site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   36959 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 22, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

We're in a black swan sprint. Attempted assassination of the previous President, the incumbent President announcing (or "announcing") he's not running for a second term and now a growing din that he's dead or all but. My grandmother experienced a cluster of transient ischemic attacks. She was sharp, in her mid-80s and about to make a long drive to Texas for her annual checkup, to the next day being unable to ever drive again and maybe ever think again. Her body lived a few more years, it's a bad way to go.

I started with no conclusion about the attempt on Trump's life but for transparency's sake I am the type to assume it was a hit. I think neutrally reported evidence now shows it was a hit.

  1. Cheatle testified the USSS was alerted between 2 and 5 times to Crooks

  2. CNN on forensic analysis showing reports from 3 weapons; and I don't know this guy, I'm not endorsing any of his analysis or quoting it here, but at around 18:40 is a clip where 3 distinct reports can be heard.

  3. CBS news on the USSS saying their counter-snipers fired a single shot.

  4. I can't find anything from the other law enforcement at the event saying one or more of their guys discharged their firearms, I think we'd know by now if one of the cops took shots.

  5. Cheatle declined to answer if Crooks acted alone.

  6. Cheatle testified the USSS has no recordings of radio comms from the event. Recording everything could be a policy that only applies to the details protecting the sitting President, but given everything else we know I take the adverse inference.

I think the adverse inference is justified because of the chasmic hole of "third gun." A third person was firing a weapon at that event, we don't know who they are (or were), we don't know where they were when they took those shots, and most importantly, we don't know why we don't know. If they were killed in whatever building, that's a corpse that got disappeared in the middle of a crime scene where somebody tried to kill a former President. If they got away, they got away. That doesn't happen without help. Conclusively: at least one person at that rally charged with protecting Trump tried or helped someone try to kill him. The necessary next question is how high does it go?

I don't think you need any sort of third shooter conspiracy style thinking to get to the real problem here. I'm a big fan of conspiracy theories and love exploring them, but the facts on the ground are damning enough on their own. The secret service rebuffing multiple requests for additional security, ignoring multiple reports of the shooter, ignoring the call from the shooter's parents warning them about him, letting him get through the metal detector with a rangefinder, having a sniper aiming at him before he actually took the shot, ignoring the multiple people who are recorded on camera pointing him out, ignoring the police officer who went onto the roof and saw he had a gun... and worst of all, letting Trump go onto stage for ten minutes when they knew there was somebody with a sniper rifle taking aim at the stage!

The most straightforward conspiracy theory that is practically jumping out of the page and requires no mysterious phantom gunmen or bizarre codes of silence is that they wanted the shooter to succeed. They rebuffed Trump's requests for additional security and then allowed Crooks to take his shot before they did anything. This kind of conspiracy also doesn't require any extremely tortured codes of silence - nobody who isn't directly legally liable for what happened would know anything or need to keep their silence.

I can't see any argument against this other than incompetence, but claiming that this is incompetence not only beggars belief, it raises the immediate counterargument that every single person remotely involved needs to lose their job for gross misconduct. If they actually made all these mistakes earnestly I'm surprised they can put their shoes on in the morning and don't routinely shoot themselves in the head when looking down the barrel of their gun to make sure there's a bullet inside.

Most straightforward? I think it's about equal in complexity with a regular incompetence narrative. Like, who is "they"? Although apparently some requests were denied for extra support, but others were granted, so it's not so clear-cut. The Trump shooting also took place just after a big NATO event in Europe, where presumably the USSS needed a few more hands for. Also, there are variants that range wildly depending on who you think was in the loop, and all of that is resting on the background assumption that "they" even wanted the shooting to happen, which is pretty doubtful given the USSS's documented and historical pro-Republican leanings. If "they" refers only to top leadership, presumably political appointees, it's extremely doubtful they would have the means to directly and without a trail interfere in specific event planning. They are just too far up the chain of command.

No, the simplest explanation is that they attempted to stop the shooter but did not do so due to a combination of laziness/complacency (it's been several decades since a major attempt; it's hot outside; local police can handle it; someone else's problem), communication troubles (USSS over-delegating in the planning stage, bad day-of communication about the exact status, location, and threat level of the person of interest)

Okay, fine, second simplest. Again, who exactly is "they"? Like, if we say that one of the two counter-sniper teams deliberately withheld their fire until after the shooter fired, that's probably the simplest explanation, but even there we can see at least one less-damning explanation accompanies it, such as the team declining to fire due to rules of engagement/not knowing if he was armed/over-caution at creating a PR nightmare by shooting first. I'm hesitant to actually advance a theory given the paucity of the info we have to work with right now (new stuff is only coming out slowly recently, such as today we discovered per the FBI that the shooter fired 8 shots, or at least they found 8 casings) but I strongly disagree that the ingredients that we currently have lean more towards a conspiracy angle. Not that a conspiracy is impossible, on the contrary we absolutely need to keep such in mind.

And even beyond that, it's far from clear that a lot of heads in the USSS won't roll, but to fire someone in an agency like that practically requires that a formal investigation runs its course first. So that's still on the table.

Sorry for the ad hominem, but I really can't understand the sorts of people who think this way. It's very strange to me. My assumption is that you probably believe there's a high likelihood for many other conspiracy theories. Can you please prove me right or wrong and tell me your opinions on the JFK assassination, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Seth Rich, and the 2020 election?

So ask. You're here, you're more thoughtful than most, I'm happy to explain. I'll explain now, I hate power. Look at history, it's always the same story. Titans of men raise great nations and their people enjoy golden ages. But those men die, their power must be passed on, and inevitably, every single time, someone reigns who is wholly unfit to rule. Often they kill nations outright, at best they sow ruin for their children or great-great-great-grandchildren to suffer through or else die by. Some intrinsic inadequacy in our specific personage births tyrants, petty and brutal, and the more the population grows, the more tyrants appear and for the last century they have grown enough to infest the American government at all levels. I am cynical of them to a man, I know their crimes, certain ones I'd give you as "conspiracies" for the sake of magnanimity in this discourse, but there is a laundry list of abominable deeds perpetrated by the American government that there is absolutely no debate happened. Iraq at the top of the list. We started a war and maybe a million people died over a fucking lie. The perpetrators are still around, they weren't elected to begin with and they weren't fired, they weren't jailed. They're still working, or enjoying comfy retirements. Same as the generation before them, same as the generation before them. The machine never changed. The Company never changed.

The disposition isn't specific, it's broad. There are powerful career individuals in the United States government and I do not believe there is a single action they consider unacceptable to their morals because the evidence cries thunderous, they have no morals.

Last November Vivek Ramaswamy was giving speeches to tiny crowds where he was saying there's no chance Biden is on the ballot for 2024. A month ago this was still a "right-wing conspiracy", before the debate, Biden's obvious lack of fitness for office was a "right-wing conspiracy." Now we know for sure how the people running the executive were not elected, and they were enabled in their deceit and their necessary tyranny by an effective state-media establishment.

Now, the party who brands themselves as the "protectors of democracy" are by all appearances going to run a candidate for President who nobody wanted, and if truly democratic primaries had been held this year, a candidate who indeed no one would have voted for. The party, the media, the state, have justified extraordinary measures targeting President Trump under justification of him being a "threat to democracy", they fight tooth and nail against anything and everything they perceive as a move to disenfranchise voters, yet their most recent major move was to disenfranchise their entire constituency. This is a fact, I describe reality.

I also describe reality when I say if there was no conspiracy at work in the attempt on Trump's life it was neither for lack of motive nor opportunity.

Isn't there a bit of a vocabulary disconnect here? "Conspiracy" is obviously a bit of a slippery term and often used in a colloquial sense to refer simply to unpopular opinions. "Actual" conspiracies involve multiple people and a knowing deception of some sort, I think those are generally the two innate ingredients.

Like, take Iraq. What we currently understand about the flow of information in the lead-up to war was that indeed Cheney and a few people around him, probably including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, not only hid info that didn't match their desired conclusion but even manipulated the report-writing process by assigning top CIA analysts to other things and protecting their pro-WMD from challenge. This meets the definition of conspiracy easily. However, we should probably mention two things -- one, George W Bush was elected, along with Cheney who he chose himself after winning the primary democratically (basically, the people in representative democracy style are saying they trusted his judgement) but also Rumsfeld was confirmed by the Senate. I have often claimed and continue to do so that the buck probably does stop with Bush in the sense that he chose bad people to trust, but more direct blame can accurately be laid at Cheney's feet and the people around him who, and this has also been documented, wanted a war in Iraq for their own reasons (a mix of corrupt motives, such as oil and personal feelings, but also probably at least a little bit of ideology). Note that a lot of people in the government did in fact oppose this Iraq push, not everyone was corrupt, but they sadly did not win the day. It must be said however that at least in a loose sense, the Iraq war's legacy lost the Republicans the presidency for the next 8 years almost single-handedly, so even though that's obviously far short of the accountability we wanted, and the accountability we deserve, there was some change at least in a moving-forward sense. Also, quite frankly, it is actually worrying that not enough people acknowledge that Iraq does in fact meet the classic "conspiracy" definition. I am in total agreement in that respect.

Does Biden's age count as a conspiracy? While in a sense there's a knowing deception yes, some of the actions of his aides and close circle also resemble regular "spin" and clever politicking. Biden is probably still capable of performing 95% of his job even in his current diminished state, so even though we were clearly lied to, and I'm upset about it, I am not quite willing to say it was completely corrupt -- I think claims that Biden was/is actually incapable and that his inner circle wanted it that way so that they could control the strings or something is ridiculous. So of course "spin" can come quite close to a lie -- in fact we just heard something of that nature tonight in Biden's address where he at once claimed to never lie to the public and in the same breath talked about how he is stepping aside to be a bridge and protect democracy, which is an obvious falsehood as it's manifestly clear he was forced out by public and private pressure. It's a total farce. However, I think it's still useful on some level to distinguish between these sort of spin-lies and more corrupt ones.

Anyways all of this as a long-winded way to say that while I think the spirit of your answer was excellent and directly in line with what was asked, answering with substance which I applaud, I don't like the original question very much. There's a difference between being generally mistrustful about the government, and regularly placing trust in implausible conspiracies involving a ton of people. Like, specifically, the Iraq conspiracy only required a few useful idiots in the CIA (see for example this posthumous interview which talks about what I mentioned about the less-skilled analysts being assigned the WMD analysis and the lack of internal challenge) and only about 2-5 administration officials in the defense department (chosen by Bush, however) to effectively cut the President off from critical info. Contrast this with 9/11 conspiracies, which in their most popular form (the famous jet fuel can't melt steel beams) require a very large circle of complicit and perfectly secretive people across many areas of government. Basically, a good rule of thumb is the more localized a group, the more likely the conspiracy is, and the converse is a strong argument against many popular theories.

JFK assassination: the proof is that the files are still sealed 100 years later, something was off there

Pearl Harbor: the powers that be knew that by denying japan access to oil they were effectively declaring war themselves

9/11: Building 7

Seth Rich: didn't kill himself. Is this controversial, even to you?

2020 election: the pipe burst in Atlanta, everyone (but a select few caught on camera) was sent home in Milwaukee, Maricpoa suddenly found 145k ballots, Pennsylvania put up pizza boxes in front on the central tabulation office

I purport you are the weird one who thinks the government lied about the Maine, the Lusitania, the xyz, the etc but everything since then is above board. Why the gishgallop otherwise?

JFK assassination: the proof is that the files are still sealed 100 years later, something was off there

I'm having a hard time parsing this. If you mean "the files are still sealed 100 years after the assassination", JFK was assassinated just under 61 years ago. If you mean "the files will still be sealed 100 years after the assassination", most of the files were originally planned to remain sealed until 2029. However, most of the outstanding JFK files were unsealed in June 2023. My understanding is they contained no bombshells or anything that might significantly differ from the conclusions of the Warren report.

I think the main thing we learned was that the assassin's ties to Cuba were deeper than first thought, but most of the coverup of that fact appears to have been post-facto reputation-saving rather than an actual government-involved plot to off Kennedy (or a mafia one as first thought). I'm pretty sure most experts who have looked at the stuff concluded the Warren conclusions were fundamentally correct.

JFK assassination: the proof is that the files are still sealed 100 years later

I have really lost track of time since the covid pandemic.

Can't decide between these two jokes:

That's the reason they call it long covid

Or

I was taught to round up if it's more than 50

Are the correct answers supposed to be, the official story every time?

Because we have enough evidence for Pearl Harbor and JFK to disprove the official story. Pearl Harbor was Let It Happen On Purpose so we would have causus belli to enter the war. There were at least two shooters in Dallas, and enough evidence of a coverup that I'm fairly certain who to blame (Dulles, among others).

If you'd like to wait fifty or seventy years, we'll find out about the others, but I don't think your list is doing what you want it to be doing.

I get why people don’t buy the JFK story, even though we’ve disagreed on it before.

But Pearl Harbor? Who masterminded this, and how? Why would they need a “casus belli” other than the actual aircraft launched in anger? Wouldn’t they at least have the defenses ready to shoot back, maximizing the material gain from such a convoluted scheme?

Who masterminded this, and how?

FDR, and his administration, and anyone else who wanted to enter WW2. How is ignore warnings and set up the circumstances.

Why would they need a “casus belli” other than the actual aircraft launched in anger?

Because Americans remembered Woodrow "He Kept Us Out Of War" Wilson, and were smart enough to avoid another European land war. FDR couldn't go after Hitler just because, he didn't have the coalition or the political will.

Wouldn’t they at least have the defenses ready to shoot back, maximizing the material gain from such a convoluted scheme?

The material gain is to drive the country into war it didn't want. The material gain is to get attacked by Japan in the Pacific, which justifies crossing the Atlantic to invade France and drive out the Germans, which is what they wanted the whole time. Germany was allied with Japan, but we squeezed Japan because we wanted to attack Germany, so when Japan predictably attacked due to the fuel blockade, we had the excuse to invade Europe.

Assuming you’re completely right about the strategy—enact an intolerable fuel blockade to “invite” an attack—the tactics are still absurd. From the moment bombs were dropped, you had a perfectly good casus belli. Why not warn the defenders and rack up some kills while you’re at it? Why not give the elusive Pacific Fleet contingency plans to capitalize on the not-so-shocking attack?

That said, we’d been fussing over Japanese aggression since before the Nazis seized control of Germany. It’s hard for me to see the equipment and oil embargoes as a diversion from existing plans.

There were at least two shooters in Dallas, and enough evidence of a coverup that I'm fairly certain who to blame (Dulles, among others).

What's the evidence for a second shooter in Dallas?

The best I've seen is the unaccounted for bullet which left a mark on the curb and exploded near a witness (James Tague).

The best I haven't seen is the video which shows puffs of smoke, like gunshots, coming from the grassy knoll. The reason I haven't seen that video is because it disappeared after too many people saw it and described it.

One thing I found amusing is that, while filming JFK, Oliver Stone filmed scenes of people firing period-appropriate rifles over the fence on the grassy knoll - but to his dismay, they hardly produced any smoke at all, forcing him to resort to smoke machines to achieve the desired effect. This obviously undermines the credibility of witness testimony reporting rifle smoke from the grassy knoll (cue the obvious jokes about Stone "blowing smoke" at the American public).

And what about James?

This article argues that Tague was struck by a fragment of Oswald's third bullet: https://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100tague.html

Given that the Warren commission established that Oswald's first shot missed the car and its occupants entirely, the most likely explanation is that Oswald's first shot struck the pavement near Teague and caused a chunk of concrete to strike him in the face. In the absence of any more persuasive evidence for a second shooter (which both the Warren commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations were unable to find), that strikes me as the null hypothesis.

(We could have moved more of our fleet out of the harbor and still let the Japanese bomb the harbor if we had in fact had advance warning. If you want to use deceit to get into a war there are far less stupid ways to go about it.)

Bruh this is beneath this place. What are we doing here. All of the carriers and multiple battleships were out of 'the' (pearl) harbor that day on a 'last-minute training exercise.'

K, but far from all, like the 2400 killed personnel and eight battleships that took damage.

With advance warning, the US could have intercepted the attack, which was an act of war from the get go, and simultaneously had the justification for war and started off by fucking over the Japanese. An ambush on a surprise attack is the best kind.

What’s beneath this place is conspiratorial thinking that doesn’t even make sense in the context of what the damn conspiracy theory context even is.

‘My opponent believes things’ is not an argument.

CNN on forensic analysis showing reports from 3 weapons

CBS news on the USSS saying their counter-snipers fired a single shot.

After shootings there's confusion about details like this all the time, including from official sources, it's very weak evidence of anything.

If there was an organized effort involving multiple assassins, let alone any sort of infiltration of the Secret Service, how is Trump alive? It's not that hard to kill people, Crooks came incredibly close, but we're to believe that another assassin who unlike Crooks apparently wasn't immediately shot couldn't manage it? This incident should if anything illustrate that no competent organized force is trying to kill him, because if they did he would be dead. The main thing that protects U.S. presidents and candidates isn't the Secret Service, it's that politicians in democracies are replaceable so neither foreign adversaries nor political opponents have sufficiently strong incentive to risk it.

CBS news on the USSS saying their counter-snipers fired a single shot.

We can see the counter-snipers behind the stage on Trump's left take a few shots, but it's my understanding that it was the counter-snipers to the right of the stage that took the kill shot. I think the team on the left had their view partially obscured by a tree near the edge of the AGR building.

So, without indulging in conspiracies, the three different shot reports are easily accounted for: Crooks, and two counter-snipers.

If the counter-snipers to the left were local police and not SS, that would explain the discrepancy of the "single-shot" description coming from the SS.

The first three shots were consistent with alleged weapon A, the next five were consistent with alleged weapon B, and the final “acoustic impulse” was emitted by a possible weapon C, per audio analysis by Catalin Grigoras, director of the National Center for Media Forensics at the University of Colorado in Denver, and Cole Whitecotton, Senior Professional Research Associate at the same institution.

I don’t think that constitutes a “chasmic hole.”

Assuming these two experts are correct, though, was there a second assassin? We know some law enforcement had encountered the guy, and that he could be seen from some angles on the ground. What are the odds one of them decided to try a shot after hearing rifle fire?

Given the number of weapons drawn in these thirty seconds, I think a negligent discharge might be on the table, too. It’s more likely than a wannabe assassin who was late to the party.

If anyone knows where to find the analysis, I’d like to see it, because everything online traces back to this one unsourced CNN quote.

The audio is clear, it's a clip from a single phone, I'm familiar with firearms but I don't think a special familiarity is necessary to recognize the three distinct reports. I don't need analysis to confirm what I can hear plainly, but that it comes from CNN should be enough.

It is significant. Certainly there's time still for one of the local law enforcement offices to put out their official report and it could be the report says one of their officers engaged Crooks. But we don't have it right now, and that is a chasm in the chain of events. A person was discharging their firearm in the same brief window of time another person was trying to kill President Trump. Who was it? Where were they? What or who were they aiming at? What or who did they hit? Why don't we know?

There could be a reasonable explanation, I won't dispute that at all, but it seems like your assumption that there is, is being applied to consider its current absence as unimportant. It's not, it's extremely important. Because there is an unknown gun firing, there is a possibility the bullet that pierced Trump's ear was not fired by Crooks, that's what's on the table, and until it is answered, it is the most important question about July 13.

Crooks got off three shots, then five shots were heard in rapid succession, then one shot from the Secret Service sniper ended Crooks.

It was a Trump rally, and there were spectators on the grassy field next to the sniper’s perch, not inside the event grounds and thus not searched by security, who could see and film him on the roof. I wouldn’t be surprised if a Trump enthusiast pulled his own pistol and sent five rounds toward Crooks. Though if that had happened, I’d expect someone to have reported it by now.

What gets me is that there were three people, in addition to Trump, who were seriously wounded or killed. First bullet when through Trump's ear and then took out someone to the stage left of him (saw a video of someone collapsing immediately, before the rest of the crowd got spooked.) Two more shots, two more dead/seriously wounded. It's certainly possible, like shooting fish in a barrel. But man, how unfortunate.

From the beginning I was wondering if they were trying to cover up a friendly fire incident, but I don't know.

Trump's entire backdrop was supporters packed in shoulder-to-shoulder, a practice that is pretty normal for political speeches; a literal demonstration of "they stand behind what I'm saying". There was nowhere else for the shots to go but into bystanders, and the shooter's position put those supporters in enfilade. Multiple casualties were practically guaranteed, because missing everyone with a given shot was for all practical purposes impossible.

That's also why I thought it possible that there was friendly fire. Because firing towards the shooter would also mean firing over/through a large crowd.

Perhaps with the headline “Trump supporter endangers first responders with concealed firearm”?

In all seriousness, I think there are still a lot of reasonable explanations left. We’ll only get more information as we wait.

My understanding, possibly incorrect, was that there was both a USSS sniper team, and a sniper team from the local police. My guess is that Crooks opened fire, the local sniper team shot back, and then, finally, the USSS sniper fired a single shot to confirm the kill.

This seems to fit the audio recording and the official statements that the Secret Service fired only a single round. If accurate, it's also pretty troubling that the actual USSS snipers played no actual role in stopping the shooter, only "confirming the kill" after the fact. Combined with Trump's claims that no one warned him at any point, this would look very, very bad for the secret service.

The local sniper team was said to be hanging out inside the building right next to the roof Crooks was on -- another one of those oddly insider 4chan videos seems to show them checking out one of the upstairs rooms pre-event, and that they would have been practically on top of him if they'd looked out the window.

So certainly it would have been possible for one of them to take a poke at him with his patrol rifle, but if they had done so there will be 4-5 .223 holes in him (not to mention the roof he was on) in addition to the big one from the SS sniper.

This spacial analysis claims 4 sniper teams - two from the USSS, both with somewhat impaired lines of sight, and one or two police teams, including one they think was in the building but with window views that also didn't cover the roof, and the other which they think was much further away, but they didn't sound very sure about it. The article is nice because they have some of their own drone footage they used and also shows what they believe to be the window vantage you describe.

including one they think was in the building but with window views that also didn't cover the roof

I found the source for that video; it's apparently Rep. Eli Crane, who also happens to be a retired Navy Seal. (!?) So the video is made post shooting; he actually drove over there to investigate himself:

https://twitter.com/rawsalerts/status/1815467636114768242

There is clearly full view of the roof in question from the windows in question -- the NYT reconstruction seems to be looking out of the one at the very end (not the same as the video), but even if that's where the other team was stationed it would still be a trivial (~100 ft) shot just by leaning out the window. No need for suppressing fire from that location; you could terminate the threat very easily.

Great find!

As you point out, the fundamental question is one of awareness and communication. The key questions going forward almost all have to do with who knew what, and when. As you point out, leaning out the window would let you see him, but would they know to lean? Did some people assume that the entire roof was observed when it clearly was only a portion? The video obviously disproves the "roof was slanted and therefore dangerous" but I don't think almost anyone took that cope seriously in the first place despite who shared it.

Edit: I should add that there's also a second line of inquiry equally worth pursuing, though it's not new -- who approved and set up the plan in the first place? For example, was putting a team in the water tower actually viable/practical?

As you point out, leaning out the window would let you see him, but would they know to lean?

I would think the gunfire breaking out ~100 ft away would be a big clue?

More comments

My assessment from the audio is that someone did take a poke at him with a semi-auto rifle, and presumably there will be brass on the ground and (potentially) bullet holes in him or the building to verify that.

The link says “the U.S. Secret Service sniper that neutralized the gunman fired one round,” which doesn’t account for the other sniper, or for other potential units. Plus, it could just be incorrect.

I’m seeing conflicting details here, too.

A local tactical team first took and missed a shot at the would-be assassin. Then, a Secret Service agent quickly shot the assailant, Crooks, killing him on the spot.

Do you think Crooks’ autopsy will be public information?

No idea. Just after posting the above, though, I see someone else suggested that the rapid overlapping shots suppressed the shooter, which would mean the final shot from the USSS sniper is what killed him. This would make an equal amount of sense given the audio; for that matter, at 130 yards, it might have been one of the numerous ground-level non-snipers armed with LPVO ARs who did the suppressing, which given the apparent angles, would also explain why the shots only suppressed the assassin rather than killing them. this would then be reported as "missing" in the press, but would entirely suffice to explain why Crooks stopped firing (he retreated to cover when return fire invaded his personal space) and for the delay in the USSS final shot (they waited for him to poke his head out again, or else they were setting up what would have otherwise been a very marginal shot.)

I'd bet Crooks' autopsy will be released; if he's only got the one hole, that would be good confirmation of suppression and then a killshot.

Quite possible, especially given he’d just sent a police officer back to inform his buddies.

The report so far claims that only Crooks’ head and scope were visible to the sniper. No idea where they got that, or how to reconcile it with the claims Crooks was using iron sights.

I wonder if law enforcement is normally trained to suppress. It’s essential to squad tactics, but not to defensive gun use, which I’d expect to form the bulk of police courses.

It's a bit of a problem for the hypothesis that the ground-level tac squad guys shot back -- shooting upwards at a silhouette is roughly the worst thing you can do for stray bullets, with the additional issue in this case that the local cops were known to be in that specific area as well!

Not sure what the ROE are like for engaging presidential snipers, but spraying suppressing fire at that roof from the ground would be putting civilians within a couple miles downrange at risk of friendly fire.

The report so far claims that only Crooks’ head and scope were visible to the sniper. No idea where they got that, or how to reconcile it with the claims Crooks was using iron sights.

well, I missed that tidbit completely. The data really is garbage.

...For amusement's sake, I expect the reports of him using iron sights are correct, and the scope mentioned there is just people embellishing via the telephone game.

I wonder if law enforcement is normally trained to suppress.

Presumably the officers armed with rifles were SWAT, and I would expect them to train on suppressing fire. Then too, I don't think it's a very difficult or unintuitive technique; it's just taking very marginal shots for lack of better ones. There's also no shortage of examples of officers spraying a suspect or assailant down with rapid semi-auto fire, whether justified or not, and the line between that behavior and intentional suppression is nebulous.

The report so far claims that only Crooks’ head and scope were visible to the sniper. No idea where they got that, or how to reconcile it with the claims Crooks was using iron sights.

well, I missed that tidbit completely. The data really is garbage.

...For amusement's sake, I expect the reports of him using iron sights are correct, and the scope mentioned there is just people embellishing via the telephone game.

There's some (slightly) better drone footage out there that makes it look to me like maybe a holosight or similar:

https://is2.4chan.org/pol/1721682308162980.webm

Not a honkin big scope, but you wouldn't need one at that distance. (and it looks a bit bigger than even the clunkiest of iron sights to me?)

More comments

To be clear, the shooter was tagged as suspicious (but apparently not "threatening") for using a rangefinder earlier on. They didn't speculate much, but a rangefinder is usually a monocular-type handheld thing, often with a laser, and not the same thing as a scope which is something attached directly to a rifle. So telephone games happen a lot after events like this but actually nothing in this respect so far seems to be inaccurate. However, the thing about the roof slope seems to be fairly well established -- the barn the counter-snipers were on was not actually much higher elevation than the building the shooter was on, and distances and geometry make the angles not very good for the counter-snipers, giving the shooter a lot of cover.

More comments

If anyone knows where to find the analysis, I’d like to see it, because everything online traces back to this one unsourced CNN quote.

I've been hunting around and struggling to find anything else. I'm starting to wonder if CNN reached out to National Center for Media Forensics and got that analysis from them directly rather than this being published elsewhere and reported by CNN. Weird way to write it up if so.

It's actually not uncommon for news orgs to reach out directly like that. I wouldn't call it "unsourced" just "nonpublic". There are names. The CNN bit specifically cites "Catalin Grigoras, director of the National Center for Media Forensics at the University of Colorado in Denver, and Cole Whitecotton, Senior Professional Research Associate at the same institution." Since the university posted a link to the CNN article on Instagram, seems legit, and the credentials and experience also seem authentic.

If a high level deep state or advanced foreign actor wanted to kill Trump they wouldn’t get some random troubled kid to do it. It would make for a fun movie but the reality is it would be needlessly inefficient and high-risk.

They would use something like novichok idk , have it placed on his phone or something they know he touches right before bed, and then silently co-opt the investigation by moving a few key chess pieces around (eg if the one or two advanced laboratories around the country don’t get the right samples, or are compromised, or whatever, it’s never identified, they quickly grab and bag the phone which makes sense for ‘security reasons’ anyone it’s not like a random FBI investigator would get access to that stuff) and then suddenly Trump is just dead of a heart attack / stroke, which checks out because he’s a fat old man.

A public assassination that riles up the plebs and makes Reps mega angry isn’t it. The powers that be are entirely capable of having someone die of natural causes.

In this particular hypothetical, they would get the kid as the patsy while their sniper gave them the video and the pink mist screencaps for the rank-and-file lefties to spam on every platform everywhere, which is objectively what would have happened. There is a clear morale reason for them to go for something messy. In the continuation of this hypothetical, now they might go for something quiet. It also won't work. A gust of wind and a head-turn saved him, call it luck, I call it providence.

The Black Hand got a random troubled kid to kill Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

Yes, and it was a botched job that only succeeded out of dumb luck.

This was a botched job that only didn't succeed out of dumb luck - was that your point?

Yes. I agree with /u/2rafa that a sophisticated, intelligent actor that wanted Trump dead would not leave it to a troubled kid.

The black hand had a team of ‘trained’ assassins, and only princep got close enough to kill archduke Ferdinand.

More relevantly, the black hand was itself not a state-level-competency organization, despite Serbian backing. It was a secret society of college kids wanting to dabble in terrorism, who figured out Serbia would pay for their bombs if they declared themselves nationalists instead of something far left, whose main activity was melodrama and whose plan to assassinate the archduke only succeeded because he decided to visit the wounded from their earlier fuckup of the attempt on his life.

Uh, I’m not sure the government has ‘clandestine assassinations’ down pat. Their 2,000 attempts at killing Fidel Castro have failed, often hilariously, and the targeted killings we’ve confirmed them to do have all been via drone.

Obviously dronestriking trump is even worse.

Without commentary on the likelihood of such a thing, some foreign actors may prefer the chaos of angry MAGAs to a suspicious but quiet death.

Novichok isn't a great example here because "looks like an accident" was not on the design objectives list for Novichok; they're standard nerve agents - AChE inhibitors - and those have distinctive symptoms. You examine a Novichok victim, you can immediately identify him as "killed by nerve agent"; you can't tell exactly which nerve agent from a cursory exam, but that's not happening naturally so it's obviously funny business.

There are ways to fake natural causes, though, at least to a cursory exam; Havana syndrome suggests microwave beams are hard to detect as foul play, for instance. So the point stands - Novichok's just not an example of it.

Fair enough, you’re right that it’s a bad example!

Gosh, if Trump got killed by a nerve agent, we'd probably have a crazy scenario where the government and his family were fighting over the body.

While it's possible that a nerve agent (or something like it) could withstand careful scrutiny by an advanced team, it would be easy to just find some county coroner in Maryland to take a cursory look and pronounce it a heart attack or whatever.

Havana syndrome suggests microwave beams are hard to detect as foul play, for instance.

Havana syndrome is fake, right?

Havana syndrome is fake, right?

People are starting to think it might be real again (at least partially; obviously there exist psychogenic cases).

The dubiousness is pretty much my point, though; you couldn't have this kind of wide-open question if microwave weapons left obvious fingerprints, because they'd be obviously there or obviously not.

As someone who was tracking the story from the start, long before the term "Havana syndrome" was coined to discredit it, it seems pretty obvious to me that it was a real advanced weapon, the feds didn't actually want the public to know about it for some reason (it was presumably one of their own secrets, not an enemy secret - maybe something that got stolen or misused), and they eventually decided to feign an episode of mass hysteria as a coverup.

I knew some people involved in the workup and analysis on the medical side. They could be wrong, but they were convinced it was real. I've been out of touch with the relevant people for awhile so I don't know if the recent developments convinced them otherwise, but I do know that the "government" involved major research institutions in looking into this in a way that was a. too expensive to be a psyop, b. semi public, and therefore c. legible to foreign actors that they were actually investigating.

The powers that be are entirely capable of having someone die of natural causes.

Words that take on a darker tone in light of recent events.

In other news.. Biden is apparently making a speech tomorrow?
https://x.com/DeItaone/status/1815760331408293981

On Polymarket, shares in "Biden finishes term" up to 60% from an overnight low of 44%.

Nothing gets me more suspicious of an official account of a high profile event than “oops our recording don’t exist.” I don’t know enough to comment about the reports of multiple gunshots from multiple locations, and how to tell what is and isn’t the USSS firing back. But it seems like even if it’s not policy, there’s really so much to be gained and so little to lose in forensics investigations by having those recordings that not having them at all would be a red flag that there is something on those records that they don’t want the public to know.

You're not wrong, but having the foresight to actively setup recording is something non-obvious that may have been overlooked, or even not part of the standard procedure. Do they have a history of recording, and only this one is absent (see the Watergate tapes)? On the other hand, I could point to NASA where "lock the doors" is a planned procedure where in case of incident nobody leaves without a full debrief, and no data wanders off to be missing later.

Given that (publicly known) security incidents under USSS supervision are rare (when was the last one?), perhaps they've not spent much time on post-incident data retention procedures. At a bare minimum, this seems like a good time to demand these changes (recordings, debriefings) after incidents going forward.

I don’t think, “record everything so we can do a post-event follow-up” is an obscure thing. Virtually every form of decision making or security insists on keeping logs and records of everything that’s going on. I could go to any IT department in any company in the country and there will be logs of everything done on the servers. But somehow people protecting Trump just sort of forgot something that every company and police department drills into new hires. At some point “I didn’t think about recording data or keeping it,” seems less like an explanation and more like an excuse.

an alternative multiple shooter theory is that the second shooter was not aware of Crooks and Crooks spoiled a different assassination plot. it would be funny if the combination of SS ineptitude and Crooks resulted in a more serious assassination attempt failing.

Like that joke about Hitler being so messed up because he spent his childhood dodging time travelers trying to kill him, maybe there are just so many time travelers trying to take out Trump that they're getting in each other's way.

https://xkcd.com/690/

Do you have a full transcript of Cheatle's testimony on hand?

(If you do, you might want to link once to it rather than several times to individual soundbites.)

The best partial transcript I've been able to find starts about halfway down here (at [10:20:09]), goes to here and here, and ends here, but that only covers the first hour and a half.

YouTube has an automated transcript at here, but it's very low quality.

Cheatle's an idiot, and the reporting on the actual number of shots and guns used is all over the place, but I think the most likely explanation for a third weapon, if there is indeed one, is some other cop (not a sniper) firing at Crooks.

Is number 5 surprising? If it’s an ongoing investigation presumably she wouldn’t want to comment one way or the other.

Is number 5 surprising? If it’s an ongoing investigation presumably she wouldn’t want to comment one way or the other.

While I don't fault Cheatle for deferring to the FBI on the investigation pertaining to Crooks' motives and movements, for a report on the Service's activities related to July 13, it seems like it would've been trivially easy for her to come prepared with:

  1. The Action Plan for the July 13 event
  2. The list of SS and other agency operatives working 7/13 and their assigned duties
  3. A detailed "what we know now" timeline (with the caveat that their investigation may add or alter it) culled from interviews of of the agents involved.

Seems like a professional org could produce those items within 2-3 days of an incident. It really seemed like she never cared to inquire about anything personally, delegated her oversight, and thought she could just wing it in front of Congress.

For sure. I still can’t believe she didn’t resign more or less immediately. What did she think was gonna happen where it could work out?

Whatever happened to Anthony Fauci (NB I am speaking my truth plainly and with brevity, which is the soul of wit)

If she really did try to wing it, then that explains a lot about the actual security decisions.

I guess those documents could be available to Congress but not the public, but damn.

She was subpoenaed by congress. Bannon is currently in prison for not answering their questions.

I’m really getting sick and tired of this “under investigation can’t comment” excuse. Seemingly everything is under investigation at all times.

Yeah I can appreciate that. You’d think if the issue were sensitive matters they could at least do a closed door hearing where that shit won’t fly.

It’s not at all plausible to you that there’s the possibility of more people and she doesn’t want to tip her hand? I’m genuinely asking here, I don’t have a strong position on this, but it’s not obvious to me that it’s evidence of anything on its face.

How did this become a trump card in congressional questioning?

I started with no conclusion about the attempt on Trump's life

Except, that's not really true, is it?

I think this would be fair if I were citing arguments and analysis of the biased. Like if I were quoting the guy from the second link in #2, where he argues the origin and target of the shots, that'd be fair. Or if I were quoting the research being done by the Heritage Foundation. I'm not, I give them no current stock. Everything above other than the link in #2 is either an unbiased (or counter-biased) reporter, or where it's a biased reporter I only linked it because it contains Cheatle's testimony or raw footage/audio. The guy speculating on USSS protocol is biased, but he's also providing a counterargument: it could be protocol they don't keep recordings, or reasonably-selectively keep recordings, and the rally didn't qualify for entirely justifiable reasons.

My willingness to relatively quickly take the adverse inference is probably a result of my disposition, but I can say on 7/13 I wasn't thinking it was a hit, and by my own logs I wasn't looking hard at it until 7/16. I didn't write on some of the questions raised until 7/18, and even on 7/19 I would say I was only on the verge. The audio analysis is what pushed me over and that's because there's no argument against it. Three weapons were fired, Crooks fired some of the shots, the USSS counter-sniper fired the last shot, and there is a burst that is unaccounted for. Short of federal law enforcement and the domestic intelligence apparatus being in the midst of a clandestine nationwide manhunt for the second shooter and they don't want to give anything away, there is no other good explanation. But hell, it could be that, and if it is and they catch the guy, great.

There were two counter sniper teams. Isn’t it possible the burst came from the other team, the one off on Trump’s left, but they missed because they were trying to respond in a hurry? But the USSS wanted to look good and so has emphasized the “one shot one kill” narrative. At least that’s what we know initially assumed to be the case, and it would also be consistent with 3 weapons.

Also, this special analysis from today indicates that the his specific spot on the roof was probably covered by trees from the second team, and also discusses theorized positions of two law enforcement counter sniper teams who also didn’t have a view.

The sniper teams were using bolt action .300 WinMag rifles (clearly visible in the video). There's no way they were doing any kind of 4-5 round burst with those. Indeed it very much looks like the team you can see in the clear video gets zero shots off and is scrambling to get a sightline on the source of the incoming fire.

The non-conspiracy answer is that somebody other than either of these sniper teams tried some suppressing fire with an AR-15 or similar -- but I'm not sure who would have been in a position to do this given the shooter's elevated position.

The non-conspiracy answer is that somebody other than either of these sniper teams tried some suppressing fire with an AR-15 or similar -- but I'm not sure who would have been in a position to do this given the shooter's elevated position.

This would be my guess. They didn't have to have a clean shot on him to attempt suppressing fire -- when he started firing the second time, they might have just started firing in his direction. Probably an LEO who is being told to keep quiet, or we'd have heard about it by now.

Just fyi the link for #1 isn't working as of about 8 minutes after you posted.

My bad, should be fixed.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats