For various Big Deals, and little deals infuriating our daily lives, to happen, certain unlikelihoods (permission to use without attribution) must coincide.

Something which happens once every hundred days at random has a one over one hundred chance of happening tomorrow. Something which happens every twenty days, one over twenty. Once which hardly ever happens at all is one over….how much?

If all three of these must coincide for something to happen, the mathematical probability is one over one hundred times one over twenty (one over two thousand) which is to say the likelihood of it happening tomorrow is one in two thousand) times one over hardly ever. So when it does happen, what mathematical result do we have which makes purposeful direction more likely?

We all have our own view of probability. But when you add up–which is to say multiply, the things which went wrong–ed. comment, things which were done wrong which could have been done right according to protocol and the usual way things have been done for years but this time were done wrong all at once–the number has a lot of zeros after the decimal point.

And since human agency, official agency, was involved in each of these coinciding unlikelihoods, maybe the mate doesn’t apply.

The alternative is….?

Okay, Aubrey’s peddling a conspiracy theory. So do the math and tell me what you get, huh?

Would somebody like to go through the train of events and non-events and make the point that one–pick one–wasn’t necessary and would have prevented Crooks getting off his shot?

Crooks was cremated 10 days after his death. An autopsy was performed and then his body was released to his parents.

Seems like a logical procedure under the circumstances.

I watched Carlson’s video. I agree it doesn’t reveal much, but, unfortunately, Carlson does what he too often does, making hyperbolic statements and insinuating connections that the data elements in the video don’t prove.

He states as a statement of fact, “surely the FBI knew of him…” several times, based on goofy things Crooks typed when he was 15. If there is an FBI agent assigned to researching every 15 year old who types something dumb on the Internet the FBI is much, much larger than I imagine.

But, if we believe Carlson’s statement that the FBI knew of him so many years before he shot Donald Trump than the next, logical conclusion is there is a reason the FBI didn’t interview or apprehend Crooks. Why, they must have wanted Crooks to go rogue, or, even worse, the FBI was turning Crooks themselves.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carlson takes miniscule evidence and blows it up into outrageous conspiracies. But, of course, he’s just asking questions.

I’ve heard that said about him, but I also recall seeing on the night of the shooting a screenshot of a social media page with Crooks’ name and photo in which he described himself as an “anti-fascist.” The account was locked, so only the basic profile was public, not any details. But since only leftists use that term to describe themselves, it put to bed the claim at the time that Trump’s shooter was “right-wing”, a claim Democrats were making online that night.

Does the FBI not have the ability to view such accounts, even under subpoena, once the social media service deletes them?

Yes, that was exceedingly lame. But extreme incompetence is always a possibility.

Still, the “but the roof [where Crooks shot] had too much of a slope for us expert professionals to bother taking seriously” gambit, cobbled rather shabbily together by the Secret Service Numera Una, really takes the cake. THAT absurd, gobsmacking excuse points without a doubt to a coverup and should be enshrined in a special “IDIOTS” Hall of Fame.

Whom did she really believe she’d be able to convince???