Have we considered that the assassin, directly or indirectly, is a seditious third party actor trying to destabilize the US?

I am not claiming this is true. But merely that if I was employed to destabilize the US, I would claim to have been responsible for a number of recent events in order to please my boss.

I am hoping the possibility of a joint common enemy can perhaps unite people in America a bit.

There's also a possibility that a democratic country in the Middle East with the letter I is involved here, because Charlie Kirk began publicly questioning and speaking about the billions in financial aid it receives. Seems pretty petty on the surface but apparently this country cannot afford to take further hits to its image worldwide, especially in the US.

How would you define "third party" in this case? We now know that the assassin was a follower of Nick Fuentes, acting on the suggestion of Laura Loomer. Both are working with Donald Trump on destabilizing the US. On top of that, the victim itself was also a seditious actor trying to destabilize the US.

In that light, does it really matter what tier party the assassin belonged to? The joint common enemy you allude to is already inside the white house, and as long as that is still up for debate, the country has no future.

Yes, I was considering that just now, and I thought it's probably not Russians, anyway. There's been a series of actual Russian attempts to destabilize France, including one in the news currently, and they're crude and easily traced because they're carried out by hiring Serbians and Moldovans and Bulgarians to make a relatively short journey and do something relatively easy and low-risk, motivated by money.

The guy who shot Trump in the ear had (arguably) no particular ideology or goal, just an interest in assassinations and a possible depressive disorder.