Post New

Not just because of this, but things like this...

"Wray testifying before Congress: with respect to President Trump, there is some questions about wheter or not a bullet or shrapnel hit his ear.

FBI, clarifying Wray’s, “What struck former President Trump in the ear was a bullet whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces, fired from the deceased subject's rifle.”

-----------------

First of all, the FBI should know and not speculate. Second of all, they hang with a shrapnel possibility (from a bullet fragment, not the shattered teleprompter which of course a shattered teleprompter could easy be checked in two minutes and ruled in or our. Why is a shrapnel alternative explanation so important, so important to lie about?

bighairymike: First of all, the FBI should know and not speculate.

How would they know without examining the former president's wound or without the physical evidence? AFAIK, the president has not released medical reports beyond those provided by Admiral-busted-down-to-Captain-for-being-a-drunk Ronny Johnson-Jackson, the pill pusher in the Trump White House who claimed Trump grew an inch in his seventies, weighed 237 lbs, and would live to be 200 if he ate better. Not what's you'd call a reliable source.

bighairymike: Second of all, they hang with a shrapnel possibility (from a bullet fragment, not the shattered teleprompter which of course a shattered teleprompter could easy be checked in two minutes and ruled in or our [sic].

Scripps News provided photographs showing the two teleprompters still intact following the gunfire.

bighairymike: Why is a shrapnel alternative explanation so important, so important to lie about?

What lie? The FBI said they couldn't be certain if the president's wound was caused by a bullet or shrapnel (a piece of shattered bullet) but that it was one or the other. But, sure, it makes a better rally story to say president Bone Spurs "took a bullet" for America rather than was hit by pieces of a shattered bullet.

Personally, I think he was lightly grazed by a bullet, fragmented or otherwise, enough to break the skin and draw a little blood. Lucky guy. And seriously, I'm happy he wasn't seriously wounded or killed.

But doesn't it strike you as at least a little bit strange that there are photographs of his ear less than a week later, unbandaged, and there doesn't appear to be much of anything there, let alone a serious wound?

I guess he heals fast.

With everything we know about Trump, though, if his wound was really serious, really nasty, he'd be on Fox News having the cameras show it in close-up detail every day of the week.

I'm sorry that POS was shot but he's still a POS.

Good news though: after the 2024 election, you'll never have to vote again.

What lie? The FBI said they couldn't be certain if the president's wound was caused by a bullet or shrapnel (a piece of shattered bullet) but that it was one or the other. But, sure, it makes a better rally story to say president Bone Spurs "took a bullet" for America rather than was hit by pieces of a shattered bullet.- CO

----------------

Being shot paints a sympathetic view of Trump, one that is somehow minimized in the liberal media and the liberal mind if h was hit with a bullet fragment rather than an intact bullet. What is the logic behind that?

BTW, a bullet does not spontaneously fragment in flight. Can you say Full Metal Jacket?

"First of all, the FBI should know and not speculate. Second of all, they hang with a shrapnel possibility (from a bullet fragment, not the shattered teleprompter which of course a shattered teleprompter could easy be checked in two minutes and ruled in or our. Why is a shrapnel alternative explanation so important, so important to lie about?"

Hilarious that you get mad at the FBI for speculating, then you speculate yourself that it had to be a bullet and not a bullet fragment or such.

I think it is pretty clear to understand what the FBI is saying. There is nothing to corroborate what hit Trump's ear. No bullet, bullet fragment, or any shrapnel of something was recovered from the scene that had his blood on it. Given that, anyone who says definitively what hit Trump's ear is just speculating. Weird that you think that is a lie when it is just basic english.

"What lie? The FBI said they couldn't be certain if the president's wound was caused by a bullet or shrapnel (a piece of shattered bullet) but that it was one or the other. But, sure, it makes a better rally story to say president Bone Spurs "took a bullet" for America rather than was hit by pieces of a shattered bullet."

I was trying to figure out why this was such a big deal in the nuttersphere. I didn't understand why it mattered. It is 100% obvious that something very sharp and very fast flew right by Trump's face and clipped his ear. What difference does it make if it was a bullet, a bullet fragment from a ricochet, or shrapnel from something that was hit by a bullet? Any of those would have caused serious trauma if the path was just inches over. Why does it matter (obviously it could matter in a court of law if there was a suspect still alive so forensics will try to nail it down, but in the court of public perception. It doesn't matter one whit. Trump was shot at and suffered an injury to his ear. The specific details do not matter.

So why are the right-wing masters trying to whip up the nuts into a frenzy over this?

Then I realized that this doesn't have really anything to do with bullets or bullet fragments, or shrapnel. It is about the fact that Trump is a criminal and he desperately needs to discredit the law agencies because he cannot win on the facts. So he is going to pounce upon any uncertainty from the FBI and twist it into make it seem like a conspiracy. It is no different that the whole FBI was sent to assassinate him when they executed a legal search warrant for his residence, and it included standard boilerplate language that is in every search warrant. It had to be spun up as some sort of conspiracy about the FBI so the weak-minded idiots would get all worked up about it and learn to hate the FBI leadership. The FBI has to be discredited because it is quite clear the FBI found boxes of highly classified documents in his house despite him claiming repeatedly there were none there.

Being shot paints a sympathetic view of Trump, one that is somehow minimized in the liberal media and the liberal mind if h was hit with a bullet fragment rather than an intact bullet. What is the logic behind that?

BTW, a bullet does not spontaneously fragment in flight.

I don't think it makes one bit of difference between a bullet or a fragment, he got hit. Wanna make it sound better? He got fragged. :) Honestly, it makes no difference, he was being shot at by a nutcase - we get it.

FBI is sadly becoming a haven for Liberals who like guns and authority as long as they are used on Americans who don't conform with the Woke Authoritarian Vision.

Hopefully something changes or we'll need UN Peacekeepers protecting us from the FBI one day. Some of them did some raping in the Congo but I'm not worried. Heck if anyone wanted my fat ass it would be an ego boost.

a. trump has agreed to an post-shooting interview with the FBI because regardless of his deemed 'deep-state' conspiracies, its FREE PUBLICITY.
trump, who never realized what building the shot originated from, much less observed the shooter, is bound to regale us with some great insight from this. my guess is something along the lines of despite the shooter being republican, he has a 3rd cousin registered as a dem. and they played some CallofDuty game together.

b. trump really blew his chances of discrediting law enforcement by SURVIVING.
the current level of scrutiny they are facing is comparatively nothing...maybe because the victim seems pretty blase about gun culture.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.