Nobody can force the powers that be to quit stonewalling and gaslighting. But their ability to keep it up has natural consequences that all their power can't
prevent:
Given the lack of an adequate response from Biden administration officials and the public’s growing mistrust of the Biden FBI and Department of Homeland Security, people are looking at the timeline of the assassination attempt and drawing their own conclusions.
Look at what's happening in the polls as more and more people conclude these people are lying to us 24/7/365.
Along the same lines: "The real mystery isn’t why Democrats keep lying about the climate — they lie because it gives them an excuse to exert more government control over all of us — but why so many voters keep believing them.
ReplyDelete"Considering that those voters most likely to fall for the Democrats’ climate lies are also the youngest voters, it is possible that they simply have not been around long enough to know that nothing Democrats say about climate change ever comes true. If only there was a way for all of us to speed up the learning process."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3089667/what-else-democrats-are-lying-about-part-3-climate/
I hasten to add that I would refer to "Democratic leadership" as constantly lying, not to every Dem-leaning voter.
This puts me in mind of a post I saw yesterday at Instapundit. It argues that audio forensics shows clear evidence of a second shooter, as the audio profile of the gunshots is quite distinct.
ReplyDeletehttps://peakprosperity.com/audio-analysis-is-100-clear-trump-crowd-were-shot-at-by-two-separate-people/
I don't have the qualifications to analyze that claim, and the post is rather strident, which I tend to dismiss. However, if the claim is true stridency is warranted because it implies at minimum a second 'lone gunman,' which changes the nature of the case; and if that second shooter was actually a Federal agent, as the post claims, it means that the probability of another assassination attempt on Trump is nearly 1. They have several months to destroy evidence, but it would still be a great risk to let him get into office if there had been a Federal attempt to kill him.
This is what newspapers were supposed to do, and did do back in the 19th century before they were captured. Journalists used to be in serious danger of being challenged to duels because the powers they were investigating would hire killers to find a pretext to challenge them, thus shutting down the critical inquiry. As much as I often regret the passing away of dueling and the negative effects on our society brought by that passage, this was one really good argument for the change.
It's also what blogs did during their heyday, before social media emerged and captured most of the activity beneath the layers of censorship that the corporations have brought about.
It is, in other words, an important function even in spite of (or even partly because of) its Wild West qualities.
I'm really trying not to jump on board any of the CIA theories, but I have to admit that one of the main reasons I find it improbable is that I can't imagine any self-respecting spook's hiring some 20-year-old mediocre shot. But that leaves me wondering, how come his shot was so chillingly accurate, spoiled only by a completely unpredictable last-minute head-swivel? If I were writing a novel, the explanation would be that the 20-year-old was the patsy, intended to be killed so he couldn't answer questions, while the real shooter was behind him the whole time.
ReplyDeleteI'd want very solid proof on anything like that, though, and if the conspiracy were anything like what we fear, I assume we'd never get such a thing.
Was the shot so accurate? If I were aiming for a head, I'd aim for the center of the head, and the side of the head is about 3 inches away from that.
ReplyDeleteIt was sub-MOA (minute of angle), so yes, objectively pretty accurate.
ReplyDeleteFind an average "good shot", stick them up on a roof after climbing a ladder, have a cop discover them, and then ask them to engage a human target 150 yards away for the first time- The shooter was very accurate, considering the qualifiers.
ReplyDeleteOne or two shooters? I have no idea. Intentional set up? Beyond a reasonable doubt- no personal protection security guy in the world would think leaving that rooftop unsecured was a good idea. A child could see that.
And the excuses are grade school level in themselves. The dog ate my security plan. OK then.
We are being lied to by the government,on a constant basis, about almost everything. What was the quote? "They know it, we know it, they know we know it, we know they know we know, etc?"
James--I'm judging tentatively from the video reconstructions suggesting that the bullet would have been a center skull shot without his sudden turn toward the chart. But even without that, a kid with a reputation as a bad shot would be doing well to graze the ear of a target from that distance. I understand it's not considered to be a difficult shot for an expert, but he doesn't seem to have been any kind of expert. Could have been luck, of course, with 8 shots, but you wouldn't think someone would hire a kid and stake the whole plot on his ability to get off 8 shots before someone shot back.
ReplyDelete