Trump-wasn’t-shot theories proliferate

TRUMP-WASN'T-SHOT THEORIES PROLIFERATE. From the moment former President Donald Trump was shot at a rally in Pennsylvania, there have been people, usually his political opponents, who have suggested that Trump was not actually shot. Of course, there were the usual conspiracy nuts who claimed it was all made up. But there were also more mainstream figures who suggested that Trump was not hit by a bullet from the would-be assassin's gun but rather a bit of shrapnel that came from...somewhere.

The first theory held that a bullet had actually shattered a glass teleprompter panel, and a shard of glass then hit Trump's ear. That theory suffered from the fact that the teleprompter panels were not hit by bullets and appeared to be intact after the shooting. But that did not stop the theorists from starting with the glass and going on from there.

"We still don't know for sure whether Donald Trump was hit by a bullet, whether he was hit by glass fragments, whether he was hit by shrapnel — we don't have those details," MSNBC host Joy Reid said a few days after the assassination attempt. "We actually have no details from his physician, even though this man is still a Secret Service-protected, you know, presidential candidate. We know almost nothing." Reid was also upset that, in her view of things, Trump's Secret Service agents "allowed" the former president to stand up after being hit so that he could pose for photos.

"We don't know why, for nine full seconds, Donald Trump was allowed to stand back up during an active shooting, an active shooter situation, even though they at that point had said the shooter was down. How would they have known if there were more shooters or not?" Reid said. "Yet they allowed him to stand up in the middle of that crisis and pose for a photo and fist-pump the air so he could get the iconic photo."

Clearly Reid has an active imagination. Finally, she questioned the wound that Trump suffered in the shooting. "What is the actual injury to Donald Trump's ear that is under that bandage?" she said. "Shouldn't we know that by now? It's weird."

If you think this sounds a little weird itself, you should know that such speculation is fairly common on the Left and becoming more so every day. No need to list a lot of examples. It's out there.

Now the speculation has received the imprimatur of the director of the FBI. Christopher Wray appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday and on two occasions suggested that Trump might have been hit by "shrapnel.”

On one occasion, Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA) asked Wray, "How close did the assassin's bullet come to killing President Trump?" Wray responded, "My understanding is that either it or some shrapnel is what, you know, grazed his ear. So I don't know that I have the actual distance."

On another occasion, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), chairman of the committee, asked Wray if the FBI had accounted for all eight bullets thought to have been fired by the shooter and whether some victims might have been hit multiple times. "I think with respect to former President Trump, there's some question about whether or not it's a bullet or shrapnel that, you know, hit his ear, so it's conceivable," Wray answered. "Although, as I sit here right now, I don't know whether that bullet, in addition to, you know, causing the grazing could have also landed somewhere else. But I believe we've accounted for all of the shots and the cartridges."

What to make of it? Wray did not offer any information on what, if Trump was not hit by a bullet, the shrapnel might have been or how it might have happened. Had he talked to FBI experts who have examined the evidence? He did not say. So what could it mean?

I called Dr. Ronny Jackson, now a Republican congressman from Texas, to find out more. He is a former Obama and Trump White House physician who served more than 20 years in the U.S. Navy, including a stint with a shock trauma unit in Iraq during the worst days of the war there. Gunshots, shrapnel, explosives, whatever — in Iraq, Jackson treated the terrible wounds they can cause.

As a congressman, Jackson does not practice medicine. He has let his various licenses lapse, although he is still certified in emergency medicine. His critics have pointed out that he was accused of inappropriate actions while White House physician, which he denies.

In our conversation, Jackson stressed he is not Trump's doctor. He was not present at the July 13 shooting but joined Trump the day after. He dressed Trump's wound and applied the bandage, which he said anyone could do. But the fact is, he is an experienced doctor, and he saw Trump's wound the day after the shooting. He is certainly qualified to describe it.

Jackson told me that the bullet took off a little of the top of Trump's ear and left a wound entirely consistent with a high-velocity gunshot. Jackson also said he read the medical report from the Pennsylvania hospital where Trump was taken after the shooting. Doctors there treated Trump's wound and also gave him a full examination to see if he had suffered any other injury. The hospital medical report, Jackson said, referred to Trump's wound as a gunshot wound. He said not only the appearance of the wound but also the presence of swelling and other symptoms were entirely consistent with a gunshot wound.

"The reality is, it was a bullet," Jackson said. "It looks like the path of a bullet coming right over the top of his ear." When I asked about Jackson's experience with such matters, Jackson cited his time in Iraq and said, "I believe I know what a gunshot wound looks like."

Jackson was unhappy with Wray's speculation. "He shouldn't be making statements like that," Jackson said. "From him, it's an irresponsible statement unless he has some obvious forensic evidence."

But Wray said what he said, and now the speculation from the Joy Reids of the world will only grow. What can be done? The best thing would be for Trump to authorize the doctors who treated him in Pennsylvania to discuss the wound and treatment involved. And there will certainly be more evidence in the future about the events of those few seconds, including the paths of the eight shots investigators believe the would-be assassin fired.

That information is needed if only for the public's right to know. In the big picture, though, it's not clear what difference confirming the shrapnel theory would make. An assassin intending to kill Trump fired a high-powered rifle at Trump, and Trump was hit by shrapnel from the high-velocity bullet. Does that change anything significant about the story?

For Reid and her allies, the answer is yes. They are looking for a way to devalorize Trump's actions after the assassination attempt. People were amazed that Trump could be shot and then stand up and gesture defiantly as Secret Service agents hustled him offstage. Remember that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg called Trump's actions "one of the most badass things I've ever seen in my life." That impression is precisely what the Trump theorists are hoping to diminish — and in the process diminish any political benefit Trump might have reaped from the assassination attempt. For them, it's all politics. Still, more information is better, and the public needs to know more about the events of July 13.