The recent revelations from the FBI regarding the investigation into the Thomas Matthew Crooks case raise numerous questions about transparency and accountability within the Bureau. Kash Patel and Danny Bongino, the FBI’s top officials, have reiterated their stance that Crooks acted alone in the July assassination attempt. However, essential details remain shrouded in ambiguity—specifically, why Crooks’ body lay on the AGR Building roof for an entire night before being identified.
According to reports, the Butler County Coroner, William Young III, attempted to investigate the body late at night but was turned away, instructed to return the next morning. This raises significant concerns about the chain of command within the FBI and how such an odd occurrence could be deemed acceptable. Many wonder why law enforcement left a potential assassin’s body on the roof overnight. Could it suggest a lack of urgency or perhaps something more concerning? Even Patel and Bongino, known for their scrutiny of FBI decisions, might find themselves questioning the Bureau’s handling of the situation if they weren’t at the helm.
The communication from Patel and Bongino to a lesser-known Fox News podcaster, rather than recognized investigators, casts further doubt on the agency’s commitment to transparency. It’s puzzling why more prominent journalists, like Miranda Devine of the New York Post, who recently reported on Crooks’s troubling online activity, were not granted the same opportunity to ask critical questions. This seems indicative of a calculated approach to avoid critical scrutiny.
While Patel and Bongino emphasize that they have meticulously reviewed every aspect of the investigation, glaring omissions in their narrative remain. They claimed the investigation is in a “pending active status,” yet this assertion contradicts earlier remarks they made to Maria Bartiromo, where they cited pending court cases as the reason for withholding further information. Such inconsistencies only serve to fuel skepticism.
The investigation’s crucial lack of evidence, particularly regarding the firearm used by Crooks and its projectiles, is troubling. The FBI reported Crooks fired eight rounds but did not confirm whether these matched the weapon recovered from the scene. In addition, they mentioned an undetonated explosive in Crooks’ vehicle but failed to disclose which vehicle was involved. This vagueness invites suspicion. Were there multiple vehicles present on the day of the shooting? Clear answers to these pressing questions remain elusive.
Moreover, Patel’s claim that all documents and evidence were shared with Congress is misleading. There are still critical reports, including ballistics data and DNA evidence, that should be made public. Shouldn’t the public have access to this information, particularly given the serious nature of the investigation? As Patel and Bongino assert their findings, clarity is paramount. They cannot continue to hide behind pending investigations or vague statuses.
Ultimately, the public deserves to see the findings of the FBI investigation into Crooks. Current leadership cannot echo previous calls for transparency while withholding information now. If the officials have reached a conclusion, it is time for them to release the investigation details, allowing the public to draw their own conclusions. The narrative should not rely solely on interpretations from officials who have been called to account for their actions. The truth, once revealed, will speak for itself.
"*" indicates required fields
