Initial analysis of the Trump assassination attempt on 13 Jul 24 at an election rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, indicates an internal security breach resulting in a stand-down to the assassin, who was identified to law enforcement including the US Secret Service prior to engaging his target, but was not engaged by counter-snipers until after firing. Using a ladder, the assassin reported to be Thomas Matthew Crooks accessed a rooftop adjacent to the event venue in an attempt to assassinate former President and current presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. The FBI has stated that it is unable to identify a motive. Although Crooks had been identified to law enforcement as being on the roof, with a rifle and army-crawling into place, no appropriate response occurred from the Executive protection detail and neither did any effort to secure Trump prior to gunshots. Unconfirmed thus far, the video evidence appears to indicate that Crooks fired at least three rounds at Trump in an initial burst striking him in the ear and face causing injuries that were not life-threatening. Moreover, at least one round that contacted Trump’s torso appears to have been stopped by his protective ballistic undergarments. Following the initial three-round burst, there is a slight pause before a second burst of rapid-fire rounds is heard and it’s unclear if those rounds derived from Crooks’ weapon or whether they were from US Secret Service counter-snipers returning fire; presumably the latter as suggested by video evidence. The AR-15 used in the assassination attempt belongs to Crook’s father as a lawfully registered and owned firearm. Crooks was dispatched by counter-sniper fire; his dead body coming to rest on the rooftop he somehow accessed for the event. [*Snipers and counter-snipers is used interchangeably.]
Trump Shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks
[NYP POST, Archive page]
INTRODUCTION
Please note that as the one providing this analysis, I have not consumed any reliable others’ analysis so any positions or findings similar to others is two things: 1-coincidental and 2-further substantiation of the positions being laid-out here.
If I can make one front-end recommendation without knowing what he has put out so far, I suggest consuming former USSS agent Dan Bongino’s content on this matter.
Initially, the effort here centered on collecting and archiving as much real time and relevant information as possible over the balance of 13 Jul 24 and all of the following day.
The purpose of the archive is two-fold: 1-to preserve as much relevant information as time permits and 2-to provide a basic and contextually diverse fact set and catalog of primary and secondary sources and evidence to support the analysis and findings.
Where needed, additional content augments the analysis to deepen understanding.
The archive of the Trump assassination attempt information is contained on this page: ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT ON TRUMP [“the archive”].
Note that due to presumed flagging and censorship, several to many of the posts captured will not embed for preview and so readers will have to click those links to engage that content.
Additionally, other posts have already been deleted and as indicated on the archive page, others are reporting the ongoing wiping of Crooks’ relevant pages, feeds, accounts, posts, etc.
The archive page is presented in the sequence in which the information was captured and so there is no organization to it based upon context.
For our purposes here, IMMEDIATE ANALYSIS refers to the real-time analysis provided as the event unfolded.
INITIAL ANALYSIS refers to the back-end examination of the event in light of the totality of evidence on hand.
IMMEDIATE ANALYSIS
Introduction
The immediate analysis of the attempted Trump assassination indicated an internal security breach resulting in a deliberate stand-down amounting to an inside job.
The back-end examination for the initial analysis delivers the same findings.
This analysis narrows its focus to give greater attention to the most critical components and permits Occam’s to refine the positions.
Jurisdiction therefore narrows our focus to the US Secret Service and in particular, its Executive protection detail [also referred to as Executive security detail], site security, USSS advance operations, the USSS response and counter-sniper teams in particular.
The USSS is an agency under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security, which has been a highly problematic and longtime subject of close examination.
*Link
First Impression
The immediate analysis was presented in real time and everything has been published at Xwitter and the archive page.
From the archive page, here is the immediate first impression verbatim:
Without exaggeration, the following is profound because initial analysis indicates an internal security breach that resulted in a stand-down to the shooter in a best-case scenario.
An eyewitness account will verify exactly that.
Occam’s prevails to tell us it’s an internal security breach as described or it’s complete incompetence on the part of the full security detail.
This will make more sense when you take the time [and you most certainly should take the time] to listen to the eyewitness account of the attempted assassination of President Trump.
Here’s my first impression framed by questions:
First impression on the attempted assassination of President Trump: I have questions about the USSS detail. 1-How did the shooter gain access to a rooftop in close enough proximity to be effective? 2-How did the shooter gain access while likely carrying a capable rifle whether broken down and concealed or in the open? 3-How was that rooftop area not secured in advance? 4-If the rooftop was secure, then how did this happen? This scenario is highly problematic whether it be an internal security breach or an external threat. No matter, something is very wrong here.
Right away, video interviews from two eyewitness accounts validated the immediate positions as outlined above [interview 1 in the initial posting on the archive page and interview 2 in the 2nd update (both are linked below)].
Executive Security Detail: Site & Advance Ops
To process what follows, it’s important to understand the advance ops [a quick read with a brief overview] in which the US Secret Service engages to secure a site or route of travel that includes things like welding down manhole covers and removing mailboxes alongside the route.
When the site details are overlaid by standard USSS protocol for securing a site and maintaining it throughout the event, the immediate analysis becomes impossible to dismiss as anything but on-point: at best, the USSS stood down to the shooter refusing to engage him until he engaged Trump and at worst, this was done by design and on someone’s orders.
Whose?
CBS News provides an overhead map of the site noting the shooter’s approximate rooftop position at approximately 400 ft., which is roughly one football field plus 40 yards away.
The fact set dictates that the USSS sets no fewer than three perimeters in its Executive protection designs: “Police form the outer perimeter, general Secret Service agents make up the middle perimeter, and Presidential Protective Division agents provide the innermost shield.”
Important for considerations below and overlaid by reports of substitute agents in the Executive protection detail and where the existing detail was said to be short of adequate anyways, the location of the internal security breach is critical.
Was it within the USSS, local/state law enforcement or both?
Considerations for any internal security breach on the part of local/state law enforcement should factor-in that Pennsylvania is one of the most thoroughly corrupt states functioning as a Democratic Party asset ergo an asset of the Intelligence Community.
There are reports that substitute agents contained some reportedly from Pennsylvania and that may have effective leadership for the event.
Conventional thought makes Crooks’ elevated rooftop location at a mere 400 ft. from the stage sufficient to place him within a perimeter locale under USSS control and if not, it absolutely should have been.
Was the Crooks rooftop within the USSS established perimeters of control and if not, why not?
Why wasn’t there a USSS presence of some sort on the Crooks rooftop?
If the USSS was shorthanded, which is plausible given anecdotal evidence on hand, why didn’t the USSS agent in charge, or tasked with the rooftop detail, or that sector, or a combination of those assign local law enforcement to control the Crooks rooftop and any other necessary and unsecured rooftops within the perimeter?
It’s because these aren’t “accidents,” “oversights,” “incompetence” and “mistakes” but rather give the appearance of designed omissions.
By that, there are basically two ways to assassinate an individual: directly or indirectly through a trigger man.
If for example you are the principal and your trigger man is in play inside a venue of your operational control, all that’s necessary is to break protocol, stand-down and permit the trigger man to do his job.
If he hits, you investigate, which permits you to vacuum-up all of the evidence and control the narrative, and then the investigative findings attribute the assassination to “oversights” and “incompetence” as you wipe your hands and walk away.
If he misses, you do the same to make sure your target isn’t positioned to leverage the evidence back against you [especially if he’s poised to become the President of the United States of America and he already possesses all of the receipts from his first term after you stole his second with a fake pandemic…and then tried to kill him, but only after trying to imprison him for life while bankrupting him and assassinating his character for years.]
Whether he hits or misses, after the damage is done, you neutralize the trigger man and therefore neutralize his testimony.
Sound familiar?
So, whose design was this?
Who knew what and when did they know it?
Joe Biden seemed to know and you’ll see that with the pretext he delivered below.
Along and within those perimeters the USSS places its 2-man counter-sniper teams in elevated positions that permit them to control high ground while establishing clear sight lines for counter-sniper target acquisition and firing.
USSS sniper teams are equipped and trained to handle every conceivable threat.
Additional resources are provided and linked that explain the arduous nature of advance USSS operations in securing a site for an Executive visit.
Once familiar with those operations where every humanly imaginable variable for an Executive visit is accounted for and outright controlled, the types of “errors” and “mistakes” made at the Trump event simply cannot be attributed to “errors” and “mistakes,” which they are generally reporting as “oversights” and “incompetence.”
This is because Occam’s does not allow it and neither should anyone else with an objective and clear mind and a rudimentary understanding of USSS Executive protection.
Here are examples of how the USSS establishes the perimeters it wishes to control relative to the GOP National Convention in Milwaukee; these being published 21 Jun 24:
The already aggravating circumstances of site security become more severely aggravated by the Executive security detail’s delayed action to intercede on the shooter and specifically the US Secret Service.
Also aggravating the fact set is the Executive security detail’s ignoring of obvious and at times panicked pleas from spectators in attendance who identified the shooter’s presence and rooftop location to them; leaving more than sufficient time to confirm and react to neutralize the threat.
A more problematic development in the same unfathomable direction is the presence of a ladder that the shooter used to access the rooftop; taking note that a deceased Crooks and his weapon are visible as identified in the second photograph.
[Archive page, 2nd update]
[Archive page, 12th update]
Now consider this: “JUST IN: A local police officer encountered Crooks on the rooftop before the Trump assassination attempt and retreated back down the ladder.”
Where is the perimeter security detail?
How did that ladder get there?
Who put it there?
Who was responsible for that security sector, perimeter and rooftop?
How was this ladder missed?
Why would a police officer tasked to the Executive security detail retreat down a ladder after encountering an unknown individual armed with a rifle?
Those questions and more are patently obvious.
There is zero room for argument rooted in incompetence – it’s the same cover they use for Joe Biden’s Cloward-Piven policies that are wrecking the entire country.
Incompetence or any other similar descriptive indicating failure, shortcomings, etc. can be dismissed on its face.
For an Executive detail and especially the snipers, the training alone should have eliminated the shooter before a round was ever sent.
Consider how, “The Secret Service’s mission is to prevent life-threatening incidents well before they occur. They scope out meeting locations days before their clients show up and map out vantage points and escape routes if the situation goes pear shaped. In the sniper world, the mission is the same. Highly-trained sharpshooters are always on the alert, completely focused and ready to strike at all times.”
Notice the immediacy of identifying and neutralizing threats in this, “”We’re ambidextrous in that way, so if I see a target, I’ll drop down and he’ll start calling. If he sees the target, I’ll become the communicator and wind caller, and I’ll give him his hold so he can take the shot, and he’s just thinking about pressing the trigger,” Travis said.”
Find the same in this: “The teams typically consist of two people, both armed with high-powered rifles, either of whom can shoot to deter an imminent threat. If one countersniper spots a threat, that person prepares to shoot while the other member takes on the role of “wind caller,” telling the shooter how to adjust his aim to counteract the wind.”
Two-man teams should lessen mistakes and improve response time and effectiveness therefore providing greater reliability; not less, but that was not the case in Butler where a misfit with a borrowed rifle had no problem taking a rooftop position in the wide open to then take shots at President Trump; killing one and wounding the former President and others; some critically, before the USSS and its counter-snipers made a determination to respond.
Here’s a brief overview video for USSS counter-sniper training.
There are exactly zero occasions ever that any USSS agent and especially a USSS counter-sniper would permit an unknown individual located on a rooftop and armed with a rifle to army crawl or otherwise advance on the Executive and then not engage to neutralize him.
Never ever, full-stop.
That the counter-snipers had eyes on Trump’s shooter for extended time; that the snipers took second to third looks both in and out of optics in their delayed determination to neutralize; that the snipers permitted the shooter to fire first and sen no fewer than 3 rounds; all stand counter to their duty, training, orders and Occam’s.
Consider that, “All countersnipers go through nine weeks of intense training. Half of those who try out for the team fail. Fewer than 200 people have been assigned to the unit in its 30-plus year history, the service says. There are fewer than 100 countersnipers in the unit, a Secret Service spokesman says.”
Historically, USSS agents are so highly skilled and trained that they are plug-n-play despite potential unfamiliarity with a particular situation.
As is being reiterated, any agents signed to the Executive and counter-sniper details never make these types of planning and execution errors; at least not historically noting that they had never engaged a target until Crooks.
That’s not to say that bad things don’t happen because they do, but that attribution goes to the wrongdoers because these types of “errors” just aren’t made by these types of elite agents.
View it through this lens: if one cared to sabotage an existing effective Executive detail by 1-replacing a significant cohort of those agents with substitute and reportedly second-tier agents unfamiliar to the detail 2-or even with actual capable agents 3-with [unlikely] orders to stand-down in “error” or [more likely] orders to not engage until the shooter engages [even though that beaks protocol] and where the net-effect is the same; and then 4-attribute those errors to the substitute agents 5-explaining it all away as a massive oversight rooted in unfamiliarity and poor communiton, that would be a good way to assassinate an otherwise and normally well protected Executive.
Occam’s necessitates that explanation be the most likely in a stand-down scenario.
Notably, we see that reflected in the narrative being propagated in the media.
More importantly, there’s video evidence to support it.
Considerations like that are why Joe Biden needs an investigation because with a fair degree of certainty, the cover-up was ongoing even before Crooks’ first shot rang out.
Consider the immediate analysis:
Investigations are conducted to 1-expose/prosecute or 2-conceal/cover-up.
Which do you think is going on here?
Biden orders security review after Trump rally shooting
“In a brief statement to the press on Sunday, US President Joe Biden said he had ordered an independent review of the security at Donald Trump’s Pennsylvania rally “to assess exactly what happened,” and perhaps shed light on how a shooter was able to open fire at the former president and other rally goers. Biden promised to share the assessment with the American people, and that he had also directed the US Secret Service to review the security measures at the Republican National Convention, set to begin on Monday.”
Read the rest: https://www.semafor.com/article/07/14/2024/biden-orders-security-review-aftert-trump-rally-shooting
Notably, Joe Biden called for the FBI’s report to be issued before reaching any concrete findings.
What are the chances that report doesn’t surface until after the “election?”
That’s narrative control.
Executive Security Detail: Response
The concerns relative to the USSS and its delayed response and stand-down with no engagement until the shooter first engaged Trump are: 1-Armed potential shooter identified by presence and location to USSS, 2-No immediate response to secure the Executive, 3-No immediate response to neutralize the shooter, 4-No immediate response to secure the area around the Executive, 5-No immediate response to secure the area around the shooter, 6-No overarching broader response within the entire perimeter.
Most importantyy and once again, in strict violation of protocol, there was no USSS response until the shooter actively engaged Trump.
Here is some the evidence to those points:
https://twitter.com/coladoggxxx/status/1812285847921910241 [THIS POST WILL NOT EMBED – CLICK TO VIEW – IT’S A CLEARER, SHORTER VERSION OF THE FOLLOWING VIDEO]
This is not incompetence or similar but rather a deliberate stand-down to an identified and armed potential shooter on a rooftop within moderately close range that was made known to the USSS, not neutralized and first permitted to engage his target, President Trump, before then being neutralized.
In short, it’s evidence of an internal security breach indicative of an inside job that is being obfuscated and covered by the narrative story of unfamiliar substitute agents who committed “oversights,” “mistakes” and “errors.”
The FBI report will read like the “no reasonable prosecutor” speech that then FBI Director James Comey delivered with his declination to prosecute Hillary Clinton over her emails.
Joe Biden
The President of the United States, who maintains real-time access to all information, intelligence and personnel, did not have an informed position on an obvious assassination attempt: “REPORTER: “Do you think this was an assassination attempt?” BIDEN: “I don’t know enough to — I have an opinion, but I don’t have any facts.”” [Archive page, 5th update]
Not coincidentally, Biden’s non-descriptive remarks parallel the “shooting” rather than more accurate “assassination” narrative pushed out to the media by the Intelligence Community.
The most problematic aspect of the attempt on Trump through the Biden lens is found in pretext comments by the President that are remarkably similar to the ones he made in advance of the COVID-19 “pandemic” as summarized by this:
When considering the Biden statement that Trump was about to be challenged in a way he’s yet to be challenged, it’s incumbent upon us to examine the challenges already on the books in asking what else is left but assassination: 1-Years-long propagandized character assassination, 2-fraudulent “Russia, Russia, Russia!”, 3-FISA spying, 4-Robert Mueller Special Counsel, 5-Impeachment 1, 6-Fake pandemic, 7-Stolen 2020 election, 8-Capitol “insurrection” entrapment operation, 9-Mar-a-Lago raid entrapment operation, 10-Operational lawfare prosecutions & lawsuits, 11-Impeachment 2 and 13-Jack Smith Special Counsel [and that’s an incomplete list.]
What else but assassination was left when Biden issued his challenge statement?
And then followed it up saying he needed to put Trump in the bullseye?
Remarkable.
There is a longstanding unwritten rule in this sordid business where veiled pretext is a requirement; meaning that to some obfuscated degree, “they” must to tell you “what’s coming.”
Take that as you will.
Biden’s predictive pretext remarks are troubling to the discerning eye and when viewed through the lens of the unwritten rule, they become more so.
Nonetheless, it’s anecdotal evidence at best.
Donald Trump
The considerations for Donald Trump are time-sensitive and of the highest priority:
The immediate analysis continues:
The first priority for President Trump is to immediately audit his security detail including both the private and US Secret Service sides, the latter, of course, being under the jurisdiction of DHS.
His second priority should be a forensic audit of the 1-planning, 2-personnel, 3-ancillary personnel [relevant agencies, state agencies and local law enforcement], 4-advance operations security plans and execution and 5-event security plans and execution.
His third priority should be identifying all personnel overlapping the security sector for the rooftop breach and all personnel overlapping the security domain of rooftops; and making them the focus of intense investigation.
His fourth priority is based upon is first to include the immediate and necessary adjustments to both sides of his overarching security detail, which means both the addition and removal of personnel with the net-effect of augmenting and improving both personnel and capabilities.
If the very plausible concerns about the Trump assassination attempt being an inside job become factual, the level of profoundness in this moment becomes difficult to appropriately describe while the attempt itself thunders across the geopolitical landscape to fundamentally alter it and the course of history forever.
Editorial Sidebar
All of humanity dodged a bullet when former and future President Trump slightly turned his head to check an adjacent visual reference for illegal immigration statistics and mitigated a sure kill shot into superficial injuries.
The bloodied but fiercely and passionately determined Trump defiantly rose before ordering his detail to wait so he could invoke all Americans to FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!
This is the most iconic imagery in modern US history and if he is successful in undoing the Marxist color revolution that is chewing us up and spitting us out and which almost reached completion on 13 Jul 24, Mr. Trump goes up on Mt. Rushmore, too:
Clawing back a Constitutional republic from from the teeth of Marxist assassins is the work of LIONS, not sheep.
FBI
The recent track record of the FBI indicates that it will toe the DOJ company line and do AG Merrick Garland’s bidding to see to the already ongoing cover and concealment operation on behalf of Joe Biden and his Administration.
It should be viewed as business as usual.
You can add the Trump assassination attempt to the above list.
The FBI has indicated its inability to identify a motive for Crooks’ attempt on Trump and cites difficulty in acquiring meaningful information and for example, problems in hacking Crooks’ phone.
In terns of literal destruction, there is no limit to what “incompetence” can accomplish.
*Link
FBI issued these updated statements:
*Link
The Narrative
It became initially clear that the Intelligence Community was already beginning to shape the narrative.
Initial private dialogue included discussion of the patterned modus operandi of “mass shooters” being mentally ill and/or taking psychotropic medications.
Whether or not that applies to Crooks remains to be seen; however and as evidenced in the archive 3rd and 4th updates, Crooks’ father, Matthew B. Crooks is reported to be a mental health professional.
Mixed reporting generally indicates Crooks to have been a loner-type individual who struggled socially despite a lesser degree of reporting to the contrary.
Questions in the immediate analysis include whether Crooks was previously known to the FBI and whether Joe Biden would use the AR-15 detail to further drive his existing gun control initiatives.
We still await those answers.
Alternative Shooter?
Immediately, the featured bloody head shot of supposedly Crooks drew significant scrutiny and at a surface level, more closely resembles an individual known to be affiliated with Antifa, Maxwell Yearnick.
The analysis does not make this assumption; however, and will continue to identify the shooter as Crooks until it can be irrefutably and verifiably determined otherwise.
Nonetheless, it’s an entirely valid argument and I speak more to that momentarily.
[Archive page, 6th update]
The introduction of the Yearick variable results in a scenario with a trigger man and a patsy and the architects love this dynamic as a key obfuscation mechanism.
Then an alternative patsy was introduced to the equation.
With the Crooks/Yearick waters already muddied, this made things muddier and it required sorting out:
This was important to say:
As it stands, this is understood not to be Crooks as reportedly filmed before the shooting.
This is the analysis verbatim from the archive:
It goes without saying and as indicated above, this is no time for errors while it’s also a time to be vigilant in identifying misinformation, disinformation and malinformation. The above two posts are a prime example of this as is the Dutchsinse post above.
The alleged “Crooks” video requires full vetting and many are stating that the individual in the video is the “wrong guy.” By that, it is assumed that the individual in the video is not Crooks but someone of close likeness who posted this as a hoax.
One member of the Marco Polo team indicated that online researchers using the actual likeness of Crooks identified the individual in the alleged Crooks video based on his publicly available photos. In response to the unwanted attention, it appears that the individual with a reported Xwitter account at @jewgazing, which is now set to private, issued the hoax video.
Moonshine contributor @MoonShanghai has kept the analysis informed of the alternative shooter theory and evidence including this local Pittsburgh story from 2017 where the bloody head shot photo is again posted for comparison followed by a composite of both for the same reason:
The following is an extracted image from the archive page and the original post reads: “Maxwell Yearick is the individual that some suggest may be pictured in the bloody head shot photo of the deceased Trump shooter. For the record, the right ear looks digitally altered/edited [compare Crooks’/Yearick’s ears.] The position on Yearick requires full vetting, is not assumed for the analysis & so take as you will. Notable: 1-Yearick’s ties to Antifa are similar to the modus operandi of the Capitol “insurrection” entrapment operation. 2-Architects like patsies and actual shooters. 3-I think this thing should run until it no longer has legs and can be dismissed or it becomes factual and accepted causing the mud to get much thicker.”
As stated about the Crooks/Yearick position, I “ think this thing should run until it no longer has legs and can be dismissed or it becomes factual and accepted…”
Until then and for the purpose of keeping the analysis clean, we’ll identify the shooter as Crooks.
Primary Concern
Projecting forward, the verbatim analysis from the archive identifies a primary concern:
“Assuming the assassination attempt was an internal operation, the obvious follow-up operation would be a retaliatory “MAGA” assassination attempt on Biden’s life. If successful, it would serve 4 primary objectives for the Intelligence Community: 1-It accomplishes the ongoing removal of Biden that began in Jan 2023 with the Penn Biden Center leak permitting a shiny new candidate for the theft of 2024, 2-It significantly enhances the ongoing operational lawfare targeting political opposition that is exhaustively laid-out and evidenced in this series: https://politicalmoonshine.com/the-hunt-is-on/, 3-It would be the needed catalyst to spark the Civil War they’ve been fomenting for years and 4-It would immediately shift all of the contrived and canned “news” coverage away from Trump and to Biden effectively squashing and muting yesterday’s event in the public’s collective eye. These are the most dangerous times in my lifetime and they will only intensify going forward. The Intelligence Community will see to that.”
The primary concern leads to a secondary concern of no lesser importance also verbatim from the archive:
AMERICANS MUST COME TO UNDERSTAND THIS: No. 2 from the original post: 2-It significantly enhances the ongoing operational lawfare targeting political opposition that is exhaustively laid-out and evidenced in this series: https://politicalmoonshine.com/the-hunt-is-on/. “Political opposition” is Trump’s base, MAGA, et al and the basis for that entire series extends from the legal architecture provided by “domestic terrorism.” Now, the FBI is applying “domestic terror” to the scope of its investigation into the Trump assassination attempt ordered by Biden. If Biden is targeted for assassination, they won’t miss and the “domestic terror” predicate from the Trump investigation will be bent back against Biden’s “political opposition.” It’s been happening since 06 Jan 21: https://politicalmoonshine.com/the-hunt-is-on/ The cover-up & concealment operations of this assassination are clearly underway at the same time targeting operations move forward.
Please learn more about the “domestic terrorist” and “domestic terrorism” angles laid-out in the Hunt Is On series.
INITIAL ANALYSIS
The initial analysis is made in light of the totality of evidence on hand at the time.
Nothing of substance or importance has changed from the immediate analysis and the findings remain the same as outlined here in the initial analysis with one exception.
That exception is the alternative shooter position, which receives more room to develop with heightened interest.
The apparent censoring of the alternative shooter name “Maxwell Yearick” and posts and content featuring his name and likeness present as an indicator.
In the immediate impression of the shooter’s ear in the bloody head shot photo was that it appeared digitally altered/edited/manipulated before Yearick ever entered the analysis.
If the the photo bears-out as digitally altered as thought and the area of the shooter’s ear is in fact altered, it gives legs to the notion that Yearick is the trigger man and Crooks is the patsy.
This requires much further development.
The INITIAL ANALYSIS holds that the Trump assassination attempt presents as an Intelligence Community operation executed by DHS/USSS functionaries in a forced internal security breach caused by the insertion of irregular personnel to the Executive protection detail.
The mode of operations was a stand-down to a trigger man identified as Thomas Matthew Crooks and complicated by assertions and loose anecdotal evidence of an alternative shooter in Maxwell Yearick.
The stand-down took the from of breaking strict protocol within the 2-man counter-sniper operations in permitting an identified threat and plausible shooter armed with a rifle to advance on President Trump from an elevated rooftop position approximately 400 ft. away and in effectively close range to acquire Trump as a target and engage the former President firing no fewer than 3 rounds.
Video evidence clearly indicates that although the threat had been acquired, the counter-sniper counterstrike did not commence until the shooter first engaged his target.
The considerations about the actions of Joe Biden and the issued pretext are loosely anecdotal evidence but they are valid considerations against the backdrop of the remaining evidence; and they are backed by demonstrable and factual history.
The considerations about the Intelligence Community narrative of “shooting” v. “assassination” are valid.
This is despite a now intermixing of the two; remembering that “shooting” is an inadequate descriptor to be excluded except as a verb including other tenses like “shot,” but where the “shooting” narrative or versions of it prevail in the reporting.
The considerations about site and venue Executive security and the Executive protection detail are valid.
The considerations about ongoing DOJ/FBI cover and concealment operations in the form of an FBI investigation ordered by Biden are valid and represent a grossly repeating pattern within the broader DOJ under AG Merrick Garland.
The considerations about the “domestic terrorism” application to the FBI investigation and the legal architecture into which it precisely fits are entirely valid.
FINAL REMARKS
Other considerations are included on the archive page and should be consumed to deepen the understanding of what is laid-out in this analysis: ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT ON TRUMP.
Those considerations include this, which takes the form of more assassination pretext from 09 Dec 23: Has Trump’s Assassination Been Green-lighted?.
Through the Intelligence Community, another vector in the direction of Barack Obama presents where this will back-fill those considerations: From “Orange Man Bad” to “Old Man Bad” Barack Obama Operates for the Intelligence Community.
Continued follow-up analysis is forthcoming.
-End-
Leave a Reply