Frustrations grow regarding Trump assassination attempt

On Saturday evening at 6:11 p.m. in Pennsylvania, former President Trump was speaking at a campaign rally when at least three shots were fired at him from a 20-year-old man named Thomas Crooks. Crooks had shot at Trump with an AR-15 rifle from 164 yards away while positioned on the backside of a peaked roof. A bullet grazed Trump’s right ear, and bullets struck three other attendees, killing one and injuring two. A Secret Service sniper killed Crooks within seconds of Crook’s shots being fired.

Almost immediately misinformation began circling on social media. Fake photos and videos purported to be Crooks were posted, a video of one of the victims being evacuated by law enforcement was mistakenly reported as a video of “the killer’s body” being carried away.  Speculated timelines were reported and amended over and over. 

The rush for information in situations like this routinely creates a fog of war which causes frustration and fuels conspiracy theories built on inconsistencies and unanswered questions.

We need to be patient and we need to maintain faith in law enforcement, which is now tasked with collecting evidence and creating a detailed timeline of events. We are not yet four full days from the incident, and the lack of answers to every possible question should not trigger the reflexive response of suggesting a cover-up or conspiracy.

Law enforcement officials must now balance releasing pertinent information with maintaining the integrity of a complex investigation. 

To be fair to those who are frustrated, there is plenty to be concerned about. Trump has been dehumanized and turned into a target by his political opponents, the media, and many on the left. We’ve also learned that the Secret Service has been aware of a credible threat by Iranian parties to kill Trump. In this atmosphere, it is valid to question how a 20-year-old with no tactical experience could gain access to an elevated-line-of-site position during a heavily secured rally and fire three shots at Trump.

I’ve been assigned to a dozen or more presidential visits and three presidential inaugurations as a local law enforcement officer over the years. It’s inconceivable to me that there were gaps in planning that allowed for such access, but it is conceivable that there were gaps in carrying out the plan as designed. It’s not an excuse, but rather an explanation — an explanation that leans strongly towards errors in execution and not conspiracy.

It has been reported that the building from atop which Crooks fired was the staging building for the local law enforcement officers assigned to assist the Secret Service in securing the event’s outer perimeter. It has also been reported that a local law enforcement sniper team was positioned inside that building looking towards the entrance of the event. While it may not be obvious, these facts undoubtedly complicated and delayed any response by Secret Service snipers once local law enforcement began responding to citizen reports of a man crawling on the roof.

How and why local law enforcement officers didn’t have the exterior of that building secured, and why the Secret Service liaison to local law enforcement didn’t ensure the same, are questions that must be answered. I caution that the lack of answers, just four days into the investigation, do not equate to a cover-up or a conspiracy — not yet.

The Director of the Secret Service, Kimberly Cheatle, has not helped in this area. Cheatle created a problem by giving an absurd answer to a reporter on Monday when asked why no sniper team had been placed on the roof that Crooks eventually fired from. Cheatle stated:

“That building in particular has a sloped roof, at its highest point. And so, there’s a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn’t want to put somebody up on a sloped roof. And so, the decision was made to secure the building, from inside.”

The answer was a poor one, especially given the photos circulating of the two Secret Service teams positions behind Trump on very obvious sloped roofs. Cheatle’s attempt to come up with an answer for why the rooftop wasn’t covered was a fumble during an interview, but it should be accepted as such and not used to fuel wild conspiracy theories or accusations of a cover-up. The answers to questions surrounding the lapse in security for that building and rooftop will come out in the investigation. If they don’t, then concerns of a cover-up or conspiracy will be defensible.

Other concerns circulating the 24-hour news cycle and social media include delays in opening Crooks’ phone and a variety of timeline events that imply law enforcement was aware of Crooks as a threat hours before the shooting.

First, the cell phone. The FBI is conducting the follow-up investigation and reported on Sunday that they were not yet able to open Crooks’ phone. This delay was intolerable to many who again used it to fuel speculation of a cover-up or conspiracy. Lacking any first-hand knowledge, I will just say that this is not a unique situation, especially if the cell phone was an iPhone. Apple has fought extremely hard to prevent it from having to share proprietary tools that would allow law enforcement to defeat encryption and access iPhones. Add to these technical hurdles the legal hurdles required to access a cell phone and the FBI gaining access to Crooks’ phone on Monday, less than a day and a half after the shooting, isn’t unusual and is not evidence of a cover-up or conspiracy.

Second, the timeline. A combination of citizen video, citizen statements, media video, and official timeline declarations has led many to question how Crooks was not prevented from carrying out the shooting. Let me be clear, he should have been. But the fact he wasn’t identified as some significant threat hours before or even 26 minutes before is not unreasonable. 

The Daily Mail has reported that the Secret Service first encountered Crooks about three hours before the rally as he passed through the security entrance with a range finder. The possession of a range finder was not something that would prevent his attendance according to the Secret Service. Crooks eventually left the secure area. The report also included information that Crooks’ father had reported him missing earlier in the day. These bits of information, while damning in retrospect, are not something that would have led to Crooks’ detainment or identification by law enforcement at the event entrance.

CBS has reported that the local sniper team positioned inside the building first saw Crooks outside the building about 26 minutes before the shooting. Reports suggest the team observed Crooks pacing around and looking at the building and the roof from the ground before disappearing. This area was near the entrance to the secured area of the rally, and many others were there as well.

Crooks then reappeared and was looking at his cell phone — it’s unclear how much time had elapsed. Crooks then took out what has been described as binoculars or a range finder depending on reports. The sniper took a photo of Crooks and reported the activity to the Command Post, which consisted of local police and Secret Service. Crooks again walked away from the area. It is unclear how much time had elapsed.

From my experience, this type of activity would have generated a response by officers on foot to make contact with Crooks and determine whether he was a threat. It would not yet rise to the level of a threat that would have prevented the Secret Service from allowing Trump to take the stage inside the venue.

Crooks returned in front of the building for a third time, carrying a backpack. Again, from CBS reporting, it is unclear how much time had elapsed or how much time remained before the shooting. Crooks walked away again, heading towards the back of the building. The local sniper called in the activity to the command post. Two officers on foot heard the radio call and responded. The local Sheriff has since reported that one of those officers was hoisted up to the edge of the roof by the other, and observed Crooks on the roof with a rifle while the officer was holding on to the edge of the roof with both hands. Crooks turned the rifle towards the officer who then let go and dropped to the ground to prevent being shot. The officers called in the threat to the command post. Seconds later, Crooks began firing at Trump, who was on stage.

One of the Secret Service sniper teams returned fire and killed Crooks within seconds.

The media reporting can be construed in hindsight as troubling, but the exact timing is not clear and it appears the notion that law enforcement should have viewed Crooks as an imminent threat for 3 hours, or for 26 minutes, yet did nothing, is far from accurate. So is the notion that there was ample time for the information about Crooks having a gun to get to Trump’s protection team — it appears it was only seconds.

What is clear is that Crooks was seen crawling up on the backside of the roof by citizens about 1.19 seconds before firing his shots. Citizen videos capture this, and their attempts to flag down officers who were on foot looking for Crooks. 

What is also apparent given the known timing is that Crooks was likely not visible to Secret Service snipers until he emerged at the peak of the roof seconds after being confronted by local police, and seconds before firing.

While many may suggest this was ample time for snipers to shoot Crooks, I caution the need to wait for the complete timeline and series of events to emerge from the investigation. The delay in time for the information to go from the officer on the ground to the command post and back out to the snipers is a reality, and we are only talking about seconds of time here.

Also, we need to keep in mind the complication presented by the snipers understanding that local law enforcement was responding to that roof. A second or two to orient what they were seeing and to react is not unreasonable given the circumstances.

Related misinformation circling about the Secret Service having a policy requiring its agents to wait until given permission to shoot, or until a suspect has shot first, is completely wrong and needs to be dismissed by those fueling the cover-up/conspiracy angle. Secret Service agents, like all law enforcement officers, can use deadly force to proactively stop an imminent threat, and they don’t need “approval” to use that force.

As I discussed in an American Experiment Podcast on Monday, the timeline that comes from the in-depth follow-up investigation will be critical to determining what occurred and what was reasonable or not in terms of a law enforcement response. 

Ultimately, there was a failure by law enforcement to secure a position that was used by an untrained 20-year-old to carry out the unthinkable. That failure is unacceptable, but so is jumping to any conclusions absent evidence. Allowing time for a thorough investigation to be completed will provide us the answers to how and why this failure occurred, and will hopefully put to rest the concerns of a cover-up or conspiracy. Our country needs it.