This is a query more about journalism than about what happened (and didn’t happen) in Trump’s most recent assassination attempt: what barriers are there to learning what happened (and didn’t happen)?
I would think that a very public event would lead to all sorts of serious inquiry that would lead to some solid answers, ideally resulting in our knowing for sure what occurred (and did not occur). I would imagine that some smart investigative journalist would see that there is a market for a book on the subject, so what’s preventing him or her from discovering what exactly went down?
Compared to the JFK assassination, this one seems kind of simple: the shooter’s identity is known and universally accepted, the gun has been held and examined, Trump’s ear has been on public display for over a year, but I haven’t seen (haven’t looked very hard, admittedly) a definitive report on whether Trump was actually hit by a live bullet, what the assassin was trying to accomplish, who he even was, etc.
Or is there a book that I haven’t read, or heard of? Is there such a work in progress? One of the central mysteries for me is why hasn’t this attempt on Trump’s life been Subject A out of his ever-running mouth since it happened? Given his narcissism, I can’t conceive of him letting an attempt on his life pass with minimal comment, as it has. If he’s perpetually incensed by anyone having the gumption to oppose him politically or otherwise, as he is, how does it then happen that he’s not equally obsessed with the person who came very close (???) to gunning him down?
But I can’t even remember the name of the attempted assassin at this point. The whole story has, it seems to me, been quite thoroughly suppressed, almost eradicated, from the public consciousness, and this seems rather peculiar to me. I bet there have been more books published since the event on other assassinations (JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X) than on Trump’s, despite the dearth of previously unknown facts in those cases and the plethora of facts to be revealed in Trump’s case.
I can’t answer your questions, but my two cents as someone who is very familiar with the damage that can be done with a live round: he was hit by some ricochet material, probably wood. A live 5.56 round, even a nick, would have caused catastrophic damage to his ear, which is clearly not the case.
this seems to me one of the few areas of factual verification concerning Trump’s lies and coverups that is mostly public or semi-public. I haven’t seen any interviews of the personnel who supposedly treated Trump for damage to his ear. Or even interviews with doctors who didn’t treat Trump but who have treated gunshot victims.
Seems like a book I would read, if some journallist would take the trouble to write one.
I have not read the book. The author is the closest thing there is to a respectable Trumper.
Reviews suggest it is more about the Trump supporters at the event than the assassination attempt technical details. Perhaps that is because there is no complex mystery.
I’ve read a bunch of his speeches. To me, he has mentioned it a fair amount. at least during the campaign. How much comment is minimal? Is Trump mentioning it less than Reagan mentioned his attempted assassination?
I keep seeing cringeworthy social media references to the assassination attempt being staged - something commonly associated with Alex Jones types, but in this case seemingly emanating from anti-Trumpers.
FNI Director Christopher Wray testified before Congress that Trump was either hit by a bullet or bullet fragments by a ricochet. It seems clear that there was no direct shot “through the ear” as insisted by right wing propaganda. Rather, if the bullet hit, it may have been a graze, as there is no lasting damage.
“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," the FBI said in a statement.
The statement comes two days after FBI Director Christopher Wray, whom Trump nominated to his post in 2017, told House lawmakers that “there’s some question about whether or not it’s a bullet or shrapnel that, you know, hit his ear.”
Republicans were pissed at that testimony by the way. Anything less than Trump being shot through the ear is heresy.
The director’s remarks before a House committee sparked widespread backlash among Republican lawmakers, as well as Trump, who has consistently said he was hit by a bullet.
“The director’s remarks before a House committee sparked widespread backlash among Republican lawmakers, as well as Trump, who has consistently said he was hit by a bullet.”
It doesn’t matter how he would (or would not) know if he was actually hit by a bullet. Wray’s testimony was contradictory to the heroic story which Trump and his supporters have now woven about that day, which makes Wray a heretic.
If Trump was actually hit by a bullet, it would be the closest he’s been to actual combat since his bone spurs precluded him from performing military service.
This is the kind of thing that ChatGPT.com is really good at.
First ask “How many days has it been since the Butler assassination attempt?” Answer: 473.
Then ask: “How many books on the assassinations of Malcolm X, John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and on the attempted Butler PA assassination of Donald Trump, had been published 473 days or less after the incident that was the focus of the book?”
You will find that the book count for titles that focus on the assassination, or assassination attempt, as opposed to the entire biography of the victim, is one for Trump and zero for the rest.
This is explained by changes in the book publishing industry. It used to take a lot longer to go through the editorial and manufacturing processes.
Re last post, there are mistakes in every information source. Wikipedia has a long article on errors in Encyclopedia Britannica. I don’t have a subscription to check, but my educated guess is that the Britannica.com article on Wikipedia documents errors in Wikipedia.
The OP claims that there were more books published on listed past assassinations than on the Butler attempt. I questioned that and provided evidence for my questioning. I could be wrong. Do you have evidence that I was wrong or misled?
Nowadays there are many quickly created self-published books, most quite short. ChatGTP ignores those when answering the kind of question I asked. This could be a general objection if we spun off a ChatGPT thread. But in the context of addressing the book-count claim in the OP, I think this only makes my point stronger.