Not that Jeanine Pirro couldn’t screw up anything she touched, but she looked adamant and sober when she stated, “Make no mistake, this was an attempted assassination of the President of the United States.” Her sentence then continued by directly contradicting this assertion.

The complaint charges Cole Allen with three counts (with more likely to come), the top count being 18 U.S.C. § 1751(c), attempted assassination of the president. The affidavit in support of the complaint relies entirely on a text attachment to an email Allen sent immediately beforehand, which is being called a “manifesto” to dredge up images of Karl Marx and the Unibomber.

While I’m discussing this, I’ll also go over my expected rules of engagement (probably in a terrible format, but I’m not military so too bad.)

Administration officials (not including Mr. Patel): they are targets, prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest
Secret Service: they are targets only if necessary, and to be incapacitated nonlethally if possible (aka, I hope they’re wearing body armor because center mass with shotguns messes up people who *aren’t*)
Hotel Security: not targets if at all possible (aka unless they shoot at me)
Capitol Police: same as Hotel Security
National Guard: same as Hotel Security
Hotel Employees: not targets at all
Guests: not targets at all

Notably, there is no mention of the president. More to the point, the primary targets are expressly stated to be “administration officials,” oddly excluding Kash Patel. Perhaps he considered Patel undeserving of attack, or perhaps he fell below the threshold of administration officials worthy of attack. Who knows? Allen does make references that suggest he was motivated to do this because of Trump.

I am a citizen of the United States of America.

What my representatives do reflects on me.

And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.

What exactly this means is unclear. On the one hand, this doesn’t exclude the president as a target. On the other hand, this provides no evidence of the specific intent to target the president, either. It would appear from this writing that his intent was not directed at any particular person, but rather at the generic group described as administration officials.

It’s politically understandable why AAG Todd Blanche and Pirro want to frame this as an assassination attempt against Trump. It makes Trump the putative martyr of radical left hatred, thus elevating his importance and invoking sympathy. It serves to bolster Trump’s desire for a White House ballroom, an unpopular whim that would not have been the venue of the White House Correspondents Dinner in any event, and it shifts attention away from the plethora of problems Trump faces, from the war in Iran to the economy to the Epstein files.

But the assassination of the president is a specific intent crime. The intent isn’t proven by empty rhetoric, no matter how often it’s repeated.

“The evidence is abundantly clear: Cole Tomas Allen traveled to Washington D.C. for the purpose of assassinating President Trump and targeting members of the Trump administration, “said FBI Director Kash Patel.

Targeting members of the Trump administration? Absolutely. Allen says so. Trump? That’s another matter.

“Cole Allen traveled across the country with deadly weapons and a plan to assassinate the President of the United States,” said U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro for the District of Columbia.

“This foiled plot was a brazen attempt to assassinate the president and numerous high-ranking U.S. government officials,” said Darren Cox, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office.

By charging Allen with the attempt to assassinate the president, rather than “administration officials,” has Pirro given the defense an opening to beat the top count based upon the lack of evidence that Trump was his specifically intended target? Is Trump’s political benefit gained from this allegation more important than the successful prosecution of Cole Allen?

Is the assumption that Allen would target Trump first, ceteris paribus, sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the specific intent crime of attempted assassination of the president? Is the evidence of intent “abundantly clear,” as Kash Patel claimed, or an exercise in facile prosecutorial sophistry to enhance Trump’s status?

*Tuesday Talk rules apply.