. i found 2 abc & 1 fox link no blood on face. (that i can see)
this bbc is a whole different view of the scene i hadnt seen before. 17 min. live.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yQhiHJ4c3GY
i went and watched trumps speech & rendition at the RNC. i heard "whizzing" past & him say that he was watching the crowd from down there. i went looking for the original footage again and was surprised to not see blood smear on face.
i now think, after listening to him tell it...he knew.
i can think some are credible but not accept every word...
i cannot say who as i think there are numerous agencies with just a few pulling the strings. i also think there can be a lot just following orders that know nothing but their lil piece of the pie.
The lies will get worse and then some, until such time as We The People can call out the liars and hold them responsible for their fraud.
1st well presented! loved it! ms levi was totally credible imo.
red hat guy i thought was credible. guy after him, no. the interview, agree with u. the congressman (?) was making excellent points. murphy, great!
i think trump was sent a message.
i think the amount of blood was right for that part of the ear but i find the blood lacking on his hand curious. tendency is too touch it, feel it. as for stagecraft an agent coulda smashed a blood pellet on his ear while he was down..its possible & in confusion prez might not even have known or realized. either way message sent.
yrs ago i watched brass check & some others. i liked his approach & sources.
i have been researching online since 96 but my way was to share the actual articles & documents for others to read. the one thing i totally liked in this was his bringing the sample tech, that little weapon, testified to & shared with Congress decades ago as a real life, indisputable example of what so many want us to forget is really available. there is a lot publicly disclosed on tech, official govt & military academy sites that is ignored.
one thing i notice a lot is what i call the playing stupid...let me explain. procedure, protocol & standards manuals have been established & written, are updated often & have been set in place for prob a century. american standards, ansi & ascii has now been converted to international standards. there are standards written for everything, ever facility, industry along with full protocol & procedure down to minute detail. it seems to have become the norm to leave these out of any conversations, investigations, hearings & reporting like they dont exist, we dont know these things & like winging it. which i think leads to confusion, distrust, appearance of stupidity & the people unaware & uninformed
i also noticed initially with Uvalde implications of confusion about who was the lead agency on scene. who was actually in command of the scene with multiple agency response.
the reason i mention this, is there appeared to be allusion made as to law enforcement confusion or uncertainty. for now SS is the target & rightly so. if i remember correctly they would be the highest command with each other agency clearly informed of their role & specific duty. once upon a time all of this protocol was known, instructed & clearly spelled out to each. now with so much military presence, federal law enforcement overlapping with sheriffs, state & local police, i wonder if miscommunication or lack of communication or lack of protocol is a real issue or exploited for accountability.
two final thoughts...metal roofs are noisy, every movement is heard on them down below.
crime scene protocols seem to have vanished. if there were really victims & a death, it wasnt customary to see them lugged off like they were roadkill. i realize the principal is the immediate concern but sheezus, the lack of medics, ambulances presence, reactions, customary evidence, like yellow tape, of death/homocide/shootings is too often missing. is this what we, the people, have become now? a dead animal to be carted off & disposed of? this concerns me in this.
and that huge honking ear bandage 3 days later on that wound was ridiculous. js. show must go on!
bread and circuses....Hollywierd
You could assign any narrative, this is my version https://open.substack.com/pub/deepersea/p/trump-over-absurdity?r=ewlv1&utm_medium=ios
All the world is a stage . . . .
the campaign trail is a bit of prime-time theater . . .
the entertainment division of the military industrial complex, as Frank said
For anyone interested in going back and looking at past assassinations (of course this was not one) this piece from 6 years ago looks at Roger Stone's book about the event. We must learn from the past. https://litbyimagination.blogspot.com/2018/11/roger-stones-jfk-assassination-thesis.html. The end looks at Stone's relationship and backing of Trump. Contrary to Riches' analysis, I think Trump has shown himself to be compliant with what is needed from him. Take his choice for VP...and bringing in all the billionaires necessary, or as Jeffrey Strahl said, way more than necessary.
I am working to account for known facts in a disciplined and cohesive way. I know when I am speculating and I say so.
I am looking for YOUR cohesive theory of the event, not a rehashing of individual facts.
I am still looking for a theory from your direction. Bread and circuses is not enough. I am looking for your theory and that of Jeff that explains most of the available facts and also accounts for Trump's comportment at the RNC.
Email to Billy Bob
Let’s consider Red Hat Guy’s contribution along with other witnesses — testimony of an alleged gunman moving shortly before the incident. This, while the patsy is in place. This creates confusion. And he is certain that the guy is the shooter — OK that does not check out.
As for the dart, they are — I am told — accurate to 100 yards. So if you put someone right in the (side) audience with a camera using a computer-guided shot, it’s the only way to be assured of a graze/superficial injury. They would be within 50 to 100 feet and it would all go unnoticed and they tell him it was a bullet.
My gun friends say there is no way to guarantee a graze wound with a rifle; you either hit or you miss. Finally why does USSS expose him during a circle and move? The whole point is not to. How do they know “the treat is neutralized”? In a real situation they would have to assume one or more additional snipers.
And Trump describes a whirring sound — not the of bullets. His injury is not consistent with a gunshot. I am sure he was not in on it. Way too dangerous. No motive. No ability to control or direct. He had to be a stooge.
In the end, this theory supports a plausible motive. I think that all the USSS guys were CIA, and the optics audience behind him was all CIA assets. Signaling and video taping like nothing is going on.
In my mind, I’m comparing Crooks to Adam Lanza and the horrific event of the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting. I realize that there are most likely different factors regarding family influences and of course total different scenarios but both boys seem to have had major low self esteem . The part of the program describing Crooks being selected to be in the Blackrock video, and then being maybe told he was part of a “junior sniper” in training by placing him in the position on the roof, is another very interesting and plausible concept. All parts of this event and many others in our past that no matter how deep you dig, we may never know the exact truth. Oh, what a convoluted world we live in.