Mark, a meticulous researcher and an unparalleled expert in FBI corruption, has developed a compelling theory: there’s a 60% chance that the 2024 assassination attempts on former President Donald Trump were orchestrated by a rogue FBI counterintelligence element within the Executive Branch. Mark’s theory began with a critical observation—Kamala Harris’ internal polling in 2024 showed a likely Trump victory, providing a motive for the Democratic establishment to eliminate him. This motive was compounded by the Republicans’ aggressive efforts to eliminate election fraud, which threatened Democratic strategies and heightened the stakes of a Trump win. Mark argues that Biden and Harris’ rhetoric—“Trump as a fascist,” “threat to democracy”—served dual purposes: signaling to skilled government operatives to conduct a covert killing of Trump and nudging individuals, inside or outside government, to act. Mark’s deep knowledge of FBI misconduct, drawn from the December 2019 DOJ Inspector General (IG) report and related testimonies, supports his theory, making it alarmingly plausible. To bolster his argument, Mark draws an analogy to Rene Boucher’s 2017 attack on Senator Rand Paul, highlighting the incident’s details and Paul’s severe condition afterward—details often overlooked by the public. Let’s explore Mark’s expert analysis, from documented FBI corruption in the Trump-Russia investigation to the mechanics of a 2024 rogue plot, and how they culminate in his 60% assessment.
Motive: Harris’ Polling, Republican Election Fraud Crackdown, and Biden-Harris Rhetoric: Mark’s theory originates with a strategic motive: Harris’ internal polling in 2024 indicated a likely Trump victory, threatening Democratic control. This fear was amplified by the Republicans’ efforts to eliminate election fraud, which Mark notes included tightened voting laws, increased monitoring, and legal challenges, as reported in mid-2024. These efforts risked exposing Democratic vulnerabilities, making Trump’s removal a potential solution to secure power. Mark argues that Biden and Harris’ rhetoric served two purposes: first, signaling to government operatives—like FBI counterintelligence agents—with the skills to conduct a covert killing of Trump; second, nudging individuals, inside or outside government, to act against Trump, framing him as an existential threat. Mark suggests that rogue FBI agents could have supplied support through cut-outs, providing guns, ammo, or explosives, and emphasizes that the same agents conducting the operation would likely investigate the attempts, ensuring control over the narrative and evidence.
Mark’s Expertise: Analyzing Documented FBI Corruption in the Carter Page FISA Debacle: Mark’s granular understanding of the December 2019 DOJ IG report, Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation. He highlights the Carter Page FISA warrants (2016-2017), noting the FBI’s reliance on the Steele dossier, which the IG report states “almost drew entirely from Steele’s reporting” (page 111), despite being unverified. Mark cites the report’s 17 “significant inaccuracies and omissions” (page 112), including the FBI’s failure to disclose the dossier’s DNC funding via Fusion GPS. He points to FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s knowledge by January 2017 that Steele’s sub-sources described the information as “bar talk with no evidence” (pages 129-132), yet they allowed its use in FISA renewals. Most critically, Mark pinpoints Kevin Clinesmith’s lie to a DOJ attorney (page 157), altering a CIA email to falsely state Carter Page was “not a source,” despite Page’s 2008-2013 role as a CIA asset aiding Russian arrests. Mark’s expertise in analyzing this documented misconduct underscores his argument: the FBI’s willingness to manipulate evidence sets a precedent for rogue actions in 2024.
Anti-Trump Sentiment at Senior Levels: Mark’s Analysis of Baker’s Testimony: Mark’s knowledge extends to James Baker’s 2018 testimony before the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees. He cites Rep. Mark Meadows’ question, “I guess my question is, was there the feelings that the President needed to be removed from office?” Baker’s counsel, Daniel Levin, instructed him not to answer, citing “chain of command”—a “B.S. dodge,” per Mark. While Baker elsewhere confirmed discussions among senior officials about wearing a wire to record Trump and invoking the 25th Amendment, Mark finds this exchange “damning,” as it reveals anti-Trump bias at the FBI’s top levels post-Comey firing (May 2017). Levin’s dodge proves Mark’s point: congressional oversight is “meaningless,” enabling rogue agents to act in 2024 with impunity, spurred by Biden-Harris rhetoric echoing this earlier sentiment.
Mechanics of a Rogue Plot: Mark’s Analysis of FBI Capabilities: Mark highlights the FBI’s capability for a 2024 plot. He argues that counterintelligence agents could use cut-outs—encrypted platforms, fake profiles—to supply support (e.g., guns, ammo, explosives) to the Butler (July 13, 2024) and West Palm Beach (September 15, 2024) suspects, Thomas Matthew Crooks and Ryan Wesley Routh, without their knowledge. Mark draws historical parallels to the CIA’s SR-71 titanium acquisition and the Manhattan Project, which maintained secrecy despite scale, suggesting the FBI could execute a leak-free operation. Crucially, Mark emphasizes that the agents conducting the operation would likely investigate the attempts, as reported on July 14, 2024, allowing them to suppress evidence and control the narrative, a tactic enabled by their domestic focus and investigative authority.
Mark’s Boucher-Paul Analogy: Details of the Attack and Paul’s Condition: Mark’s analytical skill extends to an analogy with Rene Boucher’s 2017 attack on Senator Rand Paul, emphasizing details often overlooked by the public to illustrate how ideological rage can drive violence. On November 3, 2017, in the Rivergreen gated community in Bowling Green, Kentucky, Boucher, a retired anesthesiologist and Paul’s neighbor, tackled Paul while he was mowing his lawn. Boucher, reportedly frustrated over Paul’s habit of stacking yard debris near their property line—an issue he claimed devalued his home—charged at Paul from behind. Paul, wearing sound-muting earmuffs, didn’t hear Boucher coming and was “blindsided,” as his spokesman Sergio Gor stated. Boucher later admitted he “wasn’t thinking rationally,” calling it “two minutes of my life I wish I could take back” during a 2019 civil trial.
The attack’s severity left Paul in a dire condition, a fact Mark stresses to highlight the brutality of such ideologically driven acts. Paul suffered six broken ribs, three of which were displaced fractures, meaning the bones were partly or completely cracked. He also sustained bruised lungs, small cuts to his nose and mouth, and fluid buildup in his chest, leading to two bouts of pneumonia. Paul described the ordeal as a “living hell” for the first four to five weeks, unable to get out of bed without assistance and struggling to breathe, as he told CBS News in January 2018. During a 2020 sentencing hearing, Paul stated he flew 10 feet from the force of the tackle, resulting in a “significant injury that I have lifelong symptoms from,” adding, “I don’t know what a night without pain is like.” Paul’s wife, Kelley, testified in 2019 that she found him “shallow breathing, short of breath, dead white, blood coming out of his eye,” fearing he had been left for dead. Paul later underwent lung and hernia surgeries due to the attack’s lasting effects, including damage requiring part of his lung to be removed.
Mark argues that while Boucher claimed the attack stemmed from a property dispute, the underlying ideological tension—Boucher’s anti-Trump, pro-nationalized healthcare views clashing with Paul’s libertarian stance—likely fueled his rage, as noted by neighbor Jim Bullington in a 2017 Washington Post interview. Mark sees parallels to a rogue FBI agent in 2024: if Boucher, a high-functioning doctor, could act on such motives, a trained FBI agent, exposed to Biden-Harris’ rhetoric, could orchestrate a sophisticated plot against Trump, leveraging his greater vilification.
Challenges to Mark’s Theory: Mark’s 60% assessment reflects uncertainty. No public evidence links the 2024 attempts to the FBI, despite scrutiny. The suspects’ lone-wolf profiles, reported on July 13 and September 15, 2024, suggest opportunism, though Mark’s expertise in covert manipulation keeps this possibility alive. The digital era risks exposure via leaks or metadata, unlike pre-Internet operations like the Manhattan Project. Republican-led probes in 2024, reported on July 30, 2024, add scrutiny, though Mark’s understanding of the FBI’s investigative control mitigates this.
Conclusion: Mark’s Expert 60% Probability: Mark’s expertise in FBI corruption, rooted in his analysis of the IG report, Clinesmith’s lie, Comey and McCabe’s misconduct, Page’s testimony, Baker’s evasiveness, the Stone filing, and Mueller’s testimony, makes a rogue 2024 plot plausible. Harris’ polling, Republican election fraud efforts, and Biden-Harris rhetoric provide motive, while the FBI’s capabilities and investigative control enable the mechanics of such a plot. The Boucher-Paul analogy, with its vivid details of the attack and Paul’s near-fatal condition, underscores how ideological rage can drive violence, paralleling a potential FBI plot against Trump. Though evidence gaps remain, Mark’s 60% assessment reflects a balanced suspicion of an agency with a troubling track record, capable of hiding a rogue operation behind a veil of unaccountability. His insights demand further scrutiny of the FBI’s role in the 2024 attempts, as the stakes for democratic trust are profound.
Published by Editor, Sammy Campbell.