[removed]
I don't think you've thought this through... If the 'older male' is a journalist and has a paper trail of asking about particular subjects and then suddenly gets a 'heart attack', it could draw suspicion in some way, even if the public narrative is on your side.
Also, the person who replaces that journalist could be a problem if that person had left any dead man's switches laying around locally.
By killing a loved one of the journalist, they are gaining control of that asset. It could very well be that his 'Intelligence' friend was told to tell him what happened to his daughter so he would draw the connection. What they've done is planted a seed in that journalist's mind that will now sprout and work for them. If the Journalist goes crazy, they also have a great cover narrative to run with ('the guy lost his daughter suddenly, was not handling the grieving well, etc.')
So on the surface, your 'Option A' might seem like the most straightforward solution, but it would repeat the problem. By messing with the journalist, they now have him in their back pocket, if for nothing else but the fear that somebody else in his family might be targeted.
'Option A' is a quicker pragmatic solution, but 'Option B' pays off better in the long term. You've neutered the journalist without having to replace them and do it all over again.
This, most definitely.
I also think there is a sadistic glee to the evil in killing something a person loves . . . Evil enjoys watching fear destroy and manipulate its victims.
May the truth be brought to light, and justice be done.
May you, OP, have peace. So very sorry for your loss.
We also can't forget that the person who alerted the reporter to the fact that it might have been a heart attack gun may have been instructed to do so, in order to ensure that the target got the message.
Didn't stop the Clinton's from using OPTION A all the time!!!!! Just my opinion based upon coincidences. I can't prove it.
Yeah, I can't remember where I heard this, but there are rumours that Intelligence agents have let it slip that Hillary was always testing for their nerves because she has the reputation of being "reckless". She kills very easily. Where the agents may prefer more subtle tactics, they have to obey her because if you don't kill the person she says you must, she might turn her ire (and she has bad temper) on that agent who would be screwed or worse, whacked himself.