Tucker Carlson’s exposé on Thomas Matthew Crooks, the would-be assassin of former President Trump, reveals inconsistencies and omissions in the FBI’s narrative. Crooks’ online activity showed a violent shift from pro-Trump to anti-Trump sentiments, yet the FBI and media presented only a partial story. Questions arise about government monitoring failures, premature crime scene cleanup, and potential political narrative shaping.
Tucker Carlson recently released an exposé that raises serious concerns about the handling of the Thomas Matthew Crooks case—the man who attempted to assassinate former President Donald Trump. This article walks through the key points of the exposé, highlighting inconsistencies, unanswered questions, and the broader implications for government transparency and accountability.
The exposé urges Americans to look beyond partisan perspectives and demand straight answers about what is happening in the country. It warns against falling into conspiracy theories and instead calls for focusing on conspiracy facts. The case of Thomas Crooks, who nearly succeeded in assassinating President Trump, is presented as a story that has been bent and shaped by powerful forces in Washington.
From the outset, the FBI and mainstream media pushed a singular narrative: Crooks was a pro-Trump, anti-immigration, fringe right-wing radical, radicalized by MAGA memes. This narrative was quickly accepted and repeated, effectively closing the case in the public eye. However, this story is incomplete and misleading.
Authorities claimed Crooks had almost no online footprint, which seemed implausible given the sophistication of his assassination attempt. Contrary to this claim, Crooks was very active online, with accounts on Discord, Snapchat, and a prolific YouTube comment history.
In 2019, Crooks’ YouTube comments were extremely violent but targeted at Democrats and anti-Trump individuals. He spoke of decapitations and shootings of government officials, which should have triggered government monitoring and intervention. Despite this, no action was taken.
In 2020, Crooks’ online comments flipped dramatically to violent anti-Trump rhetoric. This phase was completely omitted from the FBI and media reports, which continued to portray him solely as a pro-Trump radical. This selective reporting raises questions about the motivations behind the narrative.
Around the time of Crooks’ ideological shift, an online persona named Willie Teps appeared in his orbit, encouraging violence and assassination. The name Willie Teps is linked to a national socialist website in Sweden, a group monitored by the State Department and intelligence agencies. Yet, no red flags or investigations were triggered.
As the assassination attempt neared, Crooks’ online searches became intense and focused on topics such as:
These searches should have set off alarm bells within the NSA and other agencies, but again, no preventive action was taken.
Even more puzzling is the fact that the FBI under President Trump’s administration kept Crooks’ shifting political and violent history quiet. Despite having access to this information, they did not disclose it publicly or act on it.
The body of Crooks was released for cremation without an extended autopsy or forensic review. The crime scene was washed and scrubbed before a full reconstruction could be done, which is highly unusual for a presidential assassination attempt.
The exposé highlights several urgent questions:
The exposé suggests that the FBI and intelligence agencies may be either incompetent, lying, or selectively monitoring individuals. This raises concerns about government transparency and the integrity of national security operations.
The analogy of the FBI and deep state as an iceberg is used to illustrate that while leadership at the top may change, the underlying structure and issues remain hidden and potentially problematic.
Tucker Carlson’s exposé on Thomas Crooks reveals a deeply troubling picture of how a serious threat to a former president was handled. The inconsistencies, omissions, and premature actions by the FBI and other agencies demand thorough investigation and public accountability.
This is not a partisan issue but a matter of national security and trust in government institutions. Americans must demand answers to ensure that such failures do not happen again and that the government truly serves and protects its people.
The case of Thomas Crooks is a stark reminder that when the government tasked with monitoring threats becomes blind, deaf, and mute at critical moments, the consequences can be dire for the republic itself.
