Tucker Carlson is set to reveal crucial findings regarding the assassination attempt on President Trump during his upcoming show Friday night. As the public awaits this disclosure, several critical questions remain unanswered about the man accused of the attempt, Thomas Crooks.
The uncertainty surrounding Crooks’ background is significant. Despite being identified as the alleged shooter, there are inconsistencies pertaining to the details of his identification by Butler County officials. Reports indicate that the body of the alleged assassin was not viewed by the coroner until 6 a.m. on July 14, contradicting earlier claims. This confusion raises major concerns about the investigation’s integrity and the procedures surrounding it.
The investigation into Crooks has not yielded clear answers about his identification. It is troubling that the Butler and Allegheny County Medical Examiners have not produced documentation, including DNA analysis or other identification measures. Why this information is missing deserves immediate clarity. With Crooks’ body lying on the AGR Building roof overnight, the absence of a thorough investigation appears problematic.
Even more pressing is the lack of transparency regarding the ballistics involved in the shooting. The House Task Force on the attempt has relayed that evidence collected from the scene appears to match the ammunition fired by a Secret Service sniper. However, the vague language of “consistent with” raises doubt. Existing reports fail to provide definitive proof regarding whether the rounds fired at Trump matched Crooks’ weapon. The public deserves a clear, comprehensive ballistics report that states whether Crooks’ weapon was indeed the source of the fired projectiles.
The handling of forensic evidence, such as potential psychiatric evaluations of Crooks, is also in question. Reports indicate that the Medical Examiner may not have conducted vital tests for prescription drugs. Without these tests, crucial insights into Crooks’ mental state remain unexamined. The fact that his body was cremated within days presents a further obstacle to understanding the events leading up to the assassination attempt, particularly regarding his mental health.
There is also concern over Crooks’ upbringing and environment. Reports describe troubling behavior, yet the reactions from his parents and mental health professionals appear lacking. Crooks’ father reportedly noticed troubling behaviors but seemed unconcerned by them. Such red flags, compounded by the absence of intervention, should be rigorously examined to understand the broader implications surrounding Crooks’ actions and intentions.
Equally important is scrutiny of the FBI and local officials concerning their investigation. Many have expressed skepticism about their transparency and willingness to provide updates on ongoing investigations. A notable statement from a House Task Force member implied that the FBI is withholding information due to two ongoing prosecutions, yet this does not excuse the prolonged silence regarding the physical evidence gathered post-shooting.
Questions arise about the importance placed on the statement from Patel and Bongino regarding the weapon’s presence and their claim of holding it. Yet, without tangible evidence linking Crooks to the weapon or confirming his fingerprints, such claims fall short of addressing the critical issues at hand.
The absence of transparency extends beyond the FBI. Both the Pennsylvania State Police and local medical examiners have failed to disclose findings associated with the shooting. These ongoing information gaps perpetuate public distrust regarding the investigation’s integrity.
In the upcoming announcement, Carlson may address these significant discrepancies and provide the much-needed clarity that has been lacking. As it stands, the mystery surrounding the events is substantial, and the public deserves thorough explanations and evidence. The upcoming reveal could shed much-needed light on a case that demands answers and accountability.
"*" indicates required fields
