Posted on 07/24/2024 6:32:07 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Everybody knows that the “lone gunman” is dead, but the controversy surrounding the theory that Thomas Matthew Crooks was a “lone gunman” is not.
Many feel entirely justified to continue exploring whether others had to be involved in this operation for it to unfold in the way it did.
Monday morning, Secret Service Director Cheatle studiously avoided answering any questions members of Congress were asking to help bring forth truth and transparency to the public. In response to Cheatle’s non-responses, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna tweeted out the following: “After leaving the oversight briefing this morning, I’m more convinced than ever that Crooks wasn’t working alone.”
At this point, the American public should not naively accept that a 20-year-old was acting alone any more than we should hold to any belief in the veracity of the Warren Report, which has been questioned since its issuance sixty years ago.
AI image of the real investigators.
Today, the question is the same that haunts the Kennedy assassination: Was Crooks, like Oswald, a disposable patsy set up by others to take the fall and thereby cloak the evil conspiracy and identity of the real conspirators?
In considering that question, the public should be slow to form conclusions and remain relentless in their pursuit of the real truth. We need to question the tidbits being released—i.e. leaked—by a bureaucracy that, for the time being, seems to be supporting the notion that Crooks was a single shooter operating on his own.
But there is good news.
Things have changed since 1963. Today, forensic evidence abounds. Videos and audio recordings from every conceivable perspective are almost certain to have been recorded on a host of cell phones in the hands of a multitude of ordinary private citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Every site is different and has its own security challenges—so an apples to apples comparison is difficult.
What we can focus on is what was different between Butler and previous sites—and the video identifies some of those.
—No written operations plan
—No sniper or even observer on the high ground (water tower)
—Replacement of experienced SS Agent in Charge with idiot from Pittsburgh
No air surveillence
I think it would wise to review the QUALITY of protection at all previous Trump rallys.
True for Butler—but I did not comment on that because I do not know whether it was true for previous sites as well.
I am not just questioning Butler, I am questioning everything. Even previous rally site security.
I get that—but whatever the baseline was—Butler was clearly significantly worse.
Replacing a competent Special Agent in Charge with an idiot is such a critical move.
A competent SAIC can overcome a lot of other deficiencies with quick thinking and improvising if anything goes wrong.
Bongino is being brutally honest and he’s worried about Trump with the guy moved up to be acting director of SS.
There’s so much.
Last night, the local chief stated that one of his officers fired at the suspect, IIRC. So there are now two sources of gunfire.
The biggest gaslighting so far has been the story of the cop on the roof. I’m convinced it never happened, and so far even though we have the suspect on video and in view for approx two minutes, there is no video proof or collaborating witnesses.
So, who were these brave officers? Why isn’t the media hounding them for their names?
One more thing -
The last shot comes 12(?) seconds after the burst of fire. Assuming that’s from the counter sniper.
The sequence of events seems odd. Crooks aims and fires three shots. After that period of time, Trump is crouched down and protected.
Who is he aiming for? and who did he hit? You mean he fired off that long string into nothing?
And then the two final shots. The last one is clearly from a different gun and location, a pretty safe bet it’s counter sniper fire. Did Crooks stick his head up over the roof again? I can’t think of any assassin in history who stuck around after action. Or for that matter who decided to fire at innocents after failure.
That’s been my first hypothesis versus all the unverified “There was a second shooter!!!” hype. However, that means to get the shots off so quickly after Crooks, the non—SS sniper may have had to have Crooks in sight as Crooks fired. If so, why didn’t the sniper take out Crooks BEFORE Crooks fired?
It’s too hard to put any faith in this government. They got caught up in so many lies over the years. Every time a head of an agency is called to testify in front of congress they lie and refuse to answer questions. It’s so aggravating that I can’t even watch them anymore. These people are supposed to work for us and answer to congress but they do neither. They work for and answer to the small group of dictators running our country.
My inclination in this situation is to attribute this to a high level of incompetence brought on by this administration's DEI practice of selecting candidates for positions based solely on the person's race, gender or sexual preference and not on actual qualifications. However, we have not had a Biden administration step down as a result of Democrat pressure. They usually deny culpability, accuse Republicans of politicizing the situation, circle the wagons, and avoid any accountability. The fact that Democrats demanded accountability is what has sown some doubt in my mind and makes me wonder if the blaming for negligence is to provide the needed scalp and avoid too deep of a dig for the truth. If Republicans pursue too much, they will then accuse them of pushing conspiracy and point to her resigning for her negligence. All the while, they consider her negligence to be in failing at her real mission.
“If so, why didn’t the sniper take out Crooks BEFORE Crooks fired?”
Perhaps his assignment wasn’t to take out Crooks BEFORE Crooks fired, but rather AFTER.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.