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. |
Really? Come on if a Clinton supporter had taken a shot at Clinton, would you believe it.
Get a grip, Tucker is off the rails.
They are all actors.
“I think we all know the answer to these questions.”
We all know no such thing. We all can speculate all we want.
if he is trying to claim that Trump planned this to somehow boost his own campaign, it still doesn’t work. Would anyone trust even the best sniper in the World to shoot off their ear and there was no chance for something worse to happen? I know Democrats try to claim it was choreographed, but there’s no way you could choreograph something like that. And you sure wouldn’t use a 20-year-old amateur. And this wouldn’t explain why Biden or his FBI was in on it?
What Tucker says may very well checkout. Tucker needs to go look at the photo of the dead guy on the roof. No resemblance to Crooks.
Thing is, the dead guy on the roof was not Crooks. Didn’t even look like Crooks. So what he says about Crooks may very well be true.
Crooks may have just been a patsy.
Even if what you say is true it still comes out to the same place where leftism is responsible for it? and why is Biden trying to cover it up?
Is Kash Patel among those federal officials?
That Turkey needs to just fly away.
He donated money to ActBlue when he was 17. Yeah, right-wingers do things like that. /s
In depth discussion—including detailed posts—in this Zero Hedge thread:
This case is very complex.
He “switched sides” from right to left.
Detailed chronology here:
I don’t think he’s crazy.
But he’s clearly been compromised.
And u care right lol
I’m not sure what’s happening anymore.
Starting to check out entirely and focusing on my loved ones.
Let’s never forget that Tucker in his Fox News emails said that he hates Trump and was happy to see him lose in 2020. He pretended to be (fairly) pro-Trump for a while as he wormed his way into the orbit of major Trump campaign and administration people. Now the mask is mostly off, and all that he’s been doing lately seems designed to turn Trump supporters against him and his administration through deception, just as the Dems get more and more radical.
In the end, there doesn’t seem to be a dictator, terrorist, anti-American radical, or conspiracy theory that he doesn’t like.
If the shooter was a hard right Trump supporters then why did he want to kill him?
Alex Jones...please pick up the courtesy phone.
Tucker gets paid by Qatar. He is an employee (infidel slave) of Islam and is only following the orders of his superiors. Doesn’t want to lose his head....
Well, it’s Mediaite, so draw your own conclusions. And I still think Carlson needs a CT scan of his brain.
TUCKER needs to stop drinking TAP WATER!
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.