Staff Reports
New disclosures about Thomas Matthew Crooks are stirring the pot again—and the leak trail runs from a Tucker Carlson Network documentary to a New York Post column and a Judicial Watch FOIA dump. The big question is simple: did law enforcement hide or downplay evidence about the would‑be assassin’s online life, or are conservative outlets rushing to turn redactions into a conspiracy? Either way, Americans deserve clear answers, not more mystery and spin.
What was released and who is saying what
The Tucker Carlson Network posted a short documentary titled “Who Is Thomas Crooks?” that shows screenshots and files it says came from Crooks’ Google Drive. Miranda Devine at the New York Post ran with a claim that Crooks used they/them pronouns and was active on DeviantArt, including ties to the so‑called “furry” community. Judicial Watch also forced the release of 48 heavily redacted FBI pages under FOIA. Those FD‑302 summaries mention a “gray remote device” recovered from Crooks’ pocket and reference email messages found on a deputy’s phone. Those are the new puzzle pieces. Each comes with a big asterisk: the provenance and authentication of many items are not yet publicly verified.
What law enforcement says — and what it doesn’t
The FBI pushed back on the loudest accusation—that the bureau told the public Crooks had “no online footprint.” The FBI’s rapid‑response message said plainly, “This FBI has never said Thomas Crooks had no online footprint. Ever.” Agencies also point to large numbers: seized devices, hundreds of thousands of digital files, and thousands of tips and interviews. Fine. But “we looked at a lot” is not the same as “we showed the public the full picture.” Redactions in the Judicial Watch release leave big blanks. That leaves room for suspicion, rightly or wrongly.
Why the new claims matter
There are two things at stake: truth and trust. If the Tucker documentary and Devine’s reporting are right about a wider online life with violent posts and identity notes, that would undercut early public portrayals of Crooks as having little traceable motive. If law enforcement did hold back material without explaining why, that fuels the belief—across the political spectrum—that agencies pick and choose what the public sees. Either outcome should bother citizens. We want a full, verifiable record so families, voters, and investigators can close the book on this and learn lessons for future security at political events.
Bottom line: demand proofs, not partisan theater
Conservatives are right to press for transparency, and investigators are right to caution about raw screenshots and unverified accounts. But neither side gets a free pass. Media outlets should label provenance clearly—“as shown in the Tucker Carlson Network documentary” or “reported by Miranda Devine at the New York Post”—and the FBI and Secret Service should release what they can without jeopardizing ongoing work. Americans should expect less spin and more documents that are less redacted. Until then, take the headlines with a grain of salt and keep asking for the receipts.
