or work. And there's no word yet why. Is there an update on that? I didn't see an update this morning. But the unimpeachable source says there should have been somebody on the roof and the roof guy didn't show up. But we don't know why the roof guy didn't show up.

Now that still makes the possibility that there was some shenanigans, because we don't know why the roof guy didn't show up. However, I remind you that so far every single part of the story is consistent with the Dilbert filter that people are way less capable than you imagine they are and that people can make way more mistakes than you think possible. And DEI has probably infected the competence of the entire operation. Plus they had temps. I call them temps. They weren't the regular crew. So you had lots of reasons for incompetence. But I will admit that every part of the story is also compatible with a wild plot. I don't know how you can rule it out exactly. How do you rule out, well, there was a secret plot that we can't find? But let me show you this if I can make this work.

Here's a, Peter Duke went through the effort of putting together an aerial map that shows the location of stuff. Now you can't see it too clearly on my screen. If you want to see the good one with the high resolution, go to my feed on X. It'll be there this morning. And anyway it shows the locations of the shooter, the people who got shot, and some locations that the people who were conspiracy theorists might have, not be right, but the conspiracy theorists are imagining a second shooter and they think they see evidence of it, etc.

I'm going to say that confirmation bias would get you all the way there. Meaning that even though you're pretty sure that you've seen evidence that the shot could not have come from one place and there must have been multiple shooters and you heard too many and something bounced off a railing and somebody got shot who was in the wrong place, it couldn't have happened, must have been somebody else. So anyway, all that stuff is swirling around. In my opinion the hypothesis that it was part of a bigger plot and somebody else was involved is still live. That's a live hypothesis. The competing one that it was just massive incompetence like we see everywhere else all the time is also fully alive. So you've got two theories that are living completely. I mean both of them, you can't put a glove on them. I'd love to say that the Dilbert filter that it's just incompetence is the one that's better because the other one has some flaws. But the other one doesn't really have any flaws. It looks completely consistent with some kind of a larger plot. Doesn't mean it is, but it seems completely consistent with that.

Now one of the things we found out is that the shooter had a remote control and had a bomb, or actually two bombs, in his car in the parking lot. And people are saying, what's that for? They also say, how did he know how to make a bomb with a remote control? Is that something you could look up on the internet? And if he was looking up that kind of stuff on the internet and he didn't have any social media presence, none of this makes sense, does it? And if you could make an IED that you could detonate from a distance, wouldn't he use that? And why did he have it in the first place? If he's going to shoot, why does he need the IEDs? Somebody said it would be to create a diversion. So you shoot the president, you blow up a car, everybody looks at the car, you run away. Maybe. I've got a feeling it was more that he wanted to, if he got into the car, I think he was thinking to himself that if he escaped long enough to get into the car and if they caught him in the car, it would be better to blow up the car with himself in it. So it might have been a future suicide attempt in case he got halfway escaped and they pulled over the car and then he could blow up the car and something like that. So we don't know. But I have real questions about a guy who could put together a remote control bomb. I don't know how. I have no idea how hard that is. I mean obviously it happens in the Middle East all the time, but it seems like that's a little bit suggestive of some help.

Now do you believe that he has no social media or do you believe they're hiding it from you? Because here's the professional liar tell. I've told you that there's regular liars, just politicians, right? All the politicians are just sort of normal liars. But then there's a special elite group of liars that the Democrats bring out when they've got the big lie, the really big ones, the ones that nobody else is even willing to talk about because it's just ridiculous. So Swalwell is already out. And Swalwell is one of the group of designated liars that they sent out when they've got a whopper to tell. And he's telling that the shooter was a registered Republican and that he had Trump signs at his house. Do you know what Swalwell left out? He doesn't have a house. It's his parents' house. He lived with his parents. But the person who lives with the parents doesn't get to decide what signs are on the front lawn. So there is evidence that the parents are Republican. There is evidence that the shooter is registered as Republican. Now if the shooter registered as Republican, does that mean anything? Maybe yes, maybe no. I'm a registered Democrat and you're listening to me. So you can't trust what people register as. I can confirm that. So we don't know if that means anything.

We saw pictures of him wearing an American flag shirt not too long ago, which suggests he had some patriotic leanings, which suggests a little more Republican leaning than not. He obviously was comfortable with a gun and guns in the house, which again is suggesting Republican. But the fact that Swalwell is the one who has to come out and tell you he was a Republican strongly suggests that they know that's not the case. He's an indicator of the opposite. So if you see Swalwell, Schiff or Brennan or Clapper, they