Connect with us

Latest

Cole Allen clues pile up as Thomas Crooks’ secrets died with him — experts cite evidence gaps in Trump attacks

Published

on

In a matter of days, authorities have revealed a trove of information about Cole Allen after he allegedly tried to assassinate President Donald Trump, while the public has learned little about Thomas Crooks nearly two years after his assassination attempt.

The contrast raises new questions about transparency and what remains unknown about Crooks’ shooting of Trump, and experts say the explanation may be simpler than it seems.

In the latest case, investigators quickly developed a clearer picture of the suspect’s apparent grievances, communications and alleged planning. But in the Crooks case, key questions about motive and mindset have lingered long after the shooting, fueling speculation about what investigators know and why the public still knows so little.

Experts who study assassination attempts and targeted violence say the difference often comes down to evidence.

ALLEGED WOULD-BE TRUMP ASSASSIN SHOT SECRET SERVICE OFFICER ‘POINT-BLANK’ IN DC HOTEL, DIRECTOR SAYS

Sometimes, they say, one offender simply leaves behind far more information than another.

Allen, a 31-year-old California computer scientist, is accused of opening fire at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner on Saturday, April 25, after allegedly rushing a Secret Service checkpoint armed with multiple weapons. He now faces federal charges, with more expected.

By contrast, Crooks, who carried out the 2024 assassination attempt against Trump at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, was shot and killed at the scene, limiting the scope of the investigation and what information became public.

WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTS’ DINNER SHOOTING: TIMELINE TRACES HOW SUSPECT’S ALLEGED CROSS-COUNTRY PLAN UNFOLDED

“There really just isn’t always an answer. There isn’t always a clear motive,” Nicole Parker, former FBI special agent, Fox News contributor and author of “The Two FBIs,” told Fox News Digital.

Parker said in some cases, investigators are left with very little to work from, especially when a suspect has few connections or leaves behind a limited digital footprint.

“I don’t believe the FBI is hiding anything,” Parker said. “There’s probably just not as much evidence in that case to point investigators in a clear direction.”

DC SNIPER INVESTIGATOR REVEALS LIKELY BREAKING POINT OF ALLEGED WOULD-BE TRUMP ASSASSIN

At the same time, Parker said more information is emerging quickly in the Allen case in part due to a broader push for transparency.

“The Trump administration is focused on getting facts out quickly to avoid conspiracy theories,” she said, noting officials are releasing information “to the extent possible without compromising the investigation.”

TRUMP ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT SUSPECT LEGAL TEAM BATTLES DOJ OVER EVIDENCE, TEST-FIRING GUN

“Every case is different,” the FBI said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “When a prosecution is pending, the FBI works closely with prosecutors on what can be released without interfering with the trial process. The FBI and the Department of Justice, along with our local partners, have had multiple press briefings since Saturday’s shooting. Because this is an ongoing investigation as well as ongoing legal process, the FBI cannot comment further at this time.”

Forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz, an expert on criminal behavior, said the difference between the two cases often starts with the suspect.

WATCH: Dana Perino: People who know better are doing this for clicks

Dietz, president of Park Dietz & Associates and founder of the Threat Assessment Group, has worked on some of the nation’s most high-profile criminal cases, including those involving Reagan shooter John Hinckley Jr., serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer and the Unabomber.

In Allen’s case, Dietz said, the suspect appears to have left investigators with far more to analyze.

“Allen left a bigger trail,” Dietz said. “He had contact with more people. He wrote a lot online. And he, of course, sent this missive at the last moment explaining his actions.”

WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTS’ DINNER SHOOTING SHARPENS FOCUS ON TRUMP’S BALLROOM CONSTRUCTION PROPOSAL

Dietz said that kind of trail, communications, writings and personal contacts can accelerate how quickly investigators and the public understand a suspect’s mindset.

“Some of this is determined by the offender,” Dietz said. “How public are they going to be about their motives and nature of their grievances?”

Dietz said early indicators point to a familiar pattern seen in these types of cases.

WATCH: New video shows WHCA alleged shooter walking through hallways, charging security checkpoint

NEW BOOK DETAILS SECURITY LAPSES AHEAD OF TRUMP ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT: ‘CLEAR THERE WAS A PROBLEM’

“It’s very clear that this is primarily a grievance,” he said. “The fact that he wrote to his family, justifying his actions and explaining why he was taking them indicates that he’s aware that this is going to become public information, that it will be a historical document.”

“So there is a fame-seeking portion of this,” Dietz added. “But grievance is the primary motivation.”

Reid Meloy, a forensic psychologist and former consultant to the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit, said the Crooks case differs in one key way — it never moved toward prosecution.

DEM AND GOP LAWMAKERS TRADE BLAME OVER RHETORIC AFTER WHCD SHOOTING: ‘IT IS DISGUSTING’

“Crooks obviously was killed by the Secret Service,” Meloy said. “So there is not going to be an active prosecution of an individual.”

That distinction, Meloy said, affects how much information is gathered and ultimately made public.

“With the Allen case, this will be headed for an active prosecution,” Meloy said. “And therefore the data gathering will typically be much more comprehensive and much more meticulous in order to gather evidence for the prosecution of the case.”

WATCH: Secret Service director confirms agent shot by suspected gunman at WHCA Dinner

GOT A TIP?

“That’s probably the major reason you see differences in how much information and when it is presented to the press and the public,” Meloy added.

“That typically does not occur when there has either been the death of the perpetrator,” he said, noting those cases are generally limited to after-action analysis rather than full trial preparation.

FOLLOW US ON X

Meloy said another key factor is how much information a suspect leaves behind.

“People need to appreciate that individuals who carry out these acts will vary greatly in how much data they’re going to leave behind,” he said.

GET BREAKING NEWS BY EMAIL

Meloy added that some suspects leave extensive online activity and communications that can be analyzed, while others leave very little.

WATCH: DOJ releases new video of alleged WHCA dinner shooter in halls, storming checkpoint

“In other cases, there may be a very, very low amount of presented material online,” Meloy said. “Some of them will be very, very careful and engage in what we call operational security where they don’t want information to be left behind,” he said, noting that can leave investigators with little to reconstruct after the fact.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE US NEWS

Even when warning signs exist, they are often missed.

“In 60 to 90 percent of the time, they will engage in what we call leakage,” Meloy said, referring to when individuals communicate their intent before an attack. “Sadly, that communication oftentimes doesn’t emerge until after the attack has occurred.”

Continue Reading

Latest

Supreme Court Delivers Emergency Decision – It’s Finally Happening

Published

on

Supreme Court Delivers Emergency Decision – It’s Finally Happening

President Donald Trump scored another significant legal victory Monday after the U.S. Supreme Court sided with his administration in a case challenging controversial Biden-era energy regulations that critics say would have reduced consumer choice and driven popular appliances out of the marketplace.

The ruling marks the latest setback for former President Joe Biden’s regulatory agenda and comes as the Trump administration continues working to roll back federal rules that conservatives argue placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and American consumers.

In *American Gas Association v. Department of Energy*, the Supreme Court vacated a lower court ruling that had upheld Biden administration regulations targeting non-condensing furnaces and commercial water heaters. The decision sends the case back for further review and opens the door for the Trump administration to pursue a different approach.

At the center of the dispute were Department of Energy efficiency standards that industry groups argued would effectively eliminate certain categories of gas-powered appliances by making compliance nearly impossible.

The American Gas Association and a coalition of trade organizations challenged the regulations, contending that the federal government had exceeded its authority and ignored statutory protections designed to preserve consumer choice.

Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, argued that federal law does not permit regulators to wipe out entire classes of products through aggressive efficiency mandates.

“The Department may not adopt standards that effectively eliminate from the market products that have distinct ‘performance characteristics,’” Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in a brief to the high court.

The Supreme Court ultimately agreed that the lower court should reconsider its ruling, delivering an important win for businesses, manufacturers, and consumers who opposed the regulations.

The Trump administration has already indicated that it intends to revisit the rules entirely.

“The Department has determined that the rules at issue are factually and legally flawed, and the agency is considering a new rulemaking in which it would correct those errors,” Sauer wrote.

The decision represents another major blow to Biden’s environmental and energy agenda, which frequently sought to use federal agencies to push stricter efficiency standards across a broad range of household products and appliances.

The legal victory comes just days after Republicans in the House of Representatives approved legislation targeting another Biden-era regulation that became a symbol of government overreach for many Americans.

Lawmakers voted 226-197 to pass the Saving Homeowners from Overregulation with Exceptional Rinsing Act, commonly known as the SHOWER Act.

The legislation attracted support from 11 Democrats and aims to reverse restrictions affecting multi-nozzle shower systems.

Republicans argued that Biden administration regulations unnecessarily reduced water pressure by limiting the combined flow rate of multiple shower heads connected to a single fixture.

Representative Russell Fry of South Carolina, who introduced the legislation, framed the issue as one of personal freedom and consumer choice.

“Washington bureaucrats have gone too far in dictating what happens in Americans’ own homes,” said Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC) who sponsored the legislation.

“This is about defending consumer choice, pushing back on regulatory overreach, and standing up for commonsense policy,” Fry added.

Supporters of the legislation argued that the rule reflected a broader pattern of federal agencies attempting to regulate everyday aspects of American life.

“It seems like the Democrats want to tax you out of existence and overregulate you,” said Rep. John McGuire (R-VA). “So, this is a step in the right direction. Less regulation.”

The SHOWER Act would permanently codify an executive order signed by President Trump that restored a more consumer-friendly interpretation of federal law. Under Trump’s order, each nozzle in a multi-head shower system is treated individually rather than having all nozzles combined under a single flow-rate limit.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie praised the legislation as a practical solution that returns decision-making power to consumers.

“By codifying how different nozzles are categorized, the SHOWER Act offers a commonsense fix that will allow households to choose what meets their needs, not what Washington mandates,” said Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY) chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Fry echoed those concerns and argued that the Biden administration’s approach had become a symbol of excessive federal interference.

He said, “The SHOWER Act reaffirms that each nozzle is a shower head — plain and simple — and that homeowners, not the federal government, should decide how much water pressure they want.”

Taken together, the Supreme Court’s ruling and the House vote represent major victories for President Trump’s broader effort to reduce federal regulations, expand consumer choice, and rein in what supporters view as years of bureaucratic overreach by Washington agencies.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trump Sends Haters Into Full Meltdown With Who He Brought To NBA Game

Published

on

Trump Sends Haters Into Full Meltdown With Who He Brought To NBA Game

President Donald Trump made a high-profile appearance Monday night at Madison Square Garden as the New York Knicks hosted Game 3 of the NBA Finals, bringing national attention to an already historic evening for New York City.

The Knicks entered the game with a commanding 2-0 series lead over the San Antonio Spurs and stood just two victories away from capturing their first NBA championship in decades. The matchup marked the first NBA Finals game played at Madison Square Garden since 1999, creating enormous excitement throughout the city.

Security around the arena was significantly heightened as President Trump attended the game alongside members of his administration, close advisers, and longtime allies. The increased security presence came just one day after six people were injured during a stabbing incident at nearby Penn Station, located directly beneath Madison Square Garden.

The president arrived to a packed arena and watched the game from a private suite alongside a number of prominent administration officials and advisers.

Among those reportedly attending with the president were:

Sec. Sean Duffy

Sec. Doug Burgum

Administrator Lee Zeldin

Deputy COS Dan Scavino

Jared Kushner

Envoy Steve Witkoff

Walt Nauta

Boris Epshteyn

Natalie Harp

The appearance highlighted Trump’s continued visibility on the national stage while also underscoring his deep connection to New York City, where he built his business career long before entering politics.

Meanwhile, as the president attended one of the biggest sporting events of the year, he continued drawing attention to another issue that has become a central focus of his administration: election integrity.

Trump has repeatedly criticized California’s election system as state officials continue counting ballots from last week’s primary elections. The prolonged counting process has reignited debate over election administration and voter confidence in the nation’s most populous state.

The controversy intensified after U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli disclosed that the Department of Justice has spent more than a year attempting to review California’s voter registration records.

“For over a year, the Department of Justice has been trying to audit California’s voter rolls,” Essayli said.

“Federal law gives the Attorney General the authority to review state voter files and confirm that only eligible U.S. citizens are voting in federal elections,” he added.

The dispute comes as California election officials continue processing large numbers of ballots days after polls closed. Unlike many states that report nearly complete election results within hours, California’s system routinely requires days or even weeks to finalize outcomes.

The lengthy process has fueled concerns among many voters who question why election results remain unresolved long after Election Day.

Essayli also highlighted several aspects of California’s voter registration policies that have attracted attention from federal officials.

Among the forms of identification accepted for certain voter registration purposes are gym membership cards, employer identification cards, credit and debit cards, prescription drug labels, and insurance cards.

Critics argue that such policies deserve closer scrutiny, while supporters maintain that safeguards are already in place to protect election integrity.

The issue has also renewed discussion surrounding the SAVE America Act, legislation supported by many Republicans that would establish nationwide proof-of-citizenship requirements for federal voter registration.

California officials continue to defend the state’s election system and insist that existing safeguards adequately protect the voting process. They also maintain that there is no evidence that widespread non-citizen voting has affected election outcomes.

Nevertheless, the Justice Department’s ongoing efforts suggest that federal scrutiny of California’s election practices is likely to continue in the months ahead.

As President Trump watched the Knicks pursue a championship before a national audience, the broader debate over election security, voter roll maintenance, and ballot-counting procedures remained front and center in American politics.

For the administration, both issues reflect themes that have become central to Trump’s presidency: public safety, government accountability, and restoring confidence in institutions that many Americans believe deserve greater transparency.

Continue Reading

Latest

Iran Makes Shocking Admission About Trump’s Strike On Ayatollah

Published

on

Iran Makes Shocking Admission About Trump’s Strike On Ayatollah

New details released by Iran’s own foreign minister are shedding light on the operation that eliminated Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and reshaped the balance of power in the Middle East.

The account, offered by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi during a televised interview, provides one of the clearest descriptions yet of the strike that launched Operation Epic Fury. According to counterterrorism experts, the remarks serve as powerful evidence that the joint U.S.-Israeli operation was not designed to indiscriminately destroy an entire complex but instead to surgically target the leadership at the center of Iran’s regime.

Araghchi revealed that he survived the February 28 strike because he was located in a different section of Khamenei’s compound when the attack occurred.

“Well, the building we were sitting in was targeted, but the wing we were in remained intact while the other wing of the building was destroyed,” Araghchi said in an interview that aired June 4 on the Lebanon-based, Hezbollah-backed Al Mayadeen television network.

The revelation immediately drew attention from military analysts, who pointed to the extraordinary accuracy required to destroy one section of a heavily protected compound while leaving another standing.

According to Araghchi, Khamenei was in his office at the time of the attack. Other officials inside portions of the compound also survived because they were not located in the targeted area.

Dr. Omar Mohammed, a counterterrorism expert and director of the Antisemitism Research Initiative at George Washington University’s Program on Extremism, said the description confirms what many military observers suspected from the beginning.

“In the Arabic version, Araghchi says he was in a different wing of the compound, briefing another official, and his wing survived while the leader’s office was destroyed,” Mohammed explained.

Araghchi also disclosed that he had arrived at the compound for a meeting related to negotiations in Geneva and indicated that Khamenei was expected to be present in his office according to standard procedures.

Based on those details, Mohammed argued that the operation demonstrated an unprecedented level of intelligence gathering and precision targeting.

“They did not flatten a building; they took one wing and left the one next to it standing. That is President Trump’s whole doctrine in a single strike — he does not want a war of occupation, he wants to show the United States can reach the center of a hostile regime with precision and then offer it a way out,” Mohammed said.

Military officials later confirmed that the strike involved Israeli aircraft employing dozens of precision-guided munitions alongside advanced air-launched ballistic missiles. The attack reportedly killed Khamenei, Defense Minister Amir Nasirzadeh, IRGC Commander Mohammed Pakpour, and several additional senior security officials.

President Trump later publicly acknowledged U.S. involvement in the operation.

“He was unable to avoid our intelligence and highly sophisticated tracking systems, and, working closely with Israel, there was not a thing he or the other leaders killed alongside him could do,” the president wrote.

Mohammed believes the strike sent a message that Tehran should have immediately understood.

“Iran was handed the clearest message an adversary can get — we can reach your leader in his own office, and here is the off-ramp,” Mohammed noted. “A rational state takes the exit. Tehran did the opposite. It fired on Israel, killed a civilian in Bahrain, struck Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, and closed the Strait of Hormuz, setting off a global energy crisis. The surgical strike was American. The months-long war that followed was Iran’s choice.”

Following Khamenei’s death, leadership passed to his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, a transition that Mohammed believes revealed deeper contradictions within Iran’s political system.

“In Arabic, Araghchi calls the new leader ‘the young Khamenei in place of the elderly Khamenei.’ That is the language of a monarchy, not a republic of clerics,” Mohammed observed. “They are rewriting the theology on air to fit a son who lacks the religious rank, who was wounded in the same strike and who then vanished for weeks. A revolution that came to power by ending a monarchy is handing the throne from father to son.”

For many analysts, the operation has become a defining example of President Trump’s national security philosophy: use overwhelming precision to neutralize threats, avoid prolonged military occupations, and leave adversaries with a clear opportunity to de-escalate.

“The real story is not that Iran is strong,” Mohammed continued. “It was shown the precision of American power and the door was held open, and it chose to widen the war instead.”

Araghchi’s account appears to reinforce what American and Israeli officials have maintained from the start. The strike was not an act of indiscriminate destruction. It was a carefully planned operation aimed directly at the leadership of one of America’s most persistent adversaries, demonstrating both the reach and precision of modern U.S. military capabilities.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 Political Signal