Thoughts on the Assassination Attempt

Letters from O'Brien #59

Dear Mr Smith,

I thought I’d jot down the thoughts going around in my head in regards to the attempted assassination attempt on Trump. Everything is in such flux being so close to the event, and I may well be wrong on any number of points, nevertheless I’ve got some thoughts! And thanks as always for hosting my letters.

When shots rang out, many voices jumped at the idea that a democrat-backed shooter was the one responsible. This is possible, but I have serious doubts…

But of course, we live in a time when such events are engineered to create vague grey zones, out of focus, not easily resolved, despite sides claiming to have crystal clear vision of what’s going on. This is not the first time an event like this has taken place. JFK and RFK obviously - maybe too much of a generic a link -  but there is a connection between these three shootings.

What details are we missing? Some are pointing out surface level Secret Service failures – their video promoting DEI, among other irrelevant facts. But what about the shooters strange past, and more importantly the Republican motive for removing Trump?

But before I move on – 4 shot and one dead. It’s a very sad moment for American politics (as if it couldn’t get any worse), and my heart goes out to the families of the fatality and the seriously wounded.

DAY OF THE EVENT

It seems to me the sequence of events suggests a well-executed and competent plan. It looks like the shooter was in place on the rooftop overlooking the stage at least two minutes before taking the shot. Trump took to the stage at 6:03 and began speaking at 6:05.

As we’ve all seen by now, within the vicinity of the stage setup, there are two main vantage points within reasonable distance from the stage for a potential shooter. The first are a set of three buildings located directly behind the stage (or to its southeast). The second was a warehouse complex directly to the north, roughly 140m away. Simple. Easy enough for the Secret Service to have control of, you’d think.

How the shooter got access the rooftop of the warehouse is unclear, but visual details suggest that he headed down an alleyway between two of the warehouses, in the middle of which was an access point with a ladder, leading to the top of what appears to be a hallway. This hallway had a slightly lower elevation than the warehouses, however the profile of the entire building was low enough to perceive the upper body of a standing individual from the moment he reached the top of the ladder. This is an important detail. Here, he set up a modified AR-15 to take the shot. The first shot occurred at 35 seconds after 6:11.

It is obvious to everyone that this should have been noticed by the secret service. Secret service marksmen are supposed to occupy the points of elevation. Realistically during a situation like this, the only ‘risky’ areas are windows, hence why marksmen usually scan the sides of buildings for movement. The marksmen would hold all points of maximum elevation, essentially making any open rooftop below them a kill zone. Clearly, this was not the case in Pennsylvania, as not a single law enforcement officer was covering arguably the most obvious threat point in the entire area.

Several people are on record saying that they alerted law enforcement of the threat. Videos and images were taken of what looks to be the shooter on the roof, taken by bystanders questioning why nothing was being done about it. In another video, several attendees are heard yelling to law enforcement about an armed individual on the nearby roof. In another video still, two secret service agents are seen in position aiming to the north, making only minimal corrections to take the shot. A claim was later made that the two primary marksmen did not have a clear line of sight from their vantage point to the warehouse the shooter had positioned himself upon. This technically could be true, but it seems unlikely.

Every piece of evidence from the day suggests that zero action was taken to stop the shooter before he fired off at least two rounds. We know that the shooter was first reported between 3 to 4 minutes before the shooting by an onlooker, and once in position there was at least a thirty second window during which many people within the crowd were actively calling out the presence of the shooter.

After taking the shot, a shootout ensued, with law enforcement taking him out. Three seconds after the first shot, secret service reach Trump on stage. The secret service then slowly walks Trump off stage, with the service member directly in front of Trump (and thus in-between him and the shooter to the north) suspiciously leaning over constantly, something which I understand is never done in a situation like this. After the shooting dies down, a marksman radios in “shooter down”, as Trump is walked to the car. Neither of these reactions make sense; the area was not sanitised, hence there was no way to verify if all threats had been accounted for. Likewise, compare this reaction to the response the service had when a shooter tried to kill Ronald Reagan.

All these strange occurrences, resulting in a stalled response from law enforcement, was used to push the narrative that the real reason any of this happened was because the Secret Service ‘is incompetent’. I don’t think this is the takeaway.

I’d say the evidence points to the secret service and law enforcement being stood down. Video evidence shows a lack of response, despite prolonged exposure of the shooter to the crowd, and by proxy to the two-man team overlooking the building the shooter was able to set up his shot and take it.

WHO WAS THE SHOOTER

The first reports said that an Antifa member was the suspect. When this was quickly pulled apart, the narrative shifted to the shooter being a leftist who was ‘part Asian’. This too fell apart thanks to witness testimony. Finally, an actual name was given with a few details - Thomas Matthew Crooks was revealed to be the shooter. Commentators like Candace Owens have tried to paint this individual as a ‘Biden supporter’, but I think he was set up by some intelligence advisor. Key evidence includes statements from cousins and extended family members, who said that Thomas and his family were absent from public life, and never really talked to anyone. In the leadup to the event, he was spotted wearing a gun-youtuber shirt, and this was confirmed after he was taken out during the shooting.

Now, this is all surface level information, but below the surface there is much more at play. One of the most interesting pieces of information to be released regarding the shooter was that Crooks had no firearms training, yet what has been release suggests that the shooting was undertaken without optics from over 150 meters away. Again, nothing can be confirmed, but supposedly the weapon used during the shooting was an AR-15 with a bipod, extended rifling, but no optics. If this circulating report is true, then it makes little sense how it was possible. Using iron sights at a distance is of course possible, but a hindrance; unless corrected, any elevation compensation would leave the target semi-obscured behind the post, which an amateur shooter would likely do. Add to this the fact that inexperienced shooters often gives little attention to their sight axis, which leads to slight deviations to the left or right. Note that the bullet would have been a perfect headshot had Trump not suddenly turned his head. So, these details don’t make sense to me.

Now somewhat tangentially, a lesser-circulated piece of information which has just emerged shows what appears to be Crooks in a Blackrock commercial. The video - from 2023 - which focuses on ‘financial freedom for teachers’ was filmed at Bethel Park High School. Bethel Park is where Crooks and his family resided, and a video from 2022 shows a student with the same name receiving his diploma from Bethel Park, with similar visual characteristics. How this ties in with current events is anyone’s guess, but I do find it odd that the original video was removed after the shooting took place, insinuating some sort of connection. It was also discovered that Crook’s father worked as a behavioural scientist.

But what is truly interesting about Crooks is that neither he nor his family had any real presence at all. There is no social media presence, nor is there any trail suggesting who they were or what they were doing. When it comes to these operations, such an individual is the perfect tool.

THE MOTIVES

And the question of motive looms large. The answer lay in the specifics. Who benefits, who would suffer, and what would be the consequences?

Now taking a step back, there were three motivated factions supposedly involved in the JFK assassination: intelligence agencies (namely the CIA), defence contractors, and the Israel lobby. Likewise, these same forces exist today, and realistically are the only ones who have the power, finances, and most importantly the access to make an event like this a reality.

While many pointed fingers at the liberal left - who did indeed celebrate over the event - the reality is that from a political and social standpoint, a Trump assassination would not benefit the left at all. In fact, had he been killed, it would have radically reshaped the political landscape against the left and formed an unbreakable resistance to the Democratic Party. It is important to note, however, that liberal establishment would benefit from such an event in the long run. For this reason, no matter who specifically organised the shooting, the liberal establishment must never be aligned with.

So, here’s a theory which could line up with current events…

The timing of the event is suspicious. If the assassination had been successful, the Republicans would have had to choose another candidate at the Republican National Convention, happening about now. Given that it took place after the crucial debates which sealed Bidens fate, this makes me wonder if it was a coup attempt by a Republican conspiracy.

Consider that only two other candidates on ‘his side’ have delegates: Ron DeSantis, and Nikki Haley. While Haley is a neocon and DeSantis is undecided, both align in the three crucial sectors; they support the Israel lobby, they support the intelligence agencies current leadership, and they back wars in the Middle East and Europe. Trump does not.

Note also that some time ago, Vivek Ramaswamy went on record saying that the only reason Nikki Haley had not dropped out - despite having zero populist support - was because her donors were “plotting to eliminate Trump from the ballet”.

To address the three major institutions - the intelligence agencies, Israel lobby, and military contractors - one must look at Trumps rhetoric. This explains why his own party would be motivated to take him out. I will draw comparisons with the most obvious individual - JFK.

The first issue is the Israel lobby. Thus far Trump’s biggest donors have been Zionists and Silicon Valley technocrats. The Zionists - most notably the mega wealthy Miriam Adelson - do not appear to be supporting Trump. There is strong incentive for a conservative leadership to provide military aid to Israel. Why? Firstly, Netanyahu needs war to stay in office, and when he eventually steps down (which will happen once the conflict ends) he would likely be indicted on various corruption charges and probably end up in prison. Secondly - or rather on a deeper level - Netanyahu could be seen as a pawn. Those holding power - like his finance minister and others unnamed - also desire war; under the justification of ‘national security’ they seek to destroy Israel’s regional rivals (Lebanon, Iran) and expand their borders to create ‘Greater Israel’.

Thus, it came as a surprise to many that Trump - despite receiving over $100 million from Zionist donors - never bowed down in worship towards Israel. Both DeSantis and Haley have, in fact they speak of Israel as they would speak of God. What’s more, Trump also went on record not too long ago, claiming that Netanyahu received ‘justified criticism’ for the 7/10 attack last year. This suggests that Trump has not yet yielded to his donors completely. This makes him a threat to Israel lobby, as he may be unwilling to finance another major middle eastern war. For the Zionist leadership, maybe is not a good enough guarantee when it comes to military aid; without America Israel’s military grinds to a halt.

Likewise, Kennedy angered these groups, since he advocated for three things; Palestinian right-of-return to Israel, a shut down on the Israeli nuclear weapons program, and the registration of AIPAC as a foreign agent (through FARA). In my view it seems that this was the final straw which landed him in a coffin.

The second major player is the intelligence community, or more specifically the Silicon Valley technocrats who have evidently taken over the security apparatus. Key figures here (who are relevant to the Trump administration) are Peter Thiel (who rose to prominence thanks to funding from neocon Irving Kristol), and his proteges JD Vance, Curtis Yarvin, and so forth. This movement seeks to - as Thiel once put it - create a ‘techno monarchy’ in America. Many within the right-leaning Silicon Valley scene appear to be neoconservatives, who advocate for mass surveillance, invasive technologies, and so forth. Thiel even said that the CIA is a front for Palantir - his infamous digital security firm. And, they appear to have no issue with the Israel lobby or the military industrial complex.

Likewise, Kennedy promised to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces, reigning in their black projects which were becoming increasingly detached from any sense of national security. They too went after him because of this.

Which brings me to the last important group of players, the military contractors. These are arguably the most financially powerful, although not the most influential on this list. It seems obvious that out of all the republican candidates, Trump is the only (perhaps save Vivek, who was quickly removed) to stand against expanded geopolitical hostility. DeSantis yields to his donors, whilst Haley literally worked as a defence contractor, and now desires to send American troops to Israel and Ukraine. Trump - in contrast - has made it obvious that peace in the Middle East is of top priority. He has also suggested that the Ukraine war will be ended before he is even officially inaugurated. Putin has said he is onboard with this. The outcome will be obvious; Ukraine will be integrated with Russia in some way, essentially becoming a rump state. Everyone in the neocon sphere fumes at the thought of this; NATO, the RNC, and of course the contractors. Note that the contractors are not only sending existing surplus weapons to Ukraine (as we are often told), but they are also actively replenishing supplies. They aren’t doing this for free, and what they charge is beyond insane.

Likewise, Kennedy sought to end the Cold War. After the failed Great Leap Forward he wanted to normalise relations with China, whilst a thawing Soviet Union meant that peace with the Russians was very possible. This all came crashing down with his assassination. It wasn’t just him who tried this; his brother sought peace, and he also paid with his life. Later, Nixon and Kissinger would also try for peace with China and Russia, only to be conveniently tied up in corruption claims and removed from office, with all their progress reverted by the neocons in the Ford administration.

Thus, with all this in mind, one can see why his ‘own’ people would be willing to sacrifice him. They would benefit financially, socially, and politically through incentives. If Trump had been successfully taken out, then realistically the events which followed would have looked something like this; liberals receive the blowback for the event, Haley or DeSantis are selected to lead, the people rally behind them as they use dialectical rhetoric to stoke anger towards the left while obfuscating from the right, they enter office and proceed to operate as agents of all three major institutions mentioned, and for the next four years ride off of the anger produced during the Trump shooting.

If everything had gone to plan, they would have a Haley or DeSantis presidency, and this cabinet would allow all three interest groups to benefit at the expense of the American people’s tax dollars, or with their lives. It would arguably be worse than another Biden presidency, since I doubt DeSantis or Haley would even bother addressing what would have been the one potential upside - the deportation of illegals and the shutting of the border.

For this reason, with the information currently available, I believe that the Trump shooting could have been an attempted coup. The liberal establishment are still adversaries of the people, but in this case, I think the shots were fired by his own party in a bid to change the direction of the presidency. For the moment at least, it failed, thank God.

These major interest groups are what sway the White House. This is why the Trump administration needs proper staff; true loyalists who stand by America, not by contractors, foreign agencies, and money. This is what Project 2025 is all about, and it is why such a project needs to be adopted by Trump. By what appears to be divine intervention, he lives to see another day and this should be his cue to truly go all-in during this coming presidency; end foreign interference, end bribery from contractors and corporations, and truly attempt to fix America.

Sincerely yours,

O’Brien