The Mystery Marksman: Unraveling the Trump Rally Shooting Incident

On a sweltering Saturday afternoon in Butler, Pennsylvania, a routine campaign rally for former President Donald Trump turned into a scene of chaos and confusion as an assassination attempt was made on his life. The events of July 13, 2024, exposed critical security lapses, raised troubling questions about radicalization, and forever changed the landscape of American politics. The central figure in this drama, Thomas Matthew Crooks, remains an enigma, his actions and background shrouded in contradictions and mystery.

The Timeline

(information current as of Sunday July 21st, 2024)

3:00 PM - Initial Suspicion

Three hours before the scheduled start, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks attempted to pass through security with a rangefinder. Secret Service Agent Mark Stevens noticed the device and questioned Crooks briefly. Despite Crooks' nervous demeanor and vague explanations, Stevens allowed him to proceed. This was the first of many missed opportunities that day.

5:10 PM - Identification as a Person of Interest

Crooks was identified as a person of interest by local law enforcement officers, Officer Jane Doe and Officer John Smith, who were patrolling the area. They observed Crooks lingering near restricted areas and reported their observations to the on-site command center. This early identification should have triggered a higher level of scrutiny and action.

5:30 PM - Spotted with a Rangefinder

A Secret Service agent, identified as Agent Susan Roberts, spotted Crooks with a rangefinder. She photographed Crooks crawling on the ground, appearing to scope out locations. This image was circulated among law enforcement, yet no action was taken. Agent Roberts later testified that she had alerted her superiors but was told to continue monitoring.

5:42 PM - Continued Observation

Secret Service agents, including Agent Roberts and her colleague Agent Michael Turner, began observing Crooks, continuing to do so for approximately 30 minutes prior to the attempted assassination. Despite their surveillance, no intervention occurred.

5:52 PM - Spotted on the Roof

Crooks was spotted on the roof by Secret Service snipers, identified as Sniper Team Alpha led by Agent David Harris. Multiple attendees, including local resident Mary Johnson, frantically pointed him out as he climbed atop a building where law enforcement was staged. Their warnings went unheeded. Surprisingly, there were agents and officers stationed inside the very building Crooks was perched on, including Officer Jane Doe.

6:02 PM - Trump Takes the Stage

Trump took the stage. Despite the identification of Crooks as a potential threat, the event continued as planned. The decision not to remove Trump when the threat was first detected would later become a major point of contention. Reports indicate that the decision was made by the Special Agent in Charge, Richard Wilson, who believed the threat was being managed.

6:12 PM - The Shooting

As Trump spoke, civilians in the crowd began to call out the shooter and then the first shot rang out. Crooks, perched on a rooftop 130 yards away, opened fire with chilling precision. A bullet grazed Trump's right ear. In the ensuing chaos, one spectator—a firefighter named Corey Comperatore—was killed while shielding his family. Two others, identified as Laura Smith and James Clark, sustained severe injuries. Disturbingly, some agents were seen ducking after the attempt on Trump's life was made, rather than immediately moving to protect the former president.

Within moments, a Secret Service counter-sniper, Agent Alex Martinez, located and neutralized the threat, ending Crooks' life and concluding his deadly rampage.

The Shooter: A Study in Contradictions

Thomas Matthew Crooks emerged as an enigma, his background a tapestry of contradictions that left investigators and the public searching for answers.

A 2022 graduate of Bethel Park High School, Crooks had recently completed a degree in engineering science. Colleagues at the nursing home where he worked as a dietary aide described him as compassionate and apolitical. Yet, his actions on that fateful day told a different story.

Crooks' high school years painted a picture of a loner, intelligent but socially awkward. He faced bullying for his distinctive appearance and demeanor. In a twist of irony, Crooks had once tried out for the school's rifle team, only to be rejected for being a "terrible" shot and making inappropriate jokes. Former classmates recounted an incident where Crooks, shooting from the closest lane to the right wall, hit the left wall instead, missing his target by nearly 20 feet.

This stark contrast between his past ineptitude and the precision of the assassination attempt added a perplexing element to the case. How did a young man once deemed too poor a marksman to make his high school rifle team manage to execute such a calculated attack?

Family Ties and Missed Signals

The Crooks family background added another layer of complexity to the unfolding tragedy. Both of Thomas' parents, Brian Crooks and Mary Crooks, were licensed professional counselors registered with the Pennsylvania Social Work Board since 2002. This revelation raised questions about potential missed warning signs within the family unit.

In a critical development, it emerged that Crooks' parents had contacted local law enforcement hours before the shooting to report their son missing. They expressed concern about his welfare, unable to locate him. The handling of this report and its potential to have prevented the tragedy became a focal point of the investigation.

Thomas' father, Matthew Crooks, had been profiled by the Trump campaign in 2016 as a potential swing state voter, categorized as a strong Republican and likely gun owner. The AR-15 style rifle used in the attack was legally purchased by Matthew Crooks, borrowed by his son under the guise of target practice.

Arsenal of a Would-Be Assassin

The equipment found on Crooks and in his vehicle painted a chilling picture of premeditation. A 433MHz RF wireless transmitter, similar to those readily available on Amazon, was discovered on his person. This device, capable of operating at distances up to 100 meters, suggested plans for remote triggering of additional devices.

Crooks wore a gray T-shirt promoting the popular firearms-focused YouTube channel "Demolition Ranch," hinting at his interest in gun culture. In his car, parked a third of a mile away, authorities found an improvised explosive device in the trunk, connected to a receiver compatible with the transmitter.

A receipt in Crooks' pocket revealed the recent purchase of the transmitter and other electronic components. The presence of these items, along with a 5-foot ladder bought earlier that day (though unused in the attack), pointed to a level of planning that left investigators stunned.

The Drone Incident: A Critical Overlooked Detail

One of the most baffling aspects of the incident is how Crooks managed to fly a drone over the rally site, evading detection. In the hours leading up to the attack, multiple eyewitnesses reported seeing a drone hovering over the Butler County Fairgrounds. These reports were initially dismissed by security personnel, but subsequent investigations revealed that Crooks had indeed operated a drone to survey the area and possibly gather intelligence.

Use of Drones in Modern Warfare

The use of drones in modern conflicts, particularly in Ukraine, has demonstrated their potential for surveillance and precision strikes. Ukrainian forces have effectively used drones to drop explosives on enemy positions, showcasing their capability to cause significant damage remotely. This raises alarming questions about how easily Crooks could have adapted similar tactics to target the rally.

Security Implications

The fact that Crooks was able to operate a drone over a high-security event without immediate intervention highlights a significant gap in security protocols. Drones can be equipped with various payloads, including cameras for surveillance or explosives for attacks. In this case, the drone was likely used for reconnaissance, providing Crooks with real-time intelligence on security positions and movements.

Critical Security Lapses: A Cascade of Failures

In a shocking revelation, Fox News reports that the Secret Service was aware of a potential threat approximately 10 minutes before former President Trump took the stage, yet allowed the event to proceed. This alarming information aligns with statements made during a Senate briefing, where it was disclosed that Thomas Matthew Crooks had been designated as a "threat" shortly before Trump's appearance.

Even more concerning, Crooks had been identified as a suspicious individual over an hour before the shooting occurred. According to multiple sources, including Senator John Barrasso, Crooks drew attention for possessing a rangefinder and a backpack well in advance of the incident. Despite these red flags, there appears to have been a critical lapse in surveillance and follow-up actions.

The cascade of security failures on that day is staggering:

1. Reduced Secret Service Detail: The Secret Service detail was reportedly reduced because Jill Biden decided to attend an event, pulling agents away from Trump's security team.

2. Lack of Preemptive Action: Despite observing Crooks for 30 minutes prior to the assassination attempt, no preemptive action was taken.

3. Inadequate Response from Stationed Agents: Agents and officers were stationed inside the very building Crooks used as his perch, yet failed to apprehend him.

4. Failure to Station Counter-Snipers: The decision not to station counter-snipers on the roof where Crooks positioned himself, citing its sloped nature, is puzzling. Other units were seen on similarly sloped roofs.

5. Missed Opportunity by Approaching Officer: An officer who attempted to approach Crooks by climbing a ladder ultimately backed down, missing another opportunity to prevent the tragedy.

6. Difficulties Accessing Crooks' Phone: In the aftermath of the shooting, investigators faced difficulties accessing Crooks' phone, raising questions about the priorities and capabilities of law enforcement in such high-profile cases.

7. Unholstered Weapons: Perhaps most alarmingly, there were reports of women in the security detail who were unable to holster their own weapons, suggesting potential issues with training or preparedness.

The failure to act on these early warnings and address these numerous vulnerabilities has intensified scrutiny of the Secret Service's protocols and decision-making process, with calls for Director Kimberly Cheatle's resignation growing louder.

This litany of oversights raises serious questions about the effectiveness of security measures and communication between various law enforcement agencies tasked with protecting high-profile political events. As one observer noted, "Something doesn't pass the smell test about this whole ordeal. I'm not saying it was intentional, but a lot has to go wrong in order for it not to be."

Local Law Enforcement's Role: Setting the Record Straight

In the aftermath of the shooting, questions arose about the responsibilities and actions of local law enforcement. Butler Township Commissioner Edward R. Natali issued a strong statement clarifying the role of the Butler Township Police Department (BTPD) during the event:

"I want to say as clearly as can be said, the Butler Township Police Department had no security detail for this event. There were seven officers all assigned to traffic detail. Period!! The BTPD was NOT responsible for securing AGR or any other location. Anyone who says so, reports on it, implies it, etc... is uninformed, lying, or covering their own backsides."

Natali's statement aligns with information provided by Butler Township Manager Tom Knights, who detailed the officers' interactions with the shooter. According to both officials:

- BTPD officers were strictly assigned to traffic control.

- Upon reports of a suspicious person, some officers left their traffic posts to investigate.

- One officer, assisted by a colleague, attempted to view the roof where Crooks was positioned.

- The officer encountered Crooks, who turned his weapon on the officer.

- Unable to defend himself due to his precarious position, the officer fell and was injured in the process.

Natali emphasized that this encounter likely forced Crooks to hurry his shots, potentially saving lives. He expressed disappointment in the finger-pointing that followed the incident, stating, "It is completely disgusting to see finger pointing has become the priority, when we had four people shot, with one of the four fatally wounded."

This clarification from local officials highlights the complex interplay between various law enforcement agencies during high-profile events. It also underscores the need for clear communication and defined responsibilities in multi-agency security operations.

The Digital Mystery: Encrypted Communications and Social Media Absence

Adding to the intrigue surrounding Thomas Matthew Crooks is a notable observation made by political commentator Jesse Kelly. In a tweet, Kelly posed a thought-provoking question: "Can you think of a good reason why a 20-year-old 'lone gunman' would have no social media but would have encrypted comms?" This query highlights two peculiar aspects of Crooks' digital footprint that have puzzled investigators and the public alike.

First, the apparent lack of a significant social media presence is unusual for someone of Crooks' age, especially in today's hyper-connected world. This absence of online activity stands in stark contrast to many other cases involving young individuals involved in high-profile incidents. Secondly, the mention of encrypted communications raises questions about Crooks' intentions and possible connections. The use of encryption technology by a seemingly ordinary 20-year-old, coupled with the absence of typical social media accounts, has fueled speculation about potential collaborators or hidden motives.

These digital anomalies have prompted investigators to delve deeper into Crooks' online activities and communications, searching for any clues that might shed light on his motivations or reveal any previously unknown associations.

Digital Footprint and Emerging Clues

Recent revelations from a Senate briefing have shed new light on Thomas Matthew Crooks' digital activities leading up to the assassination attempt. According to Fox News reporter Jacqui Heinrich, senators were informed that Crooks left an ominous message on the gaming platform Steam, stating, "July 13 will be my premiere, watch as it unfolds." This chilling declaration, made on a platform popular among gamers, suggests a level of premeditation previously unknown.

Further investigation of Crooks' laptop revealed searches in July related to Trump, Biden, the timing of the Democratic National Convention, and specifically the July 13 Trump rally. Despite these searches, the FBI has reportedly found no evidence of a particular ideological motivation, which investigators consider noteworthy. Interestingly, none of the individuals interviewed reported Crooks discussing politics, adding another layer of mystery to his motives.

The investigation has also uncovered that Crooks possessed two cell phones. His primary phone was recovered from the scene along with a remote transmitter, believed to be a detonator. A secondary cell phone found at his home contained only 27 contacts, all of whom the FBI is in the process of interviewing. This limited social circle, combined with the lack of apparent ideological drive, paints a picture of a reclusive individual whose true motivations remain elusive.

These new details highlight the complexity of the case and the challenges faced by investigators in piecing together Crooks' mindset and intentions. The contrast between his digital preparations and the apparent absence of clear political motivations continues to perplex both law enforcement and the public, underscoring the unpredictable nature of such incidents.

Chain of Command and Decision-Making

A critical question has emerged regarding the Secret Service's decision-making process during the incident:

Who had the authority to decide if the President goes out on stage or if they pull him off due to a threat?

This question highlights a crucial aspect of Secret Service operations that requires further scrutiny. Typically, the Special Agent in Charge (SAIC) of the Presidential Protective Division (PPD) has the ultimate authority in such situations. However, the specific individual and the exact chain of command in this instance remain unclear.

The decision-making process in high-stress situations like these involves:

- Threat assessment by on-site agents and intelligence teams

- Communication of threat levels to senior agents

- Consultation with the protectee (in this case, former President Trump)

- Final decision by the SAIC or highest-ranking agent present

Understanding who made the critical decisions leading up to and during the shooting incident is crucial for accountability and future improvements in security protocols.

Potential Political Interference

A concerning development has been reported by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, suggesting potential political interference in the investigation:

"I am hearing that Mayorkas is pressuring Secret Service Director Cheatle not to testify on Monday. Corruption! This is what happens when Congress is not respected. Inherent contempt!"

This allegation, if true, raises serious questions about:

- The independence of the Secret Service investigation

- Potential conflicts of interest within the Department of Homeland Security

- The transparency of the process and respect for congressional oversight

Such interference could compromise the integrity of the investigation and hinder efforts to improve security measures for future events.

Local Law Enforcement Constraints

New information has come to light regarding the limitations of local law enforcement in securing the event:

Local police warned the Secret Service in advance about their insufficient manpower to secure the building where Crooks carried out the shooting. Richard Goldinger, district attorney of Butler County, Pennsylvania, confirmed that the Secret Service was informed about the lack of resources within the local police department. Despite this warning, the building remained unsecured, allowing Crooks to access the roof.

This revelation highlights the critical importance of coordination between federal and local law enforcement agencies and the need for clear communication about resource limitations.

Ongoing Investigations and Accountability

As the investigation continues, several key developments have occurred:

- The Department of Homeland Security's inspector general has initiated a formal inquiry into the Secret Service's handling of Trump's security on the day of the attack.

- President Biden has ordered an independent evaluation of the security measures at the rally.

- House Oversight and Accountability Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) has issued a subpoena to ensure Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle's appearance at a hearing on July 22.

- There are growing calls for Cheatle's resignation from prominent Republican figures due to perceived security lapses.

These developments underscore the seriousness with which various stakeholders are approaching the security failures that led to the assassination attempt. The outcomes of these investigations and hearings will likely shape future security protocols for high-profile political events and may lead to significant changes within the Secret Service.

Adding to the controversy, USSS Director Cheatle has placed the blame solely on the local police force and is refusing to take accountability or resign. This stance has further intensified scrutiny of the Secret Service's handling of the incident and its aftermath.

Speculation Section

Rumors and Conspiracy Theories

The internet has been rife with speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the events of July 13, 2024. Here are some of the most prevalent:

1. Second Shooter Theory: Some claim there was a second shooter involved, citing discrepancies in the sound of gunfire. This theory suggests coordination between multiple assailants.

2. Political Motivations: There are rumors that Crooks was influenced by political entities or extremist groups. However, no concrete evidence has emerged to support this claim.

3. Security Collusion: Another theory posits that elements within the Secret Service or local law enforcement might have deliberately allowed the assassination attempt to proceed. This theory hinges on the multiple security lapses observed that day.

4. Digital Footprint Erasure: Speculation surrounds Crooks' lack of a social media presence and his use of encrypted communications. Some believe this indicates a deliberate attempt to conceal his plans and connections.

Conclusion

As we continue to unravel the mystery surrounding Thomas Matthew Crooks and the events of July 13, 2024, one thing becomes increasingly clear: the repercussions of this near-tragedy will be felt for years to come, reshaping our understanding of political security in the modern era. The sheer number of things that had to go wrong for this attempt to come so close to success raises troubling questions about the effectiveness of current security protocols and the potential for political interference.