I’ll lay out why the public still has questions about the Butler attack, what new footage and reporting have stirred the pot, how the FBI responded with a concise case overview, and why many on the right are demanding more transparency from law enforcement.
Sixteen months after the shooting in Butler, Pennsylvania, the basic facts remain in dispute for a lot of people, and that fuels suspicion. A young man, Thomas Crooks, fired from a rooftop and a rally attendee, Corey Comperatore, was killed, yet large parts of Crooks’ background and motives are still murky. Supporters of Donald Trump and interested conservatives want direct answers about planning, contacts, and intent, and they expected clearer disclosure once allies occupied the Department of Justice and the FBI.
Bits and pieces have trickled out: he was 20 at the time and described by some as an “outcast,” he was seen in a sniper position before the attack, and reports surfaced that he had been experimenting with explosives months earlier. There are descriptions of ordered materials and correspondence about delays in shipping, plus claims of dry firing a handgun captured on video, all of which raise more questions than they resolve for those who want accountability. The raw fragments of the story leave room for many theories and strong feelings.
Conservative media attention intensified when a 35-minute presentation claimed to show a broader digital footprint than investigators had publicly acknowledged. That presentation suggested access to a Google Drive with videos and threatening messages attributed to Crooks, implying there was a substantial amount of material not previously shared with the public. The piece accumulated massive view counts and shifted public pressure onto officials to explain what they found and why more hasn’t been released.
Earlier this week, Tucker Carlson a 35-minute video that seemed to show Thomas Crooks had a larger digital footprint than have previously been thought. Carlson claims in his video that his team had accessed Crooks’ Google Drive, which included a video of the wannabe assassin dry firing a handgun, and obtained years’ worth of Crooks’ “violent” online threats.
“Thomas Crooks came within a quarter inch of destroying this country, and yet, a year and a half later, we still know almost nothing about him or why he did it. That’s because, for some reason, the FBI, even the current FBI, doesn’t want us to know,” Carlson argued.
In response to the renewed scrutiny, FBI Director Kash Patel posted a summary of the bureau’s investigative work that aimed to demonstrate exhaustive effort. The overview listed personnel, interviews, tip responses, device examinations, and hours of footage processed, all intended to show the investigation was thorough and methodical. That tweet drew a mix of praise and criticism, but notably many commenters demanded a face-to-face explanation on the same platforms that amplified the original reporting.
Crooks Case Overview:
Over 480 FBI employees were involved in the Thomas Crooks investigation. Employees conducted over 1,000 interviews, addressed over 2,000 public tips, analyzed data extracted from 13 seized digital devices, reviewed nearly 500,000 digital files, collected, processed, and synchronized hundreds of hours of video footage, analyzed financial activity from 10 different accounts, and examined data associated with 25 social media or online forum accounts.
The FBI’s investigation into Thomas Crooks identified and examined over 20 online accounts, data extracted from over a dozen electronic devices, examination of numerous financial accounts, and over 1,000 interviews and 2000 public tips.
The investigation, conducted by over 480 FBI employees, revealed Crooks had limited online and in person interactions, planned and conducted the attack alone, and did not leak or share his intent to engage in the attack with anyone.
The scale of the FBI’s review is significant on paper: hundreds of staff, thousands of leads processed, and nearly half a million digital files reviewed. But for many conservatives, numbers alone do not erase the perception of secrecy when major digital leads surface outside official channels. The central complaint is simple: if officials had everything they claim, why did outside journalists and commentators uncover additional material that appears to expand Crooks’ online footprint?
Public trust depends on more than counting interviews and devices; it rests on clarity about what was found, what remains unknown, and why certain materials are withheld from public view. Right-leaning audiences expect the bureau to show its work openly, especially on a case involving an attack on a political figure and the death of a civilian. Without that, speculation fills the vacuum and every new unofficial reveal looks like evidence of a cover-up.
Comments beneath the director’s summary were pointed and often demanded direct answers in televised interviews rather than terse social posts. That reflects a broader demand for accountability that many on the right feel has been absent in high-profile investigations for too long. Transparency, in practice, means releasing material or giving a clear explanation for not releasing it; anything less fuels doubt.
The story is still unfolding, and external reporting will continue to prod at inconsistencies and gaps in the public story. Conservatives will keep pushing for access to forensic detail, timelines, and communications that could settle lingering questions about motive, planning, and whether Crooks truly acted alone. Until there is clear, accessible disclosure, skepticism will remain the default setting among those who believe the American public deserves straightforward answers about threats to its leaders and to public safety.
Add comment