Back in 1981, I wrote an essay for The Humanist, "Scientists, Gamblers, and Magicians." I emphasized applying what I called a "Gamber's Perspective" in cases of paranormal claims. The example I gave went something like this: If you are sitting at a poker table playing hold 'em, and your four of a kind is beaten by a straight flush, you shouldn't automatically or necessarily attribute that outcome to rigging of the deck or cheating, unless of course you see clear evidence of such. But if you continue at the table, and a half hour later the same thing happens, you should immediately get up from the table, politely say your goodbyes, and head home. It doesn't matter if you can't perceive a hint of questionable dealing or if no one at the table seems motivated to take your money. Just get up and leave. Your perceptions and your reasoning have limits, and your wallet and lifetime also have limits. It doesn't matter if you can't figure out what's happening. It doesn't matter if you have absolutely no clue. The odds against what just happened to you are impossible for all practical purposes. Just get up and leave.
I have tried to bring that same "Gambler's Perspective" to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. I don't want to be a roiling, deafening Charybdis or a convinced, calm Scylla. These are, to beat an analogy to death, deep waters. A former and likely future president of the United States was almost killed. The stakes in figuring this out are enormous, and doing so dispassionately figures to be very, very difficult.
First Instincts
In this series, I'm going to slowly walk through various perspectives and key questions. My goal, as always and with all things, is simply to ask the right questions rather than worry about finding any right answers. This entry will set the stage for slowly, methodically plodding our way through this historic moment and historic mess. We'll get to my more novel observations in future entries. For now, let's start the plodding.
Silhouette Thinking
One of the first rules of both document analysis and behavior analysis is to ask, "What is missing?" I hate to bring up an overused cliche, but nothing spells out this perspective better than the exchange in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes short story, "The Adventure of Silver Blaze."
Inspector Gregory: "Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
Sherlock Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time"
Holmes: "That was the curious incident."
Usually, I submit, what isn't said tells you more than what is.
I watched much of former Secret Service Director Kimberley Cheatle's congressional grilling. I'd like to make a few points.
First point. Days before, when asked why no agents were on the roof from which Crooks shot, she had responded with her line about the pitch of the roof being dangerous. It was an obviously ridiculous response, as the roof wasn't challenging at all, and the counter-snipers close to Trump were stationed on much more of a pitch. So why would the head of the Secret Service give such a response? She wasn't stammering. She had known the question was coming. She chose to give the answer she did, asinine as it was. My initial hypothesis as to why she said this is that she had no real choice. She was either (1) trying to fend off lawsuits that might find her culpable for the death and injuries or (2) she was told in no uncertain terms (and not by a lawyer) what her response would be. She was given an instruction, to quote the Don, that she couldn't refuse.
Cheatle knew her answer was ridiculous. Maybe there was some long-shot possibility that she could swear she had not seen photos of the roof, and that the angle of the roof had been misreported to her. Saying there had been a flawed roof description would have required pinpointing who reported it. A face and name would have to be attached to the misreporting. That would have extended legal culpability while not necessarily reducing Cheatle's legal exposure, so the Director avoided that response.
This was a lynchpin moment. Nobody in her right mind would voluntarily spew the line about the steepness of the roof being a danger to personnel. It was clear to me that when Cheatle made that comment, she knew she was done in her official capacity. And it was also clear to me that she was answering to people she feared more than any congressional committee.
I don't think that she makes that particular roof pitch statement unless she's a dead man walking if she doesn't make the statement. The comment was too weird, to unattached to any reality, and it served to draw attention to her. She became an attention and responsibility magnet. Then she is subpoenaed and shows up a week later for the congressional hearing. She says that no, after a week she still doesn't have a timeline, she didn't bring pre-planning documents with her, and she refuses to answer the most basic questions, all of which she knew would be asked. She gives basic non-descript non-responses. Her manner is absolutely robotic. My take is that she's basically playing decoy, drawing public and media heat to herself. Frankly, she has the demeanor and self-presentation of someone who knows she herself is in crosshairs if she deviates from a self-immolating script.
The way she non-responded at that hearing suggested more to me than if she had been moderately forthcoming. Using a conspiracy perspective momentarily, I'd say her behavior suggested that a week after the assassination attempt, things were a mess for the folks who tried to kill Trump. They fully expected to succeed, and their clean-up efforts were going to be far more improvisational than they had anticipated. They had really screwed up, and the way forward did not have a clean flow chart.
Key Underreported Elements
1) A massive short sell of Trump's media company's stock occurred July 12, the day before the assassination attempt. I direct readers to seek out current reports covering this topic. Since I'm no stock trading expert, I won't attempt to parrot experts. I'll just say that this is a smoking Gatling gun, given the potential gains, which ran in the hundreds of millions of dollars, had Trump's stock crashed. Obviously, many people were involved in this enterprise.
2) The movement of Crooks' devices can be traced and has been outlined in various reports. One of Crooks' devices was in Washington, D.C., a block from the FBI building, on June 26. Although I am no expert on tracking devices, I carry a phone on me just a tenth of the time because I am aware of the tracking capabilities. I recommend that readers research the most current reports on the curious travels of devices that had been in Crooks' home.
3) Trump's Secret Service detail was understaffed in general for the Butler event and seriously understaffed with actual Secret Service personnel. It was not his usual detail. Jill Biden was in Pittsburgh simultaneously at an indoor function, which rostered a higher number of experienced Secret Service agents while draining from the pool available to Trump. Trump's event was outdoors with 20,000 people. Jill Biden's event was indoors with about 400. Trump had what amounted to a diluted Secret Service JV team. The timing of this personnel degradation was nothing short of miraculous. I want to save my personal observations regarding the date/location of the assassination attempt for a future entry, as I think it carries a lot of weight in terms of leaning to conspiracy or not.
Surveying Experts
I'm going to close this segment here. I have much more to report, and I do have a couple of my own observations (the gist of which I haven't read elsewhere), but we'll review them in later segments. I've tried to keep reasonably current on this story by putting in roughly 60 hours of research in the week after the shooting. What I discovered is that there is a clear correlation. The more experienced someone is vis-a-vis being a sniper, being in the CIA, or having served on serious security details, the more they lean to full-blown conspiracy.
In other words, professional experience correlates heavily with the preliminary conclusion that this was a planned, organized assassination attempt that chose its location carefully and had a groomed patsy ready to go. Some of the most expert people refuse to go into details but just say "Something was really wrong." We'll expand on this in my next installment, and I'll recommend some experts to follow.
Bob Dietz
July 28, 2024
