It is probably true, and also rather disturbing, that at least some people on the far left would have openly celebrated if former President Donald Trump had been killed, or even gravely wounded, at his July 13 rally in Butler, PA. The fact that he was only grazed by a would-be assassin's bullet nevertheless represents a political and public relations nightmare for Democrats. For that reason, some people on that side of the aisle – along with a few of their allies in the media – are promoting a narrative about the Trump shooting that is designed to mitigate the damage and to play down the portrayal of Trump the hero, who, as he put it, “took a bullet for democracy.”
The theory peddled by some of Trump's critics is that he was not really struck on his ear by a bullet. Rather, he was hit by shrapnel. Objective and reasonable analysis of the Trump shooting, caught on camera, exposes the shrapnel narrative as not only rather silly, but easily debunked.
What FBI director Christopher Wray was thinking when he told members of congress on July 24 that it's possible Trump was injured by shrapnel or debris is anyone's guess. Investigators from his own agency would, or should, already have ascertained for certain whether a bullet or something else struck the top of Trump's right ear.
It was, to say the least, a baffling piece of speculation that is in no way consistent with the facts. Otherwise, Director Wray would have shown up on Capitol Hill armed with the evidence. Wray’s comment riled Republican lawmakers and prompted an FBI spokesperson to later clarify the agency’s official position – yet even then, the statement fell short of conceding that Trump was shot:
"Since the day of the attack, the FBI has been consistent and clear that the shooting was an attempted assassination of former President Trump which resulted in his injury, as well as the death of a heroic father and the injuries of several other victims."
Only after GOP lawmakers demanded the FBI director retract his statement about Trump's injury – and after the 2024 presidential candidate weighed in himself – did the agency on July 26 settle the matter. In a statement. The FBI asserted, “What struck former President Trump in the ear was a bullet, whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces, fired from the deceased subject’s rifle.”
Even now, the FBI simply cannot seem to bring itself to abandon the far-fetched idea that a round fired at Trump somehow magically fragmented in the air and only part of it hit the former president. Why there appears to be a desperate need to leave the door open to the possibility that Trump was struck by something other than an intact bullet is strange.
Trump Shooting Theory Shot Down
It hardly takes a forensics or ballistics expert to explain why the shrapnel theory is, at best, the remotest of possibilities and, at worst, ridiculous. Debris or shrapnel from the impact of any piece of ordinance – be it a .223 caliber round, a grenade, a rocket, or an artillery shell – simply does not magically appear and fly around in the air. Shrapnel is produced in two ways. It Is created by the impact of a projectile hitting a solid object, such as a wall, a floor, a vehicle, or something else that cracks or shatters when the impact occurs. The other cause of flying debris or shrapnel is when the projectile itself is designed to explode or fragment either in the air or when it strikes something. Standard .223 caliber rifle rounds do not explode – even when they hit their target, and certainly not in mid-air.
The only objects close enough to Trump to splinter or shatter in a way that would have sent debris flying at him were the teleprompters, the podium itself, and the stage. FBI agents – and probably also ATF investigators – who examined the scene of the Trump shooting would have quickly ascertained that one of those nearby objects was hit by a bullet.
On social media, some leftists are claiming that a shard of glass from one of the teleprompters hit the 45th president. However, there is no evidence that either of the teleprompters were struck. If there was, there’s no reason why it wouldn't already have been publicized. The FBI simply has no motive for making such a discovery and keeping it under wraps, if that's what really happened. The agency surely would have wanted to publicly clarify that Trump's injury was far less innocuous than a bullet wound.
Likewise, there is no evidence that either the stage or the podium was struck when the shooter opened fire.
A .223 caliber round is, in fact, not all that powerful. There is practically no chance whatsoever that one of those rounds hitting an object 10 or 12 or more feet away from the former president would have sent debris flying all that distance to hit Trump on the ear.
Most Democrats have accepted the facts of the Trump shooting for what they are; that someone attempted to assassinate him and did manage to strike his ear with one of multiple rounds. This is the one fact that stands out as the most significant. Whether Trump was grazed by a bullet, a fragment of a bullet, or debris from somewhere else - or even if the shooter’s rounds had missed him entirely and he had been uninjured - the deadly intent was the same. Somebody tried to kill Donald Trump and did kill one of his supporters, as well as injuring others. That fact should not get buried under deceptive speculation about what caused Trump's wound.
Those who are peddling theories designed to dilute or distract from the seriousness of this assassination attempt have exposed themselves as fanatics. Doing political damage control - and their obsession with portraying Trump as always the villain - is, for them, justification enough to try to explain away and play down a horrific act of deadly political violence targeting a presidential candidate and his supporters.
