Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pocotrader who wrote (1571959)	11/15/2025 12:02:57 PM
From: pocotrader	Respond to of 1574012

I usually do not read his stuff but here goes, take it with a grain of salt Tucker Carlson: Trump Shooter Was a Trump-Backing Radical — and the FBI Covered It Up 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” though he does cite evidence that, for reasons unknown, Crooks apparently turned against Trump. 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.