6 of 9 Former Trump Voters Say He Staged WHCD Shooting

5 articles · Updated · The Bulwark · May 4

A nine-person focus group of twice-over Trump voters who now disapprove of his presidency found six believed the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting was a “psyop” or false-flag operation.
Participants said the official account did not fit their view of presidential security, pointing to how an attacker could get close and to press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s pre-dinner line that “there will be some shots fired.”
Several also tied the episode to Trump’s push for a new White House ballroom, arguing conservative media pivoted unusually fast from the attack to promoting the project, despite no evidence supporting that theory.
The findings suggest a widening trust deficit for Trump: some former supporters also said the Butler attack and Charlie Kirk’s killing involved broader conspiracies, showing distrust now extends beyond Trump’s critics.

What makes a 'false flag' theory more believable to some than an official investigation's findings after a major security incident?

When official accounts and public belief diverge, how does technology blur the line between a real threat and a 'staged' event?