Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 11/14/2025 7:45:09 AM PST by Miami Rebel
Tucker Carlson is now openly alleging that the Trump-era FBI — not just Biden’s — is lying about critical details of the attempted assassination of President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania.
That is the core, explosive thrust of his just-released video (embedded below): that the very federal law-enforcement leadership now serving in Trump’s second term — including his newly installed FBI team led by Kash Patel and Dan Bongino — is obscuring what really happened on the rooftop where Thomas Crooks nearly killed a former president.
Carlson isn’t just challenging federal law enforcement; he is accusing Trump’s own handpicked security leadership of helping shield the truth.
The FBI saw it coming. Hours before Carlson’s video dropped, the bureau released a preemptive statement insisting there was “no evidence of advance warnings” and urging the public to “avoid speculation.” Whether that was simple bureaucratic defensiveness or genuine concern about misinformation is almost beside the point — Carlson had forced the FBI to respond to him before he even made his case public.
Before Carlson even gets to the timeline, he spends several minutes reframing who Thomas Crooks actually was — and here, his case is surprisingly strong. Drawing from Crooks’ online comments, saved posts, and archived forum activity, Carlson argues that the 20-year-old wasn’t a covert leftist or an Antifa radical, but a deeply alienated young man steeped in hard-right conspiratorial culture.
He points to Crooks’ repeated praise for fringe-right influencers, his fixation on “Deep State traitors,” and posts describing Trump as “the only one fighting for us,” a pattern Carlson says directly contradicts the early media framing that Crooks was politically “unclear.”
Whatever else remains murky about the rooftop in Butler, Carlson insists Crooks’ digital footprint shows a classic right-wing grievance spiral, not a partisan mystery. And that, in Carlson’s telling, only makes the FBI’s rush to downplay motive more suspicious. He then builds his argument chronologically.
He first focuses on the missed rooftop warnings. Multiple rallygoers reported seeing a young man on a nearby building with a backpack and rangefinder minutes before Trump took the stage. “People saw him,” Carlson says. “They told authorities. And nothing happened.” This becomes Carlson’s foundational claim: that federal officials didn’t just fail to protect Trump — they immediately began concealing how badly they’d failed.
He then highlights shifting early FBI descriptions of Crooks’ motives and background. Initial statements suggested no political motivation; later ones acknowledged searches for both Trump and Biden. Carlson reads these shifts as evidence that the FBI is reverse-engineering a narrative rather than disclosing one.
Third, he attacks the FBI’s timeline, saying it omits witnesses who reported Crooks before the shooting. “Why does the FBI timeline pretend these witnesses don’t exist?” he asks. As usual, Carlson deploys questions as weapons — interrogatives that function as accusations while allowing him to disclaim that he’s making any.
What elevates this installment beyond Carlson’s familiar institutional suspicion is who he’s accusing. Carlson directly targets Trump-appointed FBI Director Christopher Wray and two Trump-aligned national-security veterans: Kash Patel and Dan Bongino. Both have publicly defended the Secret Service and FBI’s handling of the incident — Patel saying agencies “followed proper protocol,” Bongino arguing the rooftop “may not have been a legitimate threat at the time.”
Their defenses matter politically. Both men are fixtures in conservative media and seen as institutional truth-tellers precisely because they served under Trump — which makes their endorsement of the official story particularly valuable to the FBI, and particularly troubling to Carlson. His core implication is unmistakable: if the narrative is flawed, then Trump’s own team helped build it.
This is the fulcrum of the video — Carlson turning his suspicion inward at Trump’s security apparatus. It is rare for him to suggest that Trump’s DOJ mishandled something this consequential. Here, he implies the opposite of what his audience is accustomed to hearing: the system did not break in 2021. It was already breaking.
Carlson closes with his signature rhetorical device of asking five pointed questions, presented here exactly as he asks them:
“If the Secret Service had advance warnings about a suspicious individual on a rooftop, why were those warnings ignored?” “If multiple witnesses saw Crooks before the shooting, why does the FBI timeline pretend they didn’t exist?” “If local law enforcement raised concerns, why were they overridden — and by whom?” “If the FBI is confident in its account, why has that account changed so many times?” “And most obvious of all: Who benefited from the security failure that nearly killed a former president?”
These are framed as neutral inquiries, but the allegation is clear: the federal government — under Trump and Biden — concealed or distorted critical facts about how a 20-year-old gunman got within firing distance of Donald Trump.
Carlson has now done something unusual. He has turned his fire on Trump’s own DOJ, suggesting the rot he sees did not begin in 2021 and did not end when Trump left office. Whether this represents ideological consistency or simply another mechanism to keep his audience in a state of permanent distrust is the open question — but the implication is unmistakable.
In Carlson’s telling, no administration can be trusted. Not even Trump’s.
Watch the full video below:
Who is Thomas Crooks? pic.twitter.com/WwjvPGGRwS
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) November 14, 2025
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
The fact is that support for Tucker is leaving the MAGA and he has to get more conspiratorial because he knows that’s what the fringe gets ginned up on.
You are the fringe. LOL. People have left Zelensky.
Carlson has 3.8 million Instagram followers.
But you’re right. No one listens to him.
I mean, who could question someone with such an impeccable record of getting us credible information as Tucker Carlson? And good grief - how low can we sink to not know that admiring Hitler is just something reasonable people can disagree on and to think there is something off about presenting those kinds of people as normal? It's crazy that any reasonable person could take issue with that...and we were "missing out" if we didn't want to watch a full 2 hour interview with an open and proud Hitler admirer...so closed minded this place has become! It must be AIPAC and its psychic vibrations that have caused so many to lose their minds in this way!
-----------------------------------------------------
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4262726/posts
Carlson’s interview on Tuesday with alleged historian Darryl Cooper — like his interview in April with Reverend Munther Isaac, referenced in today’s flashbacks — was so much worse than merely glib or incurious.
Carlson chose to interview Cooper, whom he endorsed as “the best and most honest popular historian in the United States” to learn exactly how World War II didn’t happen. According to Cooper — and Carlson nodded along the entire time — Winston Churchill was perhaps “the chief villain of the Second World War” and “primarily responsible for that war becoming what it did.”
It’s true that Hitler did not want or expect Britain to fight. He wanted Britain to acquiesce to German dominance of Europe from the Urals to Gibraltar and subsume the UK to Nazi interests. This is all a matter of historical record. Britain could fight or submit — that was Hitler’s choice, not Churchill’s.
FLASHBACK: Carlson chose to interview Isaac to find out how the Jewish State of Israel treats Christians. Isaac is a priest who neither lives nor works in Israel and who uses the loaded phrase “Occupied Palestine” as his location on his Twitter/X profile. He is a Palestinian Christian from Palestinian-controlled Bethlehem, where Christian ministers serve at the mercy of the Palestinian Authority.
--------------------------------------------------
To: fruser1
This is more Tucker's speed - along with his segment on the "benefits" of tanning your testicles, which he aired 2 years ago.
He is way too **** retarded for anything serious, like foreign policy.
37 posted on 6/18/2025, 4:46:32 PM by montag813 [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
----------------------------------------------------
I am nondenominational.
This religious favoritism is completely false.
If you care. Watch.
https://youtu.be/YwsybtypN3I?si=XvUe8oBjGaKfD-hs
3.8mil out of 347+mil equals what %
Its really amazing what passes for “popular” today. The slightest tick at less than 1% above someone else’s tick near 1% equals “very popular” today. I think its all laughable. Ask the man on the street “whose Tucker Carlson” and the majority would say they do not know.
You don’t listen to podcast and what he says. You believe a leftwing site. What do you think he said?!
Fair point—in fact nobody is “popular” these days by that definition—the media is totally splintered.
Think of it as a horse race on a dusty track in a small town.
Some horse has to win.
Lol.
It seems that hardly anyone on this thread watched the whole video. Carlson starts out by showing Crooks’ very old pro-Trump posts and then shows how Crooks eventually turned into a Trump hater.
I have no doubt that 50% of Republicans and 75% of Fox News watchers know exactly who Carlson is.
Whatever Tucker Carlson is on he better give it up he’s becoming just another leftest.
Do tell! What left wing site am I listening to?
Crooks liked Trump when he was 15 years old. Ok .
Then he turned far left and became violent,
They used to hate Tucker AND Candace. They are gaining a new audience.
He liked Trump before he was 15 years old. lol. Then became a leftist at 15.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.