The FBI says former President Donald Trump was struck in the ear by a bullet during an assassination attempt on July 13, as the agency moved Friday to clarify what happened after nearly two weeks of confusion and conflicting...
He might have exaggerated when he said it ripped through his ear, but he was struck by the bullet.
From that article:
“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,” the agency said in a statement.
A bullet fragment is shrapnel.
And yes, he obviously exaggerated wildly. And Ronny Jackson did too, on his behalf.
+ means bet $100 to win x amount; - means bet x amount to win $100
Ex: I currently see Kishane Thompson at +120 odds to win the 100m. So if you'd bet $100 on him and he'd win, you'd earn $120 in addition to getting your your $100 bet back. Sha'carri is -2000 to medal whihc means you'd have to bet $2000 on her to win $100
Isn't that basically semantics? If my arm was grazed by a bullet that was basically parallel to me (so it barely hits and doesn't shatter bone, muscle, etc) that leaves a long 'scratch' vs getting hit by a shard of glass flying because of the bullet that does the same thing, is there a huge difference? And in this case, wouldn't a shard from the bullet have the same velocity?
He might have exaggerated when he said it ripped through his ear, but he was struck by the bullet.
From that article:
“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,” the agency said in a statement.
A bullet fragment is shrapnel.
And yes, he obviously exaggerated wildly. And Ronny Jackson did too, on his behalf.
Some people would call that lying.
Nope, lying is when you tell The People that you drove semis for a living, or when you get on your knees for power. When a snipers bullet hits you in the head, then that’s what it is. good thing Trump ducked while the bullet was flying! Close call
Isn't that basically semantics? If my arm was grazed by a bullet that was basically parallel to me (so it barely hits and doesn't shatter bone, muscle, etc) that leaves a long 'scratch' vs getting hit by a shard of glass flying because of the bullet that does the same thing, is there a huge difference? And in this case, wouldn't a shard from the bullet have the same velocity?
Yeah that is all dumb to argue about, but when the dear leader claims he took a bullet for democracy it better have been a bullet wound. And you all know there was no need for him to wear a maxi mad over his ear as it was just a minor cut.
Whether he was hit by a bullet or a bullet fragment could be semantics.
But when Trump, for whatever reason, decides that he has to demand that he was hit by a bullet (not shrapnel ro a fragment), and that it "ripped through" his ear, and that he "took a bullet" for democracy, and when he wears a bandage over his ear at the RNC rather than have the world see that there really is no wound to speak of, then it isn't semantics.
It is dishonesty.
Of course he built a backdoor into the lie by saying that it was the doctors that called it a bullet wound, so when push comes to shove he'll say, "How should I know? I got hit by something while being shot at, and the doctors said it was a bullet wound. What difference does it make?" But he won't want to talk about saying a bullet "ripped THROUGH" his ear.
I buy it now that the FBI confirmed. We have very good reason to initially doubt anything that comes out of Trump's mouth, and will continue to do so.
The fact that the FBI confirmed it might be the only reason to doubt it.
Lolz yes of course! The deep state institution is always untrustworthy whereas the convicted felon and proven fraudster who has lied his whole life is credible.
Whether he was hit by a bullet or a bullet fragment could be semantics.
But when Trump, for whatever reason, decides that he has to demand that he was hit by a bullet (not shrapnel ro a fragment), and that it "ripped through" his ear, and that he "took a bullet" for democracy, and when he wears a bandage over his ear at the RNC rather than have the world see that there really is no wound to speak of, then it isn't semantics.
It is dishonesty.
Of course he built a backdoor into the lie by saying that it was the doctors that called it a bullet wound, so when push comes to shove he'll say, "How should I know? I got hit by something while being shot at, and the doctors said it was a bullet wound. What difference does it make?" But he won't want to talk about saying a bullet "ripped THROUGH" his ear.
Correct. He quoted Ronny's statement as proof and immediately blamed the hospital... like can't he himself use a mirror and see the fkn hole and say look here I have a bullet wound? Why doesn't he ever own any fkn claim he makes??? Because it's always either a lie or exaggeration, always. With his massive ego, he would have taken a million selfies of the bullet wound and would be posting it on Truth Social every day until the election. It was a minor wound.
Those Tatoos all over her body will really help her gain a job with a Fortune 500 company.
Those hairy armpits too, yuck!!!
You guys are really desperate at this point, aren't you? Already attacking Kamala's step kids.
Aren't there some more goofy memes you can dig up about stuff that never happened?
This election is looking more and more like it will be about (and decided by) women. Good luck with your rapist misogynist and his bumbling VP candidate.
Any thoughts on the photos and videos of Trump's perfectly intact, undamaged ear that certainly did not have a bullet "rip through it" like he claimed?
I gave him the benefit of the doubt and waited for the best available evidence, which at this time would be photos that make it clear that there was not a bullet wound, or that a chunk was shot out, or whatever else Dr. Jackson claimed.
It looks like he might have had a nick from shrapnel (which could include a bullet fragment), which is a tragedy (the Secret Service screwed the pooch, for sure), but not the injury that we were led to believe occured.