The Trump Shooter Wasn’t a “Lone Wolf” — He Was a Full-Blown Online Psycho for Years and the FBI Still Pretends They Can’t See It

Well hello again, friends. Another day, another "bombshell" that somehow manages to be both jaw-dropping and completely unsurprising at the same time. The New York Post just dropped the motherlode on Thomas Matthew Crooks, the scumwafer who tried to murder President Trump in Butler, PA last year, and wow, does it ever make the FBI look like the Keystone Kops. [Google them.]

Remember when Chris Wray, still clinging to his directorship like a remora on a shark's back then, went before Congress and swore up and down that the FBI had scoured Crooks’ online history and found exactly zilch.0 about motive or ideology? Yeah, about that.

A week later his deputy, Paul Abbate, shuffled up and admitted there were some comments that "appear to reflect antisemitic and anti-immigration themes to espouse political violence and are described as extreme in nature."

Notice how he conveniently left out the part where Crooks spent 2019, up to early 2020 as a full-throated Trump stan? Because an actual journalist with a source who knows how to use the internet just unearthed seventeen accounts Crooks operated under his real name (YouTube, Discord, Snapchat, Venmo, Quizlet, Chess.com, the whole deranged digital petting zoo), and the timeline is a doozy.

Crooks was 15–17 years old and posting stuff like:

Trump is "the literal definition of Patriotism."

And my personal favorite, wishing "a quick painful death to all the deplorable immigrants and anti-Trump congresswoman who don't deserve anything this country [sic] has given them." He was straight-up fantasizing about murdering Democrats. In public. Under his real name. Then, sometime between January and August 2020, the little psycho did a full 180. 

First shot across the bow: Jan. 23, 2020, commenting on a Jonathan Turley video about Trump’s impeachment with "Keep in mind the only reason we may know about any of this is because of Trump's stupidity."

By February he’s calling Trump supporters a cult: "How can you people call others sheep, but you are do [too] brainwashed to realize how dumb you are… I mean literally you guys sound like a cult at times."

On the same day he calls Trump "racist." By April he's ripping Trump’s COVID response as "too slow and everything he's doing now should have been done." And of course, because every modern radicalization arc needs that special touch, he started floating "terrorism style attacks" like planting bombs in government buildings.

Oh, and somewhere in there he apparently went full furry on DeviantArt, started using "they/them" ungrammatical pronouns, and buddy-buddied up with actual Norwegian neo-Nazis who egged him on.

Let that sink in. The kid was an open-book violent extremist for years, and the FBI's big conclusion was "nothing to see here." [Where was Kash Patel when we needed him?]

"The danger Crooks posed was visible for years in public online spaces," the source told the Post. "His radicalization, violent rhetoric and obsession with political violence were all documented under his real name. The threat wasn’t hidden."

Another source added: Crooks "was not simply some unknowable lone actor … He left a digital trail of violent threats, extremist ideology and admiration for mass violence." Yet none of this made it into the December congressional report. 

So here we are, a year and a half later, finding out that the same FBI that can track down garage-pull-ropes and moms at school-board meetings somehow missed a teenager openly calling for political assassinations under his real damn name.

The real question isn't even "How did they miss this?" It's "Why are they still pretending they did?" Because if an unpaid civilian with a laptop can dig this up in 2025, the FBI absolutely had it in 2024.

They just chose not to tell us.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the actual bombshell.

If you like Brain Flushings and want to Buy Me a Coffee, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work. Obviously, there is no pressure but I certainly wouldn't stop you.

Tweet

Kash Patel Drops a January 6 Bombshell: Hundreds of FBI Agents Were on the Scene, and Chris Wray’s Got Some Explaining to Do

The FBI has been playing coy about what went down on January 6, 2021, but the cat is finally out of the bag, and it's not wearing a tinfoil hat. 

The bureau admitted they had undercover agents in the crowd during the Capitol riot, sure, no conspiracy theory here. The inspector general tried to spin it, but there's no dodging this one: FBI agents were on the ground, some even strolling into the Capitol Building. Now, get ready, because we have a new bombshell, there were hundreds of them, around 275, to be exact. 

FBI Director Kash Patel had to step in over the weekend to clear the air, and it's looking like former FBI honcho Chris Wray might need to dust off his suit for another grilling before Congress. 

Here's what Patel told Fox News:

"Agents were sent into a crowd control mission after the riot was declared by Metro Police – something that goes against FBI standards,” Patel told Fox News Digital. “This was the failure of a corrupt leadership that lied to Congress and to the American people about what really happened."

Patel says those agents were sent in after the riot kicked off, tasked with wrangling the chaos, definitely not in the FBI's job description. And Patel is pointing the finger, accusing Wray of keeping the truth under wraps during his Capitol Hill testimony. The current FBI chief's doubling down, adding:

"Thanks to agents coming forward, we are now uncovering the truth. We are fully committed to transparency, and justice and accountability continues with this FBI."

Rewind to November 15, 2023, when Wray sat before a House Committee and played dodgeball with the truth. When asked if the Capitol violence was some FBI-orchestrated op, he said:

"If you are asking if the violence at the Capitol was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources or agents, the answer is no."

But Wray conveniently clammed up about whether agents or informants were mingling in the crowd. Sounds like a classic Washington sidestep, doesn't it?

So, here's the million-dollar question: Did Chris Wray lie to Congress? Sure seems like he's got some 'splaining to do. Time to haul him back to the Hill and get some straight answers, because the American people deserve to know what the FBI was really up to on January 6. Stay tuned because this one has more twists and knots than my wife's macrame.

If you like my blog and want to Buy Me A Coffee, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work. Obviously, there is no pressure.

Tweet

"Look, up in the sky. It's a bird; it's a plane; it's confusing"

By now we all know about the unidentified objects in the skies over New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. It's clearly unclear as to what they are but everyone has a theory. 

It has gotten to the point where some New Jersey homeowners are threatening to take matters into their own hands if the Biden administration doesn't do something real soon. The government says the drones are not a threat but they have no idea who is controlling them, so how do they know this?

New Jersey residents are as frustrated as Brian Mulvaney being restrained and hobbled in Boys Town due to the lack of real answers about the dozens of potential drone sightings and they're ready to swing into action somehow.

James Ward, a Jersey Shore Realtor, posted a video on Facebook that he claims shows "SUV-size drones" above Island Beach State Park taken Sunday. It's difficult to judge their size in the clip, which shows a number of lights hovering in the sky, but the light configuration--green on the port side; red on starboard, is evidence the drones come from good old Planet Earth and not from some distant planet.

"Dozens of SUV-size drones in all directions," the caption says. "Emerging at same time and flying over the ocean and then heading in different directions – what do you think?"

"A good shotgun will fix that problem," one commenter, obviously a Second Amendment supporter replied. 

"Why hasn't anyone shot one down to look for a serial number to trace it back to the operator?" another wrote. "I would think that could provide a clue."

"Semi auto 3 inch magnum 00 buck full choke!" yet another guy, obviously a duck hunter, wrote. 

Experts warn that it is typically illegal to shoot down a drone flying over a property. The Federal Aviation Administration told Forbes in 2016 that shooting down a drone is illegal under the same federal law prohibiting the sabotage of any other aircraft.

But my theory is that the government is testing us to see how far we will allow such an incursion to continue before we react. Perhaps this is Christopher Wrays last act as FBI Director and he wants to go out with a bang--literally.

I blame the government, although the source of the drones is a mystery. However, blaming the government is always a good bet, especially with the current clowns in charge.

Of course I have no clue what's going on "up there," but I suspect we're going to find out soon and I think the government is behind it for whatever reason they come up with to validate spying on us.

Am I paranoid, or are the paranoids coming to get us?

You tell me.

Tweet

Heritage Foundation’s Overnight Project says Bowman should be charged the same as J6 folks

Conservative watchdog group, The Heritage Foundation’s Overnight Project, has pointed out that Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) should be charged with obstruction of the business of government the same as the January 6th “rioters,” some of whom have received long prison sentences. 

Bowman was caught red-alarm-pulling-handed on camera pulling a fire alarm in the House of Representatives building during tense talks to avoid a government shutdown last weekend. He gave a lame excuse that only a gullible person or a Democrat [but I repeat myself] would believe, saying that he didn’t realize it was a fire alarm and thought it was a thing one pulled to open a door [that had a sign in front stating that it was for emergency exit only].

Regarding the bill that was to be signed to avoid the shutdown, the Democrats claimed they didn’t have time to read it, but back when it come to Obamacare, Nancy Pelosi told lawmakers to sign it so they could know what’s in it.

In a letter seen by Fox News Digital, Heritage stated that Bowman’s criminal violations includes a federal obstruction statute, the same one used by the Biden DOJ to prosecute alleged rioters who entered into the Capitol Jan. 6, 2021, and in Bowman’s case calls for up to a five-year prison sentence.

Of course, the chances that a Democrat politician of African-American heritage would be sent to prison for allegedly supporting his fellow Democrats is as probable as getting run over at Times Square by a boat.

Better to leave the jacket unbuttoned than to have this look

"Rep. Bowman’s actions violated federal law in addition to D.C. criminal law. The Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigations have made ample use of similar legal theories recently to investigate and prosecute individuals across the country," the letter states. 

It was sent Thursday to Democrat U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, corrupt FBI Director Christopher Wray and the leaders of the U.S. Capitol Police and D.C. Metropolitan Police departments, some of whose staff held the doors open for the Jan. 6 protesters.

The federal statute states:

"Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress…shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years," the federal statute states.

The D.C. codes Heritage suggests Bowman violated say it’s a misdemeanor "for any person or persons to willfully or knowingly give a false alarm of fire within the District of Columbia," and that anyone who "corruptly, or by threats of force, any way obstructs or impedes or endeavors to obstruct or impede the due administration of justice in any official proceeding," can be sentenced to prison for at least 3 years. 

The New York Post's, [not to be confused with the Bezos-owned rag, The Washington Post] editorial board criticized Bowman’s fire alarm stunt saying it was "moronically irresponsible and wrong.” 

Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, scolded the relevant government organizations for having "come under significant scrutiny from the American public in recent years due to politicization and weaponization against your political adversaries."

Howell noted that, in an interview aired on CBS' "60 Minutes" Oct. 1, Garland stated, "We do not have one rule for Republicans and another rule for Democrats. We don’t have one rule for foes and another for friends. … We have only one rule; and that one rule is that we follow the facts and the law, and we reach the decisions required by the Constitution, and we protect civil liberties.” 

But of course they do.

"Similarly, at a recent Congressional hearing, Director Wray denied a double standard at the FBI stating, ‘The idea that I’m biased against conservatives seems somewhat insane to me, given my own personal background,’" Howell noted in the letter.

"This case presents an opportunity for course correction. The law should be enforced equally and without regard to political party," he concluded. 

Better watch out for that boat in Times Square folks.

Tweet

House Republicans want to cut funding to FBI and protect whistleblowers

First FBI head to be able to sing through his nose

House Republicans have move to cut $1,000,000,000 in funding for the FBI because they have become a weapon of the Democratic Party and the GOP is not suicidal. They also want to protect federal whistleblowers and the way the bureau continues to treat conservatives while letting leftists go unpunished. [Examples include: Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, James Comey, Hillary Clinton, Adam Schiff, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters, Eric Swalwell, Gretchen Whitmer, and Gavin Newsom. I know you can think of more.]

The bill introducing the cuts was passed by Republicans on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies but of course it was opposed by Democrats on the committee. 

If the bill, which could face an uphill battle in the Senate and from the White House, becomes law it would cut FBI funding by about 9%.

The proposed bill also prevents funds from being used for the FBI’s racist office of diversity and inclusion, as well as other racist agency diversity offices that fall under the scope of the appropriations bill, which covers a variety of federal agencies including the Commerce Department and the Department of Justice.

The Justice Department would also get its funding cut by $2,000,000,000 and the Commerce Department would lose $1,400,000,000 in discretionary spending such as paper clips, water for the coolers, and gum.

“The bill holds the Department of Justice accountable and improves our immigration court system. It supports state and local law enforcement and provides critical resources to combat illegal drugs flooding our country,” Appropriations Chairwoman Kay Granger (R-TX) said. 

Lawmakers also took steps to shield whistleblowers from retaliation, including in the bill a provision to withhold salaries from federal employees who take action against whistleblowers and violate an employee’s First Amendment rights.

It's horrible that the left is trying to stop whistleblowers from blowing their whistles against crime committed by department heads and such.   

The whistleblower provision comes after Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) asked the DOJ appropriations bill to contain language “prohibiting retaliation against FBI whistleblowers,” including prohibiting taxpayer dollars from going toward the salary of any official found to have retaliated against a whistleblower.

In fact, it should be law that anyone retaliating against a whistleblower should be prosecuted and immediately be deported to Mexico where they will have to pay the cartels to get back home.

In order to protect free speech online, Jordan said the judiciary panel as well as his “Weaponization of the Federal Government” subcommittee want appropriations bills that explicitly block taxpayer funds from being used for censorship and to classify speech as “so-called ‘mis-, dis-, or mal-information.’

House Republicans have heard testimony from FBI and IRS whistleblowers this year, with IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley saying he was retaliated against because he raised concerns about the DOJ.

He was over the target and caught the flak.  

Tweet

Ranking Judiciary Committee Republican wants an explanation by FBI of why they used force in Stone arrest

A ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) questioned the FBI's stormtrooper tactics in their arrest of Roger Stone at his home in Florida on Wednesday, in a letter to FBI Director Chris Wray.

Stone is an elderly man with a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back, and a longtime adviser and confidant of President Trump. The latter fact may be the key to the FBI tactics, but Wray will never say that, you can bet.

Collins as well as Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-SC), are questioning the amount of force used in arresting the 66-year-old Stone at his home. They were just short of using a C4 charge on the door with guns blazing in spite of the fact that he was not deemed a flight risk [his passport has expired] and had already publicly stated that he expected to be indicted.

“Although none of the seven charges against Stone is considered to be a violent crime, the FBI demonstrated an immense show of force during an early-morning raid on Stone’s home,” Collins wrote in his letter to Wray. “Given the fact that the FBI is embroiled in a scandal related to the origins of this investigation, we are perplexed about why the FBI would use such a show of force in the arrest of an elderly man.”

Collins also points out that when Sen. Bob Menendez, (D-NJ), was indicted in 2015 on 14 charges – as with Stone, the charges included giving false statements – he and his lawyers were permitted to discuss and prepare how Menendez would voluntarily surrender.

Perhaps the "D" after his name can give us some indication.

In his letter, Collins asks Wray to clarify how far up the chain of command the knowledge of the raid and tactics used went, and whether the FBI had any discussions with Stone’s attorneys before the raid. He also asks if the FBI spoke to any media organizations ahead of the raid as a Comedy News Network (CNN) commentator was at the scene when the raid on Stone’s house went down and overheard his conversation with FBI agents.

What are the chances? The network claims they saw Grand Jury papers that led them to guess about Stone about to be raided, but those papers are confidential, even to the press, [although CNN doesn't fall into that category].

Collins joined a growing chorus of Republican lawmakers and strategists criticizing Stone's arrest, with former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie calling it “overkill” and downing a Whopper with a diet coke. 

A former FBI agent comparing the raid to a “pre-dawn ‘knock-and-announce’ arrest warrant of a meth lab somewhere in the United States.” Stone himself drew a parallel between the level of force displayed during his arrest and that used to capture alleged Mexican drug lord Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzman.

Mueller's team and Democratic lawyers with the U.S. attorney's office for the District of Columbia are jointly prosecuting the case against Stone in the hopes of getting some dirt on Trump. They did not push for Stone to be jailed or for U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson to impose a gag order in the case, but to get Stone to stop talking about anything would actually require a real gag.

Stone remains free on $250,000 bond.

I hope that 2019 will be the year you follow Brain Flushings and have a few laughs while you get a conservative viewpoint. Politics is the new NFL without the mindless kneeling and this blog will both inform you and hopefully entertain you bigly.

Tweet

Sleazy Avenatti hit with 2nd criminal probe over Kavanaugh

Michael Avenatti, the lawyer who gained notoriety representing porn performer Storm Daniels in a case against President Trump, is in hot water after his client said that he "twisted" her words about now Justice Kavanaugh.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley referred Avenatti to the Department of Justice for a second criminal investigation amid reports the woman he represented recanted her allegations against Justice Kavanaugh even before Avenatti submitted her sworn declaration.

Grassley's referral follows one already issued on Thursday alleging the crap weasel Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick engaged in a "conspiracy" to provide false statements to Congress regarding Kavanaugh's alleged sexual misconduct--after Swetnick stepped away from some of the allegations.

This latest referral is about the second sworn declaration Avenatti submitted to the committee that supposedly backed up Swetnick's claims.

Grassley cited an NBC News report that revealed almost three weeks after Kavanaugh's confirmation that a second, unidentified accuser walked back her allegations even before Avenatti could post her statement on social media, saying the shyster lawyer "twisted" her words. Supposedly, she saw Kavanaugh "spike" the punch at the alleged parties.

But prior to the release of the statement, she told NBC News on September 30th, "I didn't ever think it was Brett" who spike the drinks and denied ever seeing Kavanaugh acting inappropriately towards women.

After she read her statement posted by Avenatti, she told the media that "It is incorrect that I saw Brett spike the punch. I didn't see anyone spike the punch. ...I was very clear with Michael Avenatti from day one."

"I would not ever allow anyone to be abusive in my presence," she added. "Male or female." She also said that she did not "like that [Avenatti] twisted my words."

The referral letter by Grassley to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Chris Wray said that the woman's sworn testimony submitted to the committee Oct. 2 "appears to be an outright fraud."

"In light of this new information, I am now referring Mr. Avenatti for investigation of additional potential violations of those same laws, stemming from a second declaration he submitted to the Committee that also appears to contain materially false statements," Grassley added.

Avenatti responded to the referral by going on a Twitter attack: "How ignorant is Grassley? He keeps publicly demanding an investigation knowing full well that it will likely never happen--it is all for show. And if it does, he has placed Kavanaugh at risk of being removed from the SCOTUS. This is what happens when you never attend law school," the arrogant scum crumpet wrote.

Avenatti is an embarrassment to his profession.

Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.



Tweet

Navy vet hit with more charges in ricin case

William Clyde Allen III, a 39-year-old Navy veteran, was arrested earlier this month after authorities intercepted envelopes containing ground castor beans addressed to President Trump. Federal prosecutors in Utah have also filed charges against Allen after intercepting additional letters that were addressed to FBI Director Chris Wray, Defense Secretary James Mattis, and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson. Most recently, authorities intercepted envelopes that were addressed to CIA Director Gina Haspel and Air Force Secretary Dr. Heather Wilson.

Allen has pleaded not guilty to seven charges, including threatening to use a biological toxin as a weapon (castor beans are the basis for ricin, a highly deadly toxin) mailing a threat against the president and mailing threatening communications to an officer of the United States.

Allen also is alleged to have told investigators that he bought hundreds of castor beans on eBay to "defend our nation" if "World War III broke out." Yes, the country could count on him to save us.

All the letters tested positive for ricin but, fortunately, no one was hurt.

Allen served in the Navy from 1998 to 2002 and has a criminal record in Utah including attempted aggravated assault and child abuse.

To be fair, Allen also has a history of sending threatening emails to then-President Barack Hussein Obama, the U.S. Air Force and the state of Utah.

A judge denied Allen a request on Monday and decided to keep him in jail ahead of trial. He said he's needed at home to care for his wife who has a spinal condition and uses a wheelchair. She also has bad judgment as she married him.

Allen faces up to life in prison if convicted on the ricin charge. A count of mailing a threat against the president carries up to five years in prison, and five counts of mailing a threat to a U.S. officer are each punishable by a maximum of 10 years.

Allen's trial is scheduled to begin the day after Christmas. Hope he doesn't need to return any gifts.

Please click the "Subscribe" button at the top and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.

Tweet