• shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    A) Who says those photographers were Trump’s staff, a rando YouTuber? There will always photographers at a campaign event for a major contender.

    B) Those sorts of photographers always rush in for the shot. That sort of action is covered in the job description, if one is a serious photographer.

    C) See this obviously “fake” shot when Reagan’s photographers were ushered in. (I can do this all day with similar historical pics.)

    Kid with a rifle gets on the roof because Trump is surrounded by idiot “yes” men, even in the USSS. Kid, who washed out of his high-school shooting team, pops a couple off, misses Trump because he turned his head at the last second, wounds a couple and kills one, gets sniped by snipers.

    Does anyone honestly think Trump would pay a kid to shoot at him for a photo OP?! There’s no meat on this conspiracy theory bone.

    • SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      A and B are both incorrect, you can clearly see the photographers being positioned by Trump staffers. They don’t need to be Trump staff.

      Point C is the tricky one. That does not have clear evidence of conspiracy. It would have been simpler to not have a bystander and shooter killed. People have been convinced to carry out assassinations in the past. Throw in a sabotaged firearm. But yes, there is no evidence for it.

      What do you think about the flag getting lowered into the shot?