I will be brief. Christopher Wray, director of the FBI, is feeding the narrative questioning elements of the attempt on President Donald Trump’s life. In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, under questioning from Congressman Jim Jordan, Wray said, “I think with respect to the former President Trump, there’s some question about whether or not it’s a bullet or shrapnel that hit his ear.” For those readers who may not have been paying attention, there was an attempt made on President Trump’s life on July 13 during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Had he not turned his head to refer to a chart behind him he would have been struck in the temple by an assassin’s bullet. Now the director of the FBI is raising doubts that the President was struck by a bullet.
It was surprising to hear Wray say this in light of the fact that The New York Times published a photograph of the bullet and the sequence of events documenting the fact of that bullet passing the President in the exact trajectory of the wound, the President’s reaction to being struck thus confirming the timing, and his hand with blood on it in the immediate aftermath confirming the presence of a wound—all of this occurring before quickly dropping to the ground to avoid being struck by more bullets. As the Times reported, Michael Harrigan, a retired FBI special agent, said the image captured by Doug Mills, a New York Times photographer, seems to show a bullet streaking past former Trump. Indeed.
Wray confirmed what I already told readers about the number of shots Crooks fired in the span of six seconds. Eight cartridges were recovered from the roof from where the sniper fired the bullets. There were other details readers might find interesting (such as the ladder Crooks purchased that was not recovered from the scene and the presence of three explosive devices and a remote detonator). I may return over the news several weeks with an essay about the shooting, but I am waiting for more details. (See They Tried to Kill Donald Trump Yesterday.)
I want to close here with a few observations. First, whether Trump was hit by a bullet or shrapnel, or whether he was struck at all, doesn’t change the reality that an attempt was made on his life and the significance of Crooks actions and the failures of the Secret Service and local police. It doesn’t change the fact that a man was murdered and two others seriously injured. It is concerning that a narrative raising doubts about what hit the president is being used to raise doubts about the event itself and that Wray is feeding the narrative by using the weight of his authority to echo the doubts.
Because Democrats have suddenly rediscovered their love for law enforcement, they believe Wray’s questioning legitimizes their narrative about the event. If one is objective, then he knows that Wray is part of the Deep State, an apparatus that has been hellbent on delegitimizing Trump for eight years. Many of you are familiar with the many elements of the campaign: Trump is a Putin agent. Hunter Biden’s laptop is Russian disinformation. The 2020 presidential election was the most secure election in history. Joe Biden is sharp as a tack. And so on. That we don’t know what hit Trump’s ear is yet another establishment attempt gaslight the public. (See The Lies of the Corporate State Are Functional to Its Ends. See also Progressives Losing Their Shit Over the Attempt on Trump’s Life.)
Second, polls indicate that a third of Democrats wish the shooter hadn’t missed, while another third believe the shooting was staged. Supposing these two-thirds are not significantly overlapping, that means that a large majority of Democrats are either extremists or crazy.
Finally, I find suspicious the change in norm in how to address a former President where now a former president is referred to as such. It used to be that those who achieved the highest office in the federal government were referred to as “President” regardless of whether they currently serve in that position or not. This is a general rule and applies to other offices as well. It is convention is to refer to a dignitary by the last or highest office achieved. This tradition stems from a sense of respect and recognition of their service. This practice honors the significant role they played as the nation’s leader. For example, Bill Clinton is still commonly referred to as “President Clinton” or “Mister President” even though he is no longer in office. Similarly, individuals who have held other high offices, such as governors, senators, or ambassadors, are often addressed by their last or highest title. For instance, a former governor is often called “Governor [Last Name]” rather than “former governor” or “ex-governor.” Nikki Haley is referred to as “Ambassador Haley.” Etcetera.
I have followed convention whether I like the dignitary or not, and it strikes me that the deviation from the convention in this case is to manufacture the reflex that Trump is a lesser former President than other former Presidents. You may believe Trump to be a lesser figure, but it is not appropriate for the FBI director to engage in the partisan politics this deviation indicates.
freedom and reason 
One of the many things which makes me suspicious about the official narrative is that it so quickly centered firmly around the assumption that Crooks acted alone, while at the same time being very short on detail. They also studiously avoid certain topics- such as analysis of bullet trajectories and timing. When asked, Cheatle answered immediately that there was “definitely not” a conspiracy – while at the same time being ignorant of or evasive about almost all details of the incident. I only watched the first few hours of the Wray testimony, but he seemed to be following the same narrative.
Of all the conclusions one can reach about a crime, ruling out a conspiracy will generally be one of the last things it is possible to do, not the first (due to the black swan fallacy). The possibility of multiple shooters is a live possibility until proven otherwise, yet there is no public recognition that such a possibility is being considered. To be charitable to law enforcement – they may be doing that intentionally but internally doing something different – but unfortunately for them, this kind of “disclosure management” serves only to further reduce public confidence and trust.