Aim is off!

[imanamerican63]

According to reports, that Secret Service agents was shot by one of their own?

And another blaring point, how did 8 to 10 agents missed the attacker after firing off several rounds?

And Trump made a big deal about attending this event when he refused to take part of any other Correspondent’s Dinner.

[Walleye]

1. That last paragraph, what you said. It makes me suspicious.

[Lovie777]

2. If the shooter had a gun.....

he did not fire it, sooooooo……

Who shot the SS agent?

[imanamerican63]

3. One of secret service agents according to reports!

I heard several people say this!

[pat_k]

4. A great summary of the "lens of historical pattern recognition" through which many view this.

I suggest that those who deride the "conspiracy nuts" for their suspicions watch Richard Teresi's brief review of engineered events across authoritarian regimes.

Whether Butler, or this latest "incident" was, or was not LIHOP (intentionally lax security inviting crisis) or somehow engineered (mentally unstable people or members of a resistance CAN BE, and HAVE BEEN intentionally radicalized in the service of the counter-resistance), we will likely never know. So, absent exposure, asserting "staged" makes one a "conspiracy nut."

Because my first thought on hearing about events at the WHCA dinner was "too well timed with all-time polling lows to be real," I am apparently a conspiracy nut.

I had been kicking my "nuttiness" a bit as I read the "staged" and "STFU about it" posts here. Then I saw Figarosmom's post of Richard Teresi's latest.

Perhaps we will never know which POV is true, but the fact that my initial reaction to the latest "incident" was "something is seriously wrong here -- too convenient" no longer bothers me. Even if just a gut instinct that is somehow unequivocally proven to be wrong, when viewed "through the lens of historical pattern recognition" that gut instinct is NOT CRAZY."

[rampartd]

5. i do not have to be a conspiracy nut to regard trump with extreme skepticism.