FBI Director Kash Patel provided an update on the investigation into Thomas Crooks, the man charged with attempting to assassinate former President Donald Trump during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13, 2024. This update comes in response to claims made by former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who alleged that Crooks had significant online warning signs of his violent intentions.
Patel emphasized that the inquiry, involving over 480 FBI personnel, determined that Crooks planned and executed the attack independently without sharing his intentions with anyone, contradicting Carlson’s assertions of a larger conspiracy. According to Patel, the extensive investigation included more than 1,000 interviews, examination of 2,000 public tips, and analysis of data from 13 digital devices and nearly 500,000 digital files. The FBI also scrutinized hundreds of hours of video footage and investigated financial activities across ten accounts, as well as data from 25 social media accounts.
In response to Carlson’s portrayal of Crooks as having a notable online presence filled with threats, the FBI clarified on its new “rapid response” account that it had never claimed Crooks had no online footprint. Carlson had claimed to have uncovered numerous violent comments made by Crooks on platforms such as YouTube, asserting these indicated he was not a solitary figure but had radicalized over time, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Despite the thorough investigation, the FBI has yet to uncover a clear motive behind Crooks’ actions. Patel maintained that Crooks acted alone, while Carlson has argued that the lack of transparency from the FBI raises concerns about the public’s understanding of the case. The violent incident resulted in injuries to two individuals, the death of fire chief Corey Comperatore, and left Trump himself wounded. Crooks was fatally shot by a Secret Service sniper shortly after the assault began.
This incident underscores ongoing debates around political violence and the importance of investigative transparency. As this case continues to unfold, it raises questions about the nature of radical ideologies and their impact on individual actions.