Wray Testifies Re Trump Assassination

You have to hand it to waste of space FBI Director Chris Wray. I don’t call him a waste of space because I think he’s dumb—he’s not. And he handled his House testimony masterfully. If I had been in that position I would hope I’d have handled it the same way. There was no obvious stonewall. You’d almost think Wray has an idea that he might soon be working for Trump again.

The two solid takeaways are these:

• The FBI has possession of eight shell casings fired from Crooks’ AR-15. Of course, original custody of those shell casings would have been with local LE, who were the first to scramble to the roof in the aftermath. This means that Crooks was the only person shooting at Trump—which is the position I have espoused virtually from the beginning.

• The FBI is only “targeting” Crooks at this time. Much more on that in a moment.

Credit also goes to Thomas Massie, whose questioning was, IMO, the most intelligent and coherent of those I viewed.

Now, when I first heard Wray say that the FBI investigation is confined to Crooks, my initial reaction was that he seemed to be saying that their focus was confined to establishing Crooks role in the assassination of Trump. Which seemed daft, because his role has been clear for a long time: Crooks pulled the trigger 8 times and hit Trump once.

I have also said that the way to approach this investigation is to assume, based on the perfect storm of circumstances surrounding the event, a significant conspiracy. Only if that can be convincingly discounted should the possibility that Crooks was a “lone wolf” be credited. A narrow focus such as Wray initially appeared to be describing would seem to be taking the opposite approach—assuming that Crooks acted alone in all aspects of the assassination.

However, listening to the entirety of what Wray went on to say, he gave clear indications that that the investigation is probably much broader. Here are two of those indications:

• Wray stated several times that the FBI is looking at Crooks’ motivation. That type of investigation opens the door to obtaining and analyzing all of his communications and contacts. Wray provided examples of some of that part of the investigation and also stated that the FBI is utilizing the full spectrum of techniques to analyze his phones and accounts.

• Wray also stated that the FBI has spoken to all of the witnesses—to include the Secret Service snipers (we take the local LE for granted as having been interviewed). In that regard, he added—in response to Massie’s specific question—that the FBI has requested and received communications data from the Secret Service. As an example of what that could lead to in the short term, I heard Danny Davis state yesterday that the SS sniper team that was supposed to be facing south reoriented themselves to the north a minute or two before Crooks opened fire. Covering the southern exposure was their delegated task, so that reorientation could only have come as the result of a communication identifying what appeared to be an imminent threat to Trump.

In the long term both of these indicators could lead to a very intense focus on the chain of command. If either of these investigative threads suggest that Crooks’ actions were enabled in any way, then the sky will be the limit for whatever leads the FBI may follow. At the moment, the second indicator probably points directly at the chain of command, and I assume that the SS agent in charge (a cyber specialist!).

In other words, while Wray played his testimony somewhat close to the vest—he confirmed or released information on evidence and investigative focus that should be obvious to almost anyone—he was careful to avoid suggesting that the FBI was actively investigating the chain of command. But he also gave clear indications that the FBI would be looking in that direction, working methodically from physical evidence that has been recovered and, importantly, from witness statements that include SS personnel.

My position has always been that Crooks was the sole shooter, the one triggerman. That’s a long way from saying that he was a “lone wolf” actor. Simply put, a multiple shooter scenario in an open setting like that would be logistically difficult to pull off. However, in a typically high intenstity security environment—such as a rally for a FPOTUS now running for president—getting a free shot that would be a kill shot is far from easy. In fact, and this is the crucial fact, that free shot never would have been available but for the actions of the Secret Service—actions both of commission as well as omission. Stripping Trump of basic protection, sending him on stage without warning him of the threats that had been received within minutes, failing to delay Trump’s appearance, failure to establish a rational perimeter.

As I have put it previously, all of this looks like Crooks’ free shot was enabled by others—he was provided with a window of opportunity. That should be the working hypothesis of the investigation, no matter whether Wray is being coy about that—his coyness makes sense as non-alarming to possible additional targets that may emerge from the evidenc and witness statements. The good thing here is that using that as the working hypothesis in no way prejudices the possibility that Crooks was a lone actor favored by wildly and statistically improbable coincidences. There’s nothing to lose and everything to gain from such an approach.

Now, here are some partial transcripts of Judge Nap talking with Scott Ritter and Larry Johnson. Each of them make valid points. They’re obvious points (yes, they agree with me) and you can see these concerns also being raised in the House questioning of Wray—including the lack of trust for the FBI based on their past performance under Wray’s leadership.

Scott Ritter : Netanyahu’s Dangerous American Trip

Everything I've described is a sign of a professional, and a professional that isn't working alone, a professional that is working in league in concert with others. Everything about the attempted assassination and, again, even though President Trump isn't dead it is the successful assassination of President Trump, because it was a success. The Secret Service didn't stop this. The assassin wasn't foiled. The assassin got off a killing shot. A killing shot. It should have killed Donald Trump. The reason why Trump is alive has nothing to do with the Secret Service. Nothing to do with protection. It is either divine intervention or just an act of sheer luck, but this was a successful assassination.

Do you think he was trained for this, or someone trained him for it? How would he have known to do the things that you said? Why would he have had three phones and why would he have crawled on his belly and why would he have had a drone there, and if there was a drone there and it was communicating to him why didn't those people--one of our of our iPhones and desktops, the lovely Folks at the NSA don't give a damn about the Fourth Amendment--why didn't they pick up his communications.

Yeah, I can't get into the intelligence that surrounds this. You're on the right track. These are good questions. [Discussion of communication surveillance and gathering]

Read this next part very carefully. Ritter isn’t espousing a “second shooter” theory. He’s saying that the idea of a lone actor pulling this off is a priori “unlikely.” Except, as I said above, there was a window of opportunity. And that needs to be the investigative focus.

Somebody sitting in their mother's basement looking at videos and then executing it perfectly the first time out is unlikely. There had to be rehearsals, there had to be training, there had to be some sort of coaching taking place. This didn't happen by itself and so the idea that this is a lone shooter ... I mean, to be honest, nobody should be taking that seriously. I mean, if it turns out that that's the case you should only reach that after you've exhausted every other potential option. You don't lead with "lone shooter", you lead with, 'This is a coordinated assassination attempt by a team of highly qualified personnel who have probably infiltrated the inner workings of the presidential security details,' so that ... you have to assess, that the Secret Service was in on this.

Again, Ritter isn’t saying that the Secret Service as an institution was “in on this.” What he’s pointing to is the indisputable fact that the decisions that led to Crooks being provided with a window of opportunity were made well up the chain of command.

Next, the Judge asked Ritter what reactions to all this were in Russia:

I do have some connectivity in Russia and what I can say is that the Russians are viewing this as part and parcel of a systemic breakdown on the part of the United States. They view the attempted assassination against Donald Trump as being of the same being part of ... what they're calling a soft coup against Joe Biden. Basically, elements within the establishment that are opting to take matters into their own hands to eliminate candidates that aren't going to fulfill their purpose the physical elimination of Donald Trump and now we have the political nullification of Joe Biden. From the Russian perspective this is all part and parcel of the systemic failure of American democracy.

The Larry Johnson conversation with Judge Nap is a bit briefer:

Larry Johnson : Was Trump's Assassin Attempt an Organized Plot?

The failures of the Secret Service on this? It's not just incompetence. I started off saying it was either incompetence or something darker. It's something darker.

What do you mean by something darker, Larry?

It was an organized plot by people beyond Crooks to kill Donald Trump. Real simple.

People in the government?

Yes, my that's my belief.

All right, on what is that belief based?

You don't get this series of failures by accident. This is not just incompetence--failure to conduct an advance well. How do you make sure you get a failure to conduct an advance? You put a person in charge of it that's never done it--which appears to have been the case. My understanding is that the Secret Service agent in charge of the Pittsburgh office--who was put in charge of this--he was a cyber crime guy! He had never done advance work on sites and didn't even understand perimeter security! That's the guy you put in charge! The complete breakdown of communications, the failure to secure all potential sniper locations, the failure to respond to reports that there was something unusual and a potential threat out there, and not to keep Trump in a safe area but to put him out on stage?

So this stinks and, listen, I've talked to--I think you saw the video with my buddy Larry Cunningham. Larry ran Ronald Reagan's detail after Reagan had been shot. He started off saying, 'Oh boy, this looks bad. It could be a mistake.' Now, last time we chatted, he says: 'This stinks!' There's something else going on here and I think it's critical to find out who was helping Crooks, what contacts did Crooks have. There are a lot of people that stood to benefit from this. I know there have been some who have gone even farther than I'm willing to go today to suggest specific names of people involved. Not just on the Democrat side. Within the the Republican establishment side a lot of people want to see Donald Trump dead, because they recognize Trump poses a genuine existential threat to the cozy incest that colors Washington.

Put simply, the failures were so massive and systematic that you have to ask as the very first question: Were these failures the result of planning? In fact, that should be the working hypothesis. The question of comms is also key, obviously. Wray stated that, so far, Crooks’ contacts appeared to be consistent with his reputation as a loner. But Wray wasn’t about to give anything away in that regard. Finally, LJ’s question, Cui bono? is spot on. When a massive fail occurs that goes in one direction—here, enabling an assassination—and that result massively benefits powerful people …