Trump Assassination Attempt: DEEP State Revealed

One week later and our authorities still haven't answered the most basic questions.

Last week I wrote about Kamala Harris’ record as the CA Attorney General to remind never-Trumpers that their preferred Veep has a record of withholding of exculpatory evidence and evidence tampering to obtain wrongful convictions which she used to embellish her bonafides as the state’s top prosecutor.

These transgressions were once serious concerns for even left-leaning media when she was just one of a dozen Prez hopefuls in 2019 and apparently have been forgotten and excused now that she’s just one small step from Commander in Chief. It so happens that as I was putting the final touches on that essay a much bigger event was unfolding in Butler, PA: Former President Trump apparently took a spill on stage at a rally:

CNN paid mightily on social media for “jumping the gun” with their premature reporting on what was clearly a serious threat to the life of a former and potentially future President.

It’s been a week since the incident. What has surfaced so far should be extremely concerning to the public, no matter what one’s political affiliations are. Let’s begin with what is undeniably true.

• A young man, Thomas Matthew Crooks, was spotted atop a warehouse roof approximately 150 yards from the podium by numerous rally attendees

• Eyewitnesses made every possible effort to notify authorities that there was a person on the roof with a rifle and range finder

• Shots were fired in Trump’s direction and four people were injured, one fatally

• Seconds later, Secret Service snipers “neutralized” (i.e. blew the head off of) Crooks

Recent photo of Thomas Crooks with head attached

For the moment let’s put aside the obvious question around why he was allowed anywhere near the former President with a firearm in full view, and ask what story he might have given if he were apprehended, before firing his gun, by the extensive security detail that were present. I suggest it would have been a variation on one of two themes:

Option A:

“I never liked Donald Trump. From the moment I heard him spewing hateful rhetoric from the debate stage in 2015 when I was eleven years old, my revulsion has only increased. I heard he was speaking close to my home in Bethel Park, PA so I thought I might be able to get close enough to, you know, at least scare him a little. I guess it was a stupid idea. I’m sorry for the trouble I’ve caused, I’m glad nobody got hurt, but I still don’t like the guy. Vote Blue!”

Option B:

“A few months ago some men from the FBI came by and asked me if I would be interested in working for them. They saw me in a commercial I was in a while ago. They said they were looking for sharp shooters and I happen to like guns and I was a pretty good shot even though I couldn’t make my high-school rifle team. They arranged for practice time at a secret training facility. I was getting better so they offered me a really cool opportunity to participate in a mock assassination attempt on President Trump, you know, to get him more sympathy votes.

They told me where to set up and that they would make sure that nobody would stop me. All I had to do was fire my gun over his head when the other people on the team started shooting. They said I would be taken in for questioning, of course, but I would be let go. I’m not sure what’s going on because I never got to take any shots. Make America Great Again! Can I go home now?”

Option A fits nicely into the story the public is being asked to accept. Crooks was a loner with a gun and strange ideas. He fit the profile of what we have been taught lone gunmen are supposed to be like. He’s weird. He’s white. He’s got the right sort of name (we can now add Thomas Matthew Crooks into the barrel of acceptable assassin names like James Earl Ray, Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth).

Crooks acted alone. Luckily he wasn’t able to kill Trump, but others were seriously and fatally injured. This isn’t surprising. Crooks wasn’t an expert marksman. He was just a confused kid with a gun. He murdered an innocent person (Fire Chief Corey Comperatore). It’s too bad we couldn’t ask him any questions, but the Secret Service did the right thing in shooting him dead. Obviously they could have and should have gotten to him sooner. It’s a failure on their part.

Option B believers, well, they are just a step away from being as disillusioned as Crooks is in Option A. So the FBI is interested in both protecting and killing Trump? If they wanted Trump eliminated why would they pick a kid who was known to be a particularly bad shooter (former HS classmate Jameson Myers says that Crooks was “asked not to come back [to the rifle team] because of how bad a shot he was, it was considered, like, dangerous”)?

Option B only would make sense if Crooks was playing the key role in an assassination plot who was set up to take the blame (and a fatal bullet to the head) needed to create the illusion that the Secret Service was trying their best to do their job while other shooters, expert marksmen, were positioned to actually kill the former President.

To be clear, if there was a plot to kill Trump without drawing suspicion upon trusted agencies like the FBI and the Secret Service, this would have been the most efficient way. Dropping bombs, blowing up cars or sending missiles to Mar-a-Lago would be messy and implicate higher powers.

It’s a “conspiracy theory” which means that those who offer this explanation are saddled with the burden of proof, unlike legacy media that can hypothesize all they wish and never answer any tough questions like

1. Why was Crooks allowed to approach the area with an armed weapon?

2. Why was he permitted to situate himself with a clear line to the target just 150 yards away?

3. Why did the authorities ignore all the warnings coming from onlookers?

4. Why did Crooks make no attempt to hide his intentions at all?

5. Why was he allowed to fire upon the President before being neutralized?

But the smoking gun, if you will, are audio and video recordings from the ground from multiple vantage points. I highly recommend watching this thirty minute video from Dr. Chris Martenson where he explains how a relatively simple analysis clearly indicates there were at least two separate weapons that were fired upon the stage:

In the event that this sort of thing will be considered a violation of YouTube community standards, here’s a link to the video on X:

https://x.com/claylambert33/status/1814179067047932069

This is an extremely useful explanation because Martenson explains how conclusions can be drawn from what is available and where the uncertainty exists. Using two separate audio tracks taken from different locations on the grounds and a video taken from the front of the stage he concludes:

• Nine shots were registered

• The first three shots came from the same weapon. It was the first shot that hit Trump and wounded someone standing at the top of the bleachers to his left. This means that the bullet was on an upward trajectory. It could not have been fired by Crooks on the roof of the warehouse. It was likely fired from the window of the building he was perched upon.

• Three of the next five shots were likely taken by Crooks, after Trump and others on stage took cover. Two of these five came from a different weapon, 70-100 feet further away than Crooks’ position from the stage.

• The last shot that was registered on the audio was taken nearly 16 seconds after the first shot was heard. This was the bullet that Martenson believes killed Crooks.

Conclusion

Here’s what an objective analysis of what is widely known tells us:

Crooks was a twenty year old man with a record of being a below average shooter. He used a ladder to access the roof of a warehouse some 300-400 feet from the stage in full view of the public. Authorities were made aware but no action was taken. Crooks, the only suspect in the shooting, did not fire upon the stage until three shots were taken by someone inside the warehouse upon which he was perched. It is possible that a third weapon was fired upon the stage while Crooks was shooting. Crooks was shot in the head a few seconds later.

Was this an inexcusable security failure (Option A)?

Or was this horribly botched conspiracy to assassinate a former President (Option B)?