Shrapnel or Bullet? Who Cares?

Tweet

What exactly is on the mind of the FBI as director Wray is now wanting to interview Trump to determine whether his injury was due to a bullet hitting his ear or shrapnel? What is the point? Is it to find a way to dismiss the severity of the event and make it less impacting or significant as to what really happened? Does it really matter? Hardly. Even if it was shrapnel, the fact is that the shrapnel was caused by a bullet, that was one among eight shots fired that injured the former president, two bystanders, and killed one. The fact is that Thomas Matthews Crooks was KNOWN to be present and suspicious for 57 minutes before the first shot was fired, and that there was a catastrophic failure on the part of the Secret Service to secure a proper perimeter and identify Crooks as a threat. In fact, during all this going on, including spectators pointing out Crooks on the roof he shot from, minutes before Trump was allowed to enter the stage, is also a major issue. They still allowed Trump to enter the stage like nothing was out of the ordinary. It's simply, to my mind, a non-issue. Look, if we want to know more about the nature of Trump's injury, that's fine. But the time to do that is AFTER we have learned all of the other MORE important information about what happened, and how it was ALLOWED to happen. If there was no bullet flying through the air, shrapnel would not also have been flying through the air. The issue here is not what injured Trump. It was that a 20-year old man was able to fire eight rounds at a former president. Beyond that, why don't we ask the sniper what he saw BEFORE the first shot was fired since he shot Crooks SECONDS after the shooting started. How did he find him so fast to kill him and what did he see in his scope before he fired the fatal shot that killed Crooks? In order for the sniper to have acted so quickly, he would have had to have the target in his sights long before he fired the kill shot.