Karl Kinaski Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 (edited) 28 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: I'm merely suggesting that the trajectory of the bullet seen in the photograph just might indicate that it wasn't that exact bullet that struck Donald Trump It wasn't. Physically impossible. Anyway, here's David Rothkopf perfectly explaining the problem with the Trump shooting controversy: "There are a few problems with the theory that Wray’s statement was politically motivated. First, Wray was appointed by Trump. Next, Wray is both a Republican and a member of the conservative Federalist Society. Thirdly, no credible medical professional had actually said at any point following the assassination attempt that Trump was actually struck by a bullet. Yes, Dr. Ronnie Jackson, now a member of Congress said, “It was a bullet—I’ve seen the wound. Pathetic!!” But Jackson is no longer a practicing physician as his medical license has expired. Oh, and in 2022 he was demoted from the rank of admiral by the Navy after an investigation revealed that he ran a pill mill when he served as Trump’s White House doctor. And of course, it was Jackson who said that Trump had the body of a Hemsworth, despite all appearances to the contrary. The controversy over whether or not Trump was actually hit by a bullet is a self-inflicted wound made by the former president. That is because unlike in past such events, there was no formal medical report from the doctors that treated Trump after the shooting. As Rep. Dan Goldman of New York noted, “We have not seen any medical records. We have not had an independent doctor other than a hyper-partisan elected member of Congress comment on what happened.” As a result, predictably, controversy has swirled. It might not have had Trump been forthcoming with medical records. It might have had the big MAGA myth machine not immediately turned the event into an operatic tale of the hand of the Lord Almighty reaching down to save the heroic president who dodged death by mere millimeters. It might not if Trump had not insisted on the ridiculous and clearly unnecessary ear bandages and had not all the little Trumpinis followed suit like the good little mindless lemmings that they are. But all those things happened. And they raised very real questions about whether the Ear Wound Theater was all costume drama, and posed the possibility that, if it was, it was one of the most craven, cynical displays by a politician ever. Which is saying something, given Trump’s history as a pathological liar. It is therefore not surprising that even very serious people have publicly questioned what actually happened that day including a former chairman of the Republican National Committee. Observers have correctly argued that Trump could have been, like several police officers, hit by flying debris. Doctors have noted that the wound from an assault rifle, even a minor one, would have been much more severe. Therefore, it is entirely on Trump and his team that rumors and doubts are swirling around the former president just like the debris kicked up by the eight shots fired by Crooks. Had they been more forthcoming with the details of the shooting, the event still would have been dramatic, the former president still would have been targeted, the terrible loss of life and the injuries sustained by innocent bystanders would have been a powerful story without embellishment. Or without unnecessary mystery." Edited July 27 by Matt Allison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Bartetzko Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 42 minutes ago, Matt Allison said: It wasn't. Physically impossible. Anyway, here's David Rothkopf perfectly explaining the problem with the Trump shooting controversy: "There are a few problems with the theory that Wray’s statement was politically motivated. First, Wray was appointed by Trump. Next, Wray is both a Republican and a member of the conservative Federalist Society. Thirdly, no credible medical professional had actually said at any point following the assassination attempt that Trump was actually struck by a bullet. Yes, Dr. Ronnie Jackson, now a member of Congress said, “It was a bullet—I’ve seen the wound. Pathetic!!” But Jackson is no longer a practicing physician as his medical license has expired. Oh, and in 2022 he was demoted from the rank of admiral by the Navy after an investigation revealed that he ran a pill mill when he served as Trump’s White House doctor. And of course, it was Jackson who said that Trump had the body of a Hemsworth, despite all appearances to the contrary. The controversy over whether or not Trump was actually hit by a bullet is a self-inflicted wound made by the former president. That is because unlike in past such events, there was no formal medical report from the doctors that treated Trump after the shooting. As Rep. Dan Goldman of New York noted, “We have not seen any medical records. We have not had an independent doctor other than a hyper-partisan elected member of Congress comment on what happened.” As a result, predictably, controversy has swirled. It might not have had Trump been forthcoming with medical records. It might have had the big MAGA myth machine not immediately turned the event into an operatic tale of the hand of the Lord Almighty reaching down to save the heroic president who dodged death by mere millimeters. It might not if Trump had not insisted on the ridiculous and clearly unnecessary ear bandages and had not all the little Trumpinis followed suit like the good little mindless lemmings that they are. But all those things happened. And they raised very real questions about whether the Ear Wound Theater was all costume drama, and posed the possibility that, if it was, it was one of the most craven, cynical displays by a politician ever. Which is saying something, given Trump’s history as a pathological liar. It is therefore not surprising that even very serious people have publicly questioned what actually happened that day including a former chairman of the Republican National Committee. Observers have correctly argued that Trump could have been, like several police officers, hit by flying debris. Doctors have noted that the wound from an assault rifle, even a minor one, would have been much more severe. Therefore, it is entirely on Trump and his team that rumors and doubts are swirling around the former president just like the debris kicked up by the eight shots fired by Crooks. Had they been more forthcoming with the details of the shooting, the event still would have been dramatic, the former president still would have been targeted, the terrible loss of life and the injuries sustained by innocent bystanders would have been a powerful story without embellishment. Or without unnecessary mystery." You appear to be more up to date on this than I am. I have not seen information as to how many officers were hit by shrapnel. Do you have that number and what might have been the source of the shrapnel? I have heard a report that one bullet struck a hydraulic line on a tower behind the stage. As to the eight shots that Crooks fired, do you have an explanation why the first 3 appear to sound so different from the next 5? Can this weapon fire ammunition with different types of gun powder? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 Mark Groubert brings his unique perspective.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 38 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said: Mark Groubert brings his unique perspective.... Mark Groubert is a paranoid right wing wacko. "unique perspective"? lol Name one thing he says that is backed up by reality and evidence. I'll wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Nick Bartetzko said: I have not seen information as to how many officers were hit by shrapnel. Do you have that number and what might have been the source of the shrapnel? WPXI in Pittsburgh did most of the digging on that; https://www.yahoo.com/news/11-investigates-exclusive-pittsburgh-motorcycle-222445538.html The truth is we don't know squat about this shooting, and we won't until the FBI finishes their investigation and releases the evidence. Edited July 27 by Matt Allison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 Trump as a private citizen is not required to release his medical records, so you can bet he won't. But in fairness, How can Trump really know what hit him? Groubert for 2 hours on this Ben? Get a life or migrate back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gil Jesus Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 (edited) 23 hours ago, Robert Reeves said: Nit-picking whether Trump was really shot and denying him any sympathy is very telling. Trump's former doctor ( Ronny Jackson was to Trump during his presidency what Admiral Burkley was to Kennedy ) observed the injury and concurred with the medical staff at Butler Hospital that the wound was caused by a bullet. Jackson, now a Congressman from Texas, put out the following statement: I don't consider FBI Director Wray a medical expert on bullet wounds. In addition, he was not present at the time of the shooting nor was he present at the hospital when the President was treated. And he never saw the wound. Therefore, anything he says about the wound must be taken as an opinion and not expert testimony. BTW, The FBI NOW says Trump was struck by a bullet. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-fbi-bullet-ear-ronny-jackson-doctor/ I hope this ends the controversy once and for all. Edited July 27 by Gil Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gil Jesus Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 (edited) 7 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said: Mark Groubert brings his unique perspective.... Putting Trump-hating Janet Napolitano on this "blue ribbon" commission is like placing Allen Dulles on the Warren Commission. LOL. Edited July 27 by Gil Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bacon Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 21 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said: @Tom Gram What you are saying? That this ESU man can't count to ten? He counts FIVE shells beside Crooks. Watch the video by yourself. This ESU man is there and he is is counting. You can hear him: " ... two, three, four five." At 4min57sec the Beaver County Emergency Service Unit (ESU) man is counting only 5 (FIVE)casings ... Cut from the video: https://ibb.co/6Rg2DMt Full video. It's on y-tube. 830 000 views. About 2/3 of the way through this video, another officer counts 8 shell casings... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Ceulemans Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 Some will make that 13 in total 🫣 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Gram Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 5 hours ago, Paul Bacon said: About 2/3 of the way through this video, another officer counts 8 shell casings... I didn’t notice that but wasn’t really paying attention to the audio and was skipping around. If true that settles it. Crooks fired 8 shots. I’m still curious about the audio and why the first three shots sound so different. I’m sure there’s a plausible explanation I just haven’t heard anything like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bacon Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 1 hour ago, Tom Gram said: I’m still curious about the audio and why the first three shots sound so different. I know. Could it be the wind changed, or he moved his position, or the position of the rifle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 (edited) 8 hours ago, Gil Jesus said: Trump's former doctor ( Ronny Jackson was to Trump during his presidency what Admiral Burkley was to Kennedy ) observed the injury and concurred with the medical staff at Butler Hospital that the wound was caused by a bullet. Jackson, now a Congressman from Texas, put out the following statement: I don't consider FBI Director Wray a medical expert on bullet wounds. In addition, he was not present at the time of the shooting nor was he present at the hospital when the President was treated. And he never saw the wound. Therefore, anything he says about the wound must be taken as an opinion and not expert testimony. BTW, The FBI NOW says Trump was struck by a bullet. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-fbi-bullet-ear-ronny-jackson-doctor/ I hope this ends the controversy once and for all. A few points I am the same height as Trump and was at my fattest 245. Trump was significantly fatter than me and if I recall Jackson signed off on a report claiming Trump was 225. The man has no credibility. If the wound was clearly a bullet wound we would see it on Trump's ear. Now, I am taking a step back for two reasons. One is that the photo of Trump with the bloody ear right after the shots may be misleading. The darkest spot of blood appears to be at the 1 o'clock position--where yesterday's photos show NO wound. This makes me wonder if the wound was really at the 11 o'clock position, where there could very well be a minor abrasion on the ear in the photos. IF there is a minor abrasion in this location--on the outside of the ear and thus possibly in line with a shot from the sniper's position as Trump turned his head to look in that direction, it does not exonerate Jackson and Trump, however. Jackson claimed it was a 2 cm wound. That would be like a third the height of the ear. Where is this? Now it's possible some make-up was applied to Trump's ear for the Netanyahu photo-shoot. But I doubt it. It looks to me like it was just an extremely minor wound...far smaller than 2 cm.. Trump claimed a bullet pierced him and that he took a bullet for democracy. No such thing occurred. His claiming as much is offensive to those who have actually been pierced by a bullet or "taken" a bullet. Now, perhaps I should explain why I find this so offensive when I have never taken a bullet. I have been battling cancer and the side-effects of its treatment for more than three years now. I am what some would call a cancer "survivor." Now I have encountered others who act like we have something in common, because they had a mole removed from their face years ago that their doctor said might turn cancerous, or some such thing. They are not cancer "survivors." And they're making out that they are to me is offensive, IMO. In a similar vein, my best friend's son died from a heart condition when he was but six years old. It was devastating to the family and their friends. Now, amazingly, numerous acquaintances when faced with this grief tried to bond with my friend and his wife, by saying things like "Well, I know what you're going through because my dog died last year and man that was rough." My friends made a list of these people and made a joint decision to avoid them in the future. Let's put the shoe on the other foot... If the crazy kid had tried to kill Biden, and Biden had bragged about taking a bullet for democracy, when it was just a mini abrasion, FOX News would make this THE story for weeks and weeks, right? Of course, it would... So the fact it is just a minor story for a couple of days should not be upsetting to Trump supporters, IMO. Edited July 27 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now