Federal investigators are facing renewed scrutiny over their knowledge of Thomas Crooks, the gunman who attempted to assassinate President Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13, 2024. The FBI initially stated that little background information existed on Crooks, but questions are mounting about what investigators actually knew.Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas) has criticized the FBI for allegedly withholding key information from the congressional task force he chaired to review the incident. Fallon plans to consult with House Oversight Chairman James Comer about recalling former FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate for additional testimony. Abbate previously stated that investigators had traced over 700 online comments by Crooks from 2019–2020, many containing antisemitic and anti-immigrant rhetoric—data Fallon says the task force never received.“They didn’t share any of the data with us,” Fallon told CBS Austin. “It was either deliberate or incompetence.” He suggested that the Oversight Committee could serve as the proper venue for further examination of what the FBI knew and why it was not disclosed.Commentator Tucker Carlson has also claimed that officials withheld details of Crooks’ digital footprint, citing discrepancies between public statements and known online activity. In response, FBI Director Kash Patel defended the bureau, highlighting the scope of its investigation: more than 1,000 interviews, 2,000 public tips, 13 seized devices, and analysis of nearly 500,000 digital files across 25 online accounts.Former FBI Special Agent Jody Weis expressed concern that the bureau’s systems should have flagged Crooks earlier. “For them to say they didn’t see much there, that they couldn’t identify a motive — I can’t understand why,” Weis said. “Had he been flagged, they could have intervened.”The human cost of the attack remains stark. Corey Comperatore, a 50-year-old firefighter, was killed shielding his family, while two others, David Dutch and James Copenhaver, were seriously injured.As Congress and the Justice Department weigh next steps, key questions persist: how to maintain transparency without compromising security protocols, and how to restore public confidence in institutions tasked with protecting both safety and truth.