FBI director doubts Donald Trump’s claim that he suffered gunshot wounds in an assassination attempt

FBI Director Christopher Wray expressed uncertainty Wednesday about the nature of the injury former President Donald Trump suffered in an assassination attempt earlier this month. In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Wray said it remains unclear whether Trump was hit by a bullet.

During the hearing, Rep. Kevin Kiley asked about the proximity of the bullet to Trump’s death. Wray replied that he did not know the exact distance, but mentioned that either a bullet or shrapnel grazed Trump’s ear, The New Republic reported.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan continued to question Wray about the whereabouts of the eight bullets fired by attacker Thomas Crooks. Wray reiterated the ambiguities surrounding the incident, admitting that it was not clear whether it was a bullet or shrapnel that injured Trump’s ear. He assured the committee that the FBI recorded all the shots, but could not definitively state the exact trajectory of the bullet that grazed Trump.

Trump told a crowd in Michigan over the weekend that he had “taken a bullet for democracy.” That same day, Axios reported on a memo from Trump’s former White House doctor. The memo, shared by the Trump campaign, said the bullet struck Trump’s ear, narrowly missed his head and left a one-inch wound.

Wray’s testimony also revealed that Crooks had researched the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and had flown a drone over the site before attempting to assassinate Trump. Despite this additional information, Wray’s remarks underscored the ongoing uncertainty about the details of Trump’s injury.

Wray stressed that the investigation is ongoing and many details remain to be determined. He noted that the FBI’s understanding of the incident continues to evolve as the circumstances of the attack become more detailed.

That statement has sparked further scrutiny and speculation about the nature of Trump’s injury and the overall security implications of the incident. The ambiguity leaves questions about the effectiveness of protective measures and the true nature of the threat posed by Crooks.

The House Judiciary Committee’s investigation into the FBI’s handling of the case underscores the growing concern about the safety of public figures and the critical importance of accurate information following such attacks. As the investigation progresses, the public and authorities await clearer answers about exactly what happened on that fateful day.

Meanwhile, the former president’s statements and the ongoing investigation continue to dominate headlines, reflecting the high level of public interest and the seriousness of the situation. The incident has undeniably added complexity to an already turbulent political landscape, and the potential consequences extend far beyond the immediate aftermath of the attack.