The practical answer to the question is that it was an attempted assassination of a prominent political figure, so it hardly matters where the bullets actually landed - the message is the same.

[–] grue 5 points 4 months ago

It matters in the sense that an actual bullet grazing his ear leaves absolutely no room for doubt, while a shot that went wide by a much greater margin and knocked some shrapnel at him by dumb luck lends itself to conspiracy theories.

[+] timewarp -6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So why are we being lied to about the assassination attempt on a massive scale? I mean at this point, if they aren't going to be honest.. why believe the general narrative at all?

[–] pennomi 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

We’re not? There was an assassination attempt, the FBI did some investigation and found he was likely not hit by the bullet, but was injured by the shooting. The injury was caused indirectly by a bullet, which is effectively the same as getting shot to everybody but the most pedantic.

[–] timewarp -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The FBI definitively stated that he was hit by a bullet. After Wray said it was questionable if he was hit by a bullet, then FBI deputy director Abbate stated on July 30 that there was never any doubt that a bullet had struck Trump's ear. Trump claims he was struck by a bullet. I don't see or hear any media arguing that he wasn't hit by the bullet. It kind of is a big deal to get the facts straight about if Trump was actually hit by a bullet or it is made up, and I'd think there would be some kind of way to find out.

[–] TotallynotJessica 5 points 4 months ago

The answer is simple: they thought wrong and updated the story after further investigation. This is actually a good thing, not evidence of a conspiracy. It's not even evidence of great incompetence, but understandable human error.