A Case of Mistaken Identity?

It is now over a week since the attempt to assassinate Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. Controversy is running rampant. There is speculation that there were two or more shooters present, although only one was found. Evidence obtained by Senator Johnson suggests at least two shooters. What would it mean if that is true?

Two or more shooters would imply that at least one other was still at large, and still a potential threat. It is clear that the general incompetence of the Secret Service contributed to the danger, but was there more to the story? At risk of creating yet another conspiracy theory, there is a plausible explanation for the existing confusion around the investigation.

Consider a scenario where there are at least two shooters - one an amateur, and one or more professional snipers/assassins. Image someone highly placed in the Deep State who is directing an assassination effort and who has access to the communications of law enforcement and Secret Service agents on site.

There were numerous early reports of a suspicious person in the area, the amateur Thomas Crooks, who appeared to be conducting reconnaissance of the area. The director, overhearing the information, may have mistakenly assumed that one of the professional assassins had been spotted, and had information passed to officials on site to discount and dismiss the information as not a meaningful threat.

Likewise, when Crooks was observed crawling across the roof, the director, not aware of the presence of the amateur, assumed one of the professionals had been spotted, and also passed information that the observed individual was not a threat, or at least that nothing should be done unless and until something significant was observed.

As a result, fairly early into the rally, the amateur, Crooks, fired the first shots in his attempt on Trump. The professional(s), taken by surprise, may have also fired, but since they were not fully prepared, did not have clear shots and missed. Once the Secret Service agents swarmed Trump to whisk him offstage, the opportunity was lost.

If the director mistook the reports on the movements of Crooks for those of one of the professionals, it would explain why no actions were taken to detain or otherwise stop Crooks.

A more serious implication is that the director of, the organizer(s) of, and the professional assassins are still in play and may plan a future attempt. The uncooperativeness of the DHS and FBI in investigating and providing information to a sitting Senator suggests that the Deep State may still be at work on plans to permanently remove Trump.

It is easy to imagine that the Deep State elements behind the attempt would be willing to throw the DEI Secret Service Director to the wolves as a bit of misdirection. With the death of Crooks, and the removal of an incompetent official, the Trump team might be lulled into complacency, thinking that the threat had been neutralized and eliminated.

Such complacency would create future opportunities for a threat that had only become more determined in the face of a public failure. If this scenario is true, rather than the danger to Trump being reduced, it has only grown more extreme, and possibly more subtle. Now is not the time to relax vigilance, but rather to increase it.