Tucker Carlson’s recent video accusing the FBI of misleading the public about the assassination attempt on President Donald Trump raises serious concerns about the evidence and the narrative surrounding the incident. In a thirty-minute presentation, Carlson asserts that “Thomas Crooks came within a quarter inch of destroying this country,” yet he notes that a year and a half later, “we still know almost nothing about him or why he did it.” This bold accusation comes without physical evidence supporting claims that Crooks attempted to murder anyone.
Critics of Carlson’s assertions point out that he lacks a solid foundation for his claims. There is no physical evidence—be it from the FBI, local law enforcement, or any medical examiner—that directly ties Crooks to the shooting or substantiates claims of an assassination attempt on the president. While Carlson focuses on the FBI’s denial of Crooks’ online presence, questions linger regarding the core issue: the absence of concrete proof linking Crooks to the shooting.
The Congressional Task Force reported that a projectile recovered from the roof of the AGR building near the shooting site showed characteristics “consistent” with Secret Service weaponry. However, many recognize the ambiguity in that statement. “Consistent with?” asks the author. Such phrasing does not imply a definitive match, leaving the evidence questioned rather than confirmed. If the FBI’s ballistics report lacked clarity, it raises additional concerns about the integrity of the evidence.
Moreover, the timeline of evidence collection needs scrutiny. Crooks’ body remained exposed on the roof of the AGR building for hours, from the evening of the shooting until a coroner could examine it the next morning. This substantial delay creates opportunities for potential tampering that could compromise the investigation. As noted, “Who had control of the AGR building during the evening hours?” This question demands addressing, as it could reveal weaknesses in the evidence chain.
Questions around the autopsy of Thomas Matthew Crooks further complicate the narrative. The investigation reportedly did not include testing for psychiatric medications—a glaring omission considering the family’s history. Instead, the medical examiner focused solely on common substances like alcohol and drugs of abuse. Why would a thorough investigation overlook potential mind-altering drugs? Such a gap in testing is troubling, particularly for a case of this magnitude.
Additionally, the manner in which Crooks was identified during the autopsy raises eyebrows. The identification relied on a plastic bag of brown hair, with no accompanying documentation explaining how the medical examiner concluded that the remains belonged to Crooks. The lack of transparency surrounding these identifying factors leaves more questions than answers.
Carlson’s emphasis on the FBI’s alleged misrepresentation of Crooks’ online history distracts from the real issues: accountability and transparency that investigations necessitate. If Carlson believes there is fault to find, it should be directed at the continued withholding of key evidence, including the Pennsylvania State Police report. Why are such vital reports kept from public view? Carlson’s presentation would have been more compelling with these questions raised, especially given that ongoing prosecutions have stifled access to investigative information.
Furthermore, Carlson’s decision not to pursue the obvious questions about the alleged prosecutions leaves gaps in his inquiry. Why did he omit the details of those prosecutions? Understanding the context of the investigations could provide significant clarity.
In summary, while Carlson aims to unearth supposed deception by the FBI regarding Crooks’ online activity, the more pressing matter remains the absence of physical evidence to support claims of guilt. It is irresponsible to leap to conclusions about Crooks being the shooter based solely on two years of online discussions, overlooking the vital need for concrete proof.
The credibility of such a significant accusation requires clarity and thorough disclosure from investigators. Until the evidence is presented transparently to the public, understanding the truth behind the incident remains obscured. Questions about the investigation’s integrity deserve answers, and that should be the primary focus for those seeking accountability in this complex case.
"*" indicates required fields
