Yes, the distinction between debris and bullet *is* important. [View all]

[Tommy Carcetti]

I am well aware that the shooter--and once again as we'll all point out, a fellow Republican--was shooting at Trump and even if one of his bullets did not hit Trump, that wouldn't disqualify it as an assassination attempt.

Some people--even here--have said that whether Trump was actually shot or merely shot at and injured by debris is nothing more than a distinction without a difference.

But Trump's immediate reaction, his supporters' reactions, and their overall proclivity to lie and distort the truth and thereby control the messaging should not be swept aside.

"Took a bullet" sells much better to the voting public than "took some inadvertent debris." It sounds neater, more cool, more sacrificial for a man who is inherently selfish by nature.

They want people to think Trump is literally bullet proof, that bullets could magically bounce off his body as if it were rubber.

And if it was truthfully a bullet, so be it.

But I've heard from a fair amount of people that a bullet of that type from that sort of gun even providing a side glance to the head wouldn't have done nearly that minimal damage that we saw. That what we saw was more consistent with some sort of debris from the shooting hitting Trump in the process, whether it be glass or something else.

So, yes, we as the American public do deserve to know the truth as to whether Trump was actually shot, or merely shot at and received minor injuries in the process.

Because Trump and his campaign can't be trusted with handling the truth themselves. They never have been.