The latest dust-up over the Thomas Crooks attempted assassination should alarm every patriot who believes in a justice system that serves the people, not protects its own. Explosive reporting and video claims from independent journalists suggest the FBI may have sat on crucial digital evidence that painted a much different picture of Crooks’ online life than the bureau publicly described. Americans deserve to know whether the agency that swore to protect our leaders and citizens was honest with Congress and the public about what it found — and what it did not.
FBI Director Kash Patel has answered those charges by laying out an impressive-sounding list of investigative metrics — hundreds of agents, thousands of tips, nearly half a million digital files reviewed — and he insists his team concluded Crooks planned and acted alone. Those numbers are meant to reassure, but numbers alone do not equal transparency when inconvenient evidence appears after the fact. If the bureau truly conducted exhaustive work, then it must explain in concrete detail why certain social media posts and other digital footprints were not disclosed earlier.
Conservative commentators and whistleblowers point to fresh material unearthed by media that shows violent rhetoric, bomb-making research, and other alarming content tied to Crooks long before the attack. Tucker Carlson and other investigators have amplified these findings, and mainstream conservative platforms are rightly demanding answers about whether key leads were ignored or hidden. This isn’t idle conspiracy talk—these are red flags that merit an independent review, not a defensive press release.
There are also troubling questions about how evidence was handled on the ground: rapid cremation of the suspect’s body, the alleged removal of physical material from the scene, and apparent gaps in the public timeline. Those procedural failures, whether due to incompetence or cover-up, must be fully investigated by Congress and by neutral watchdogs. Americans should not accept vague assurances while basic chain-of-custody and transparency issues remain unresolved.
Director Patel’s rebuttal may calm the casual observer, but it has not satisfied a large swath of conservatives who have watched the FBI’s credibility collapse under previous administrations. Patel himself has faced criticism from some MAGA figures for other controversies, which makes it even more important that his FBI operate under a microscope of accountability rather than partisan spin. If the bureau wants its reputation rebuilt, it should invite independent review and release the underlying materials that are now central to the debate.
Even President Trump, according to some reports, was said to be satisfied with the bureau’s conclusion that Crooks acted alone, but satisfaction in private briefings does not extinguish public concern. Elected representatives have a duty to demand documents, compel testimony, and ensure the American people receive a full accounting — not a tidy public relations narrative. Lawmakers must act decisively so that no future attack is explained away by bureaucratic obfuscation.
We are asking the right questions on behalf of hardworking Americans who put their faith in institutions meant to protect them. The bottom line is simple: transparency or resignation. If the FBI and Director Patel are confident in their work, they will welcome independent scrutiny and release the records that would silence critics once and for all. If they refuse, then suspicion will harden into the kind of mistrust that corrodes a free society and endangers the republic.
