(I must post this)

‘Lady MacBiden’

Trump assassination attempt: Does Dr. Jill Biden need to be questioned?

July 22, 2024 by Dr. Naomi Wolf1/5 or 6

Visit Naomi Wolf’s Substack.

I am careful about my words. I don’t throw around accusations, and, for the legal record, I am not here making an accusation. This essay is deliberately written so as to not be an act of defamation or of libel.

Here is my immediate response on Saturday July 13, to the assassination attempt. As I warned you all in my recent essay “What Time It is”, aboutthe incarceration of Stephen K Bannon, the attempt on President Trump’s life on Saturday July 13 was sadly predictable, as we are in the period, foreseeable per thehistorical record in a declining democracy, of the “physical mopping-up of the opposition.”

Subsequent to the assassination attempt against President Trump last Saturday in Butler, PA, I need to talk about Dr Jill Biden and her office.

I believe Dr Jill Biden andHunter Biden and Dr Jill Biden’s staff need to be investigatedsubsequent to (my awkward grammar is to avoid the legal repercussions of saying, “in relation to”) the assassination attempt against President Trump.

In general — being careful about libel law — =I need to discuss the realities of what days are like in the offices of POTUS== (President of the United States) and of FLOTUS (First Lady of the United States).

We all know by now thatPresident Trump’s Secret Service detail left around him gaping vulnerabilities. My husband Brian O’Shea (@brianosheaSPI), who spent a career in military intelligence, in intelligence, and then in private security, including in “close protection,” — indeed, that was how I met him, as he had to secure me and my home, after I had received death threats — examined, at my request, videos of President Trump’s speech in Butler PA on July 13, 2024, assessing the shot that struck Pres Trump’s right ear, and the shots that killed heroic fire chief Corey Comperatore.

Brian identified at least ten major security practice anomalies.

These ranged from a missing third counter-sniper team — meaning that a “fan” of a given area is left unprotected — to the fact, noted by many, that several of the ==Secret Service agents were too short to cover President Trump=, thus leaving his head and neck fully exposed after shots were fired, to the fact that neither building from which the alleged assailant, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, fired his shot or shots, nor the parking lot in front of it, was secured, to the fact that one of the Secret Service agents fumbled so obviously with her weapon, not succeeding in replacing it in its holster, that this revealed, in Brian’s view, a lack of familiarity with the weapon, as well as inadequate training.

Since we recorded that video, many other important anomalies have been identified by commentators.

Capping the many anomalies is the statement that Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle made to ABC News, explaining that no Secret Service snipers were placed on the roof of the building from which Crooks allegedly fired, because it had a “sloped roof.” Four days after the assassination attempt, as I write, it’s clear, and not a “conspiracy theory,” =that this event was not a simple tragedy= — some random disgruntled kid somehow successfully firing at a President, in spite of all the efforts of what are suppose to be the best security forces in the world —but that other forces are at play.

I need to explain some important things about this story, based on my long experience around decision-makers in comparable contexts.

The first is that: at an event such as this, nothing happens by accident.

I was the wife of a Clinton White House speechwriter; my then-husband spent his days traveling to events such as the one in Butler PA,or to the one at which FLOTUS spoke at the same time, in North Pittsburgh, PA,or to other similar White House events. So our household was familiar with the mechanics of the events that Presidents and First Ladies attend.

I later became an advisor to Dick Morris, President Clinton’s chief campaign advisor for his re-election campaign in 1996. Still later, I was a formal campaign advisor to Vice President Gore’s campaign for the Presidency.In all of these contexts, which spanned years, I witnessed closely the process by which a President’s staff, and a First Lady’s staff,and then a Vice President and his staff, work alongside (and in very prescribed ways, with) a campaign, and I saw howstaffers manage the day to day of the “Principals’’ jobs.

People need to understand this process of how decisions are made during campaigns, in order to avoid the mistakes in interpreting of the events in Pennsylvania, that many are now making; and in order to avoid being spun by the spin to which Americans are now being subjected….

https://www.frontpagemag.com/__trashed-29/

>>21272768

2/5 or 6=

I wish to stress that NOTHING AT THAT LEVEL HAPPENS SPONTANEOUSLY OR CASUALLY.

While certainly there can be a specific staffer who is incompetent and who may make a specific mistake in event planning,that staffer will be quickly fired. Repeated sequential mistakes, let alone multiple mistakes at the same venue and time, simply cannot happen.

Every event you see that is attended by thePresident or the First Lady, has had, as a routine, daily, SOP-rigid process, from which there is never any deviation – -from which no deviation is possible— layers and layers of scrupulous vetting by multiple senior staffers and by multiple agencies.

Every detail is cleared by many layers of officials with various forms of authority, long in advance.

Thecurrent media and White House spin is that the First Lady “spontaneously” decided to speak at an event promoted for at least a weekin advance: a Sons and Daughters of Italy =event for 200, at the Rivers Casino in North Pittsburgh. I state — and anyone who has worked in or with a White House can confirm or else challenge this — that there can be no such thing as a “spontaneous” addition to the schedule== on the campaign trail. FLOTUS or POTUS can’t “spontaneously” change the schedule.

An event is proposed, during a campaign, by the Campaign Manager.Julie Chavez Rodriguez is Pres. Biden’s Campaign Manager. Interestingly, she formerly worked for him in the White House, as “Senior advisor and White House director of intergovernmental affairs, Joe Biden presidential administration.”Jennifer O’Malley Dillon is Pres. Biden Campaign Chairwoman. She too was shifted over from the White House: as she was “Senior advisor and White House director of intergovernmental affairs, Joe Biden presidential administration”.

Mia Ehrenberg is Pres Biden’s Campaign’s “National Spokesperson.” Somewhat creepily, she came over fromhaving been Press Secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Mia Ehrenberg:

It’s notable for several reasons to have White House staff transfer to serve as campaign staffers – in part becauseFEC law means careful separations between the two teams.

The point here is, all the senior people in both theWhite House and on the Campaign, know very well how secure vetting for an event works.

A proposed event has to be signed off by the Campaign Director. It also has to be signed off by the Chief of Staff at the White House. Since the resignation of Ron Klain,Jeff Zientz has been the White House Chief of Staff. (He alsojoined the Facebook Board of Directors in 2018=). He would also be very familiar with secure planning, as in November 2020, “he became a member of three agency review teams for the Biden Transition==: Department of Defense, Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Homeland Security.[4]”

[Jeff Zients]:

Both the Campaign Director and the Chief of Staff are reacting to requests (which are nonstop) from donors, grassroots groups, other politicians, etc,for the “principal” – meaning POTUS or FLOTUS. These requests go to the scheduler for both the White House team and for the Campaign (two different people). The top White House staffers meet daily with the Chief of Staff to review the set of proposals and events for POTUS and FLOTUS, and to refine the schedule. The same process takes place with the campaign team. The campaign team puts their requests formally to the White House chief of staff and scheduler.Lawyers review each request, and indeed any contact between the Campaign and the White House, to avoid the campaign violating FEC law.

Each request goes to all senior staffers, including the Chief of Staff, before it is put by the scheduler (a very important, influential person) onto the all-important schedule.The process of clearing an event to put on the schedule is multifaceted and iron-clad.

The speech that will be given at the event has to be checked by the relevant departments: State Department and Pentagon if it involves foreign or military affairs. HUD if it mentions housing, and so on. If there is anything in the speech that is wrong or that causes political blowback, it has to be revised and resubmitted until it is cleared. And so on.

The people onstage with “the principal”, introducing “the principal”, near “the principal” at any time (all of which is carefully choreographed), and/or in photoswith him or her, must all be vetted well in advance.

The backgrounds of everyone must be checked, both in law enforcement databases and by opposition researchers in-house; did they say something racist in 2004, or harass an employee, in 1998? It all has to be examined in advance, in order to protect the reputation of “the principal” from unexpected risk, blowback or bad press.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/__trashed-29/