It’s hard to believe that it’s been less than seven weeks since an assassin came within the proverbial whisker of killing Donald Trump.
Every story, every incident has multiple dimensions. Something may happen in the present but its causes are rooted in the past and its effects are felt in the future. Then there are the different actors, all with their own stories and trajectories; however, all are united in that one incident for that one moment, like a real-life version of Rashomon. So it was on July 13 in Butler, PA.
Some of the actors have drawn public attention and are in the process of being fleshed out. There was the target, Trump, who came within a hair’s breadth of being killed. That iconic photograph of him, with blood streaming down his face, fist raised high, yelling “fight.” Then there is the stunning incompetence of the Secret Service that day; revelations of dangerously sloped roofs, unsecured buildings, and just the general disarray and poor execution of what was once held to be an elite organization.
Oh and then there was the revelation that the Secret Service had actually RAMPED up security given evidence of an Iranian plot against Trump. I wonder what security for Trump looked like before then.
The third and perhaps most important story is one that has been hardly told at all, in fact has disappeared from view and quite literally has reached a dead end. If Trump is the direct object of the sentence, the one who was acted upon, then why does no one speak of the man who is the subject, who not only performed the action of firing the rifle, but was the presumptive Creator of that day?
I speak of Thomas Matthew Crooks.
For most Americans, there is a popular image of the Secret Service protective detail as that of being the elite of the elite, the intimidating men in dark glasses, armed to the teeth and forming an impenetrable wall around the President. You may hate the guy but you know to stay away.
Yet against all logic, a 20-year-old man of no special talent, who couldn’t even make his school’s rifle team, not only decided to take on the Secret Service but obtained the best firing position at the site in Butler, 150 yards away on the high ground, and with a bead on Trump.
Not only that but Crooks must have had ice water in his veins. He was at the site for hours before-hand, performing recon, planning someone’s death while in the presence of law enforcement. He climbed onto the roof, assumed his perch, and when surprised by a local officer, warned off the cop, re-acquired the target and opened fire. Ice water.
That’s not easy to do. Heck, most us have a hard time going up to someone and asking them out on a date. People talk tough but then when it comes showtime, most chicken out. The longer you have to think about entering a stressful situation, the more your mind disables your ability to act. It takes a certain type of mindset to do something like that. A more typical example was Nichola Roske who in 2022 traveled from his home in California to Maryland with a firearm and accessories, planning to kill Brett Kavanaugh. For all of that preparation and resolution, when he reached Kavanaugh’s home he chickened out.
So who was Thomas Matthew Crooks? A man who set out that day to do something no ordinary person in their right mind would consider: to penetrate a Secret Service security screen, put the most famous man in the world in his sights, and kill him. To all accounts he was a quiet, unassuming 20-year-old man, lived with his parents, worked at a nursing home. He was such a poor shot that he didn’t make his school’s rifle team. Yet he seems to be a real-life Jackal, an autodidact teaching himself through force of will how to shoot and make explosives. I wonder what Katherine Boyle would think of his will.
Yet Crooks left no manifesto as to why he did it. With all of that preparation to kill one of the most famous men in the world, he leaves no last will and testament as to why.
It is there that our story has reached a dead end. The FBI is investigating and released some of its results under a House subpoena, claiming that Crooks acted alone and only saw Trump as a target of opportunity
In any investigation, one keeps an open mind, entertaining different theories and explanations. Perhaps Crooks was what the FBI wants him to be, somebody off the street who just wanted to kill somebody famous, and Trump was the best target.
Yet we are left with a few nagging thoughts. The first is the amazing coincidence that the man met the moment so well. The FBI wants us to believe that this man of no special talent just happened to pick the one day when the Secret Service was off its game, a veritable Lemony Snicket series of unfortunate events.
The second is whether, based on its past history, you have any trust in the FBI regarding Trump.
UPDATE: StanD alerted me that Crooks’ full (and proper name) is Thomas Matthew Crooks; I was using an initial report and had put his name incorrectly into my notes. I have updated to the full name. I regret the error.
First, let us go to the last paragraph in the post. Not only in relation to Trump, but also in reference to events going back decades, trusting the FBI in any matter strikes a lot of people as dubious.
Second, I have spent much of my working life in the field of law enforcement. One learns things about people. I have also, based on being involved in naval and military affairs, had some of those lessons reinforced.
Short form, ghosts are not real. Everybody has a traceable background that is revealing of what they are, believe, and do. This is regardless of how much effort they put into concealment. If it is NOT traceable when it should be, it means those in power with control of the records everyone has is interfering.
Second, when those in power conceal or obfuscate information that they can rationally be expected to know even from those who they are expected to reveal that information to; it means it is being concealed for their own benefit.
Third, as is obvious to anyone who has been observing our society for any length of time and who has studied our national history, the social contract that used to underlay our institutions and mores seems to no longer be valid or to place bounds on the actions of those institutions.
I am guessing that if the background story behind this does come out, there will be a lot of unhappy people.
Subotai Bahadur
There was in the news early some people told the security about the guy who was going up on the building before the shooting but the security did not take action?
Nothing comes up why security neglect public’s action.
A couple of thoughts, though I am in general agreement with the post.
An alternate to the ice water theory is Crooks was simply a mild sociopath of some flavor, obsessed with the idea that killing a famous person, basically the Hinkley motive, which could also account for his willingness to take what look to most of us as incredible risks. That doesn’t necessarily rule out a political angle which could be seen in both the almost forgotten attempts on President Gerald Ford’s life, in addition to both of those women being on the fringe of normality.
A slightly more benign view is that the Secret Service has become, unfortunately and in common with many Federal agencies (as Subotai notes) politicized in the performance of its duties. The lack of protection for RFKjr and the resistance to protecting other conservatives is evidence for this. Essentially, the incompetence the Secret Service displayed on 13 July was motivated, though it was still largely simple incompetence.
To the question of lack of reaction to the crowd, I believe that has been answered. Local LEOs were attempting to investigate who was moving on the roff, as noted obliquely in the post (“when surprised by a local officer”) but there was poor coordination and communication between the Secret Service and the local LEOs in support, and possibly among the local LEOs as well. I believe the snipers and Trump’s close detail were uncertain of the identity of the person on the roof, and likely believed that it could have been one of the officers assigned to the interior of the building.
Christopher,
Good points all, especially to the possibility that Crooks was a sociopath. A theory for all of to keep in mind.
Regarding communication across the various agencies that day. Back in the day the SOP for Secret Service details was an integrated communications between the Service and local law enforcement in the form at the very least of two people , each manning their respective nets in the CP, sitting side-by-side which would allow both rapid communication across the nets and integration with site commander. My understanding is that structure did not exist and the substitute was a version of text chat, which might work for keeping track of your kids but very poor for a situation where when things go down they go down fast (as they did on July 13)
The second is that any decent site plan would have taken into account the structure on which Crooks had taken its position. I don’t know the background of the site supervisor, but anyone with any infantry training would have their eye immediately fixated on that position given it was the high ground with commanding fire over the site. If the site commander was fixated on keeping that structure out of his security perimeter, then his plan would need to have someone from LEO on top of that roof as SOP; while there might have been a danger of friendly fire that can be mitigated, the disgraced former Service chief stated during her Congressional testimony that no one was on the roof due to slope of the roof. There are protocols for putting friendlies in the possible line of fire of a counter-sniper team
The other issue I have heard, but still cannot believe, is that the Service counter-sniper teams did not have full view of the building. If that is the case then given all the other factors, a reasonable conclusion is that the site supervisor was very determined not to have that building secured. Whatever the factors that existed that day; problems with communication, lack of Service personnel, etc… a plan takes into account all of those factors
We’ll see what when all the information, including any communications logs still surviving, come out. The announcement last week that 5 Service agents were placed on leave pending investigation is not necessarily promising because that is classic throwing the locals under the bus. Sen. Ron Johnson and Grassley seem to be bulldogs on the issue, we’ll see what comes of it
Btw… it’s been clear since 2022 and even before that any future protective detail would need to take into account drone assaults. As the Russo-Ukraine war has shown, a fairly cheap FPV with something like a mortar round is lethal to ground forces. Imagine an off-the-shelf FPVs with a contact-fused munition coming in at multiple angles; given the various treelines at Butler you could launch several from various points 200 yards away. Trump would never have had a chance. Crooks couldn’t have done it, but I bet a lot of people crossing our southern border could (say a Venezuelan crime gang)
The media’s stunning lack of interest in Crooks — in contrast to, say, Lee Harvey Oswald — is rather telling. The media has deliberately ignored Crooks presumably because they were told to ignore Crooks — and our rotten corrupt media does what Our Betters tell them.
The real question then is — Why do our Betters want Crooks to become the forgotten man? Perhaps, as Mike’s post implies, because he is a loose end on a story that does not hang together?
there were too attempts against Ford right, one by a Manson follower, if memory serves,
the more interesting part of this story, is the supposed Pakistani ringer who was let into the country, through GHWBush Airport in Houston in March, and was allowed to contact prospective candidates till he left in July the day before Butler,
The second is whether, based on its past history, you have any trust in the FBI regarding Trump.
FYI, a book recently hit the stores which has a rather different view of Trump and the FBI.Where Tyranny Begins: The Justice Department, the FBI, and the War on Democracy David Rohde
That would not appear to be the perspective of most of those who frequent this blog.
Different perspectives, such as red diaper baby Maurice Isserman’s recent book Reds: The Tragedy of American Communism, which tells is it would have been better if American communists had been independent from Moscow. Considering that the CPUSA was a top-down organization from the beginning, that is a rather naive what-if. Sean McMeekin’s To Overthrow the World: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Communism gives a rather different perspective from Isserman.
Rohde has a cranial inversion he was freed by dewey claridges eclipse network in waziristan
Mike,
Why do you refer to Thomas Matthew Crooks as “Matthew Crooks”?
StanD,
I referred to him by that name because that’s what I saw on the initial reports and thus put it in my notes as such. I see that he is referred to by his full name in all accounts since then. I will make the update.
Thanks for alerting me!