Trump Shooter Thomas Matthew Crooks’ Body is GONE — Body CREMATED Just 10 Days After Trump’s Assassination Attempt

[Mac-7]

Oh, I know that you all have a conspiracy and feelings about it. But I'm asking for a rational, factual, evidence based connection to reality that would justify a change from normal procedure on the release of a body, including invention of non-existent restrictions on when it can be released and how the body can be handled after release.

As this was handled in a perfectly normal manner, in a perfectly ordinary time frame.

Its the gap between normal procedure and a standard autopsy........and all the 'foul play' claims that you can't back factually, where your justification for such hyperbolic overreaction becomes unreasonable and indefensible.

In short, why all the panty shitting? With evidence, please.

In short, why all the panty shitting? With evidence, please.

Ok, show us the complete FBI report with no redactions

Then it might be alright to cremate the body with the public’s blessings

 

[Blackrook]

Oh, I know that you all have a conspiracy and feelings about it. But I'm asking for a rational, factual, evidence based connection to reality that would justify a change from normal procedure on the release of a body, including invention of non-existent restrictions on when it can be released and how the body can be handled after release.

As this was handled in a perfectly normal manner, in a perfectly ordinary time frame.

Its the gap between normal procedure and a standard autopsy........and all the 'foul play' claims that you can't back factually, where your justification for such hyperbolic overreaction becomes unreasonable and indefensible.

In short, why all the panty shitting? With evidence, please.

There is nothing "normal" or "ordinary" in an attempted assassination of a Presidential candidate. The highest measure of caution should have been exercised to make sure of what happened, and that wasn't done.

This stinks like the so-called "suicide" of Epstein.

 

[Skylar]

In short, why all the panty shitting? With evidence, please.

Ok, show us the complete FBI report with no redactions

Then it might be alright to cremate the body with the public’s blessings

Or, you could show me the evidence that justifies change from normal procedure on the release of a body, including invention of non-existent restrictions on when it can be released and how the body can be handled after release.

You seem to be admitting that you have no such evidence. And so are demanding the FBI report to 'prove your conspiracy wrong'.

Which never bodes well for that 'connection to reality' I was speaking of earlier.

 

[Skylar]

There is nothing "normal" or "ordinary" in an attempted assassination of a Presidential candidate. The highest measure of caution should have been exercised to make sure of what happened, and that wasn't done.

Says who? The FBI strongly disputes Higgin's account that no one on the ground knew the body was missing. Instead, insisting that all procedures were followed, including sign off from both the coroner's office and the family.

FBI fires back at claims it released Crooks' body for cremation days after Trump assassination attempt

The FBI has snapped back against claims it released Thomas Matthew Crooks' body for cremation without informing those on the ground in Butler, following the assassination attempt on former President Trump.

www.foxnews.com

So do we have anything other than Higgins 'sayin' that procedure wasn't followed?

This stinks like the so-called "suicide" of Epstein.

When Trump, with long associations with Epstein, was president and in charge of the executive branch, including the housing of prisoners?

 

[Mac-7]

Or, you could show me the evidence that justifies change from normal procedure on the release of a body, including invention of non-existent restrictions on when it can be released and how the body can be handled after release.

You seem to be admitting that you have no such evidence. And so are demanding the FBI report to 'prove your conspiracy wrong'.

Which never bodes well for that 'connection to reality' I was speaking of earlier.

How would the public have evidence that the FBI is withholding?

 

[Skylar]

How would the public have evidence that the FBI is withholding?

So that means that you don't have evidence to justify your demands...or your 'foul play' narrative. Which is both telling and disappointing.

Rationally, one uses evidence to create their position. You've reversed the process, creating your position and then scrambling for any evidence to justify what you've already concluded. Conclusions which you just admitted, you still don't have evidence to support.

There's no 'connection' or 'reality' there.

That's just an accusation backed with nothing but more accusation. There's no reason to change from normal procedure on the release of a body, including invention of non-existent restrictions on when it can be released and how the body can be handled after release.

The way the body was handled and the timing of the release was perfectly normal and in-line with standard procedure.

 

[Mac-7]

So that means that you don't have evidence to justify your demands...or your 'foul play' narrative. Which is both telling and disappointing.

Rationally, one uses evidence to create their position. You've reversed the process, creating your position and then scrambling for any evidence to justify what you've already concluded. Conclusions which you just admitted, you still don't have evidence to support.

There's no 'connection' or 'reality' there.

That's just an accusation backed with nothing but more accusation. There's no reason to change from normal procedure on the release of a body, including invention of non-existent restrictions on when it can be released and how the body can be handled after release.

The way the body was handled and the timing of the release was perfectly normal and in-line with standard procedure.

See post #45

 

[Skylar]

See post #45

Where you basically admitted that you don't have the evidence to back your foul play narrative? Or to justify any change in procedure for the release of a body.

Yeah, I read it.

 

[Blackrook]

Where you basically admitted that you don't have the evidence to back your foul play narrative? Or to justify any change in procedure for the release of a body.

Yeah, I read it.

How can we have evidence that the FBI made sure would never come to light?

You're an apologist for attempted murderers.

 

[Skylar]

How can we have evidence that the FBI made sure would never come to light?

You're an apologist for attempted murderers.

How can you form your 'foul play' narrative without evidence supporting your 'foul play' narrative?

You're starting with your conspiracy. And you're scrambling to find evidence after. And admitting you still have none to back the conspiracy.

That's traditionally a pretty poor way of finding out what happened.

 

[Mac-7]

Where you basically admitted that you don't have the evidence to back your foul play narrative? Or to justify any change in procedure for the release of a body.

Yeah, I read it.

Nothing has changed

The FBI has not released the report

As long as they stonewall no on can answer your question

 

[Skylar]

Nothing has changed

The FBI has not released the report

As long as they stonewall no on can answer your question

Sure you can. If you asked me why I believe that Matthew Thomas Crooks was the shooter, its because his body was recovered at the scene next to a rifle, identified, an autopsy performed. There are eye witneeses, pictures of his body, reports from authorities. The same way we know about any other shooter, in any other crime. There's plenty of evidence.

If I were to ask you why you believe in this 'foul play' narrative, you give me reasons why you can't back the story.

That's irrational. There's no reasonable explanation for believing in a 'foul play' narrative in the absence of evidence supporting it. You're just plucking it whole from the air as an invention of your mind. And then trying to find evidence that matches your invention.

That's not sound reasoning. That's not evidence based. That's imagination based reasoning.

 

[Theowl32]

Well, they aren't COMPLETELY corrupt! They are also very incompetent.

If they were REALLY good at their jobs, they would have substituted another body for Crooks so that no one ever knew Crooks was gone.

Like Booth. The corruption has been going on for longer time than we think.

 

[Mac-7]

Sure you can. If you asked me why I believe that Matthew Thomas Crooks was the shooter, its because his body was recovered at the scene next to a rifle, identified, an autopsy performed. There are eye witneeses, pictures of his body, reports from authorities. The same way we know about any other shooter, in any other crime. There's plenty of evidence.

If I were to ask you why you believe in this 'foul play' narrative, you give me reasons why you can't back the story.

That's irrational. There's no reasonable explanation for believing in a 'foul play' narrative in the absence of evidence supporting it. You're just plucking it whole from the air as an invention of your mind. And then trying to find evidence that matches your invention.

That's not sound reasoning. That's not evidence based. That's imagination based reasoning.

No one knows what questions may come up during the investigation

The FBI refuses to release all the info its gathered so far

Till it does thats called stonewalling

 

[Skylar]

No one knows what questions may come up during the investigation

The FBI refuses to release all the info its gathered so far

Till it does thats called stonewalling

Not all of it. Not in an active investigation. But quite a bit. And more than enough to establish who the shooter was.

And not publicly releasing all the information in the midst of an active investigation is pretty standard procedure. But much like the perfectly normal time frame of the release of Crooks' body, you're trying to portray something ordinary as something sinister. They must be 'stonewalling' for doing what they almost always do during an active investigation.

All to back a 'foul play' narrative for which you have no evidence.

As Dr. Phil might say...that dog won't hunt.

 

[Mac-7]

Not in an active investigation.

There you go

The standard FBI answer for every question

 

[Skylar]

There you go

The standard FBI answer for every question

So again, its normal for the FBI NOT to release all information publicly during an active investigation.

And the release of Crook's body was perfectly normal, the timing perfectly ordinary.

So I ask again....why all the panty shitting?

 

[Mac-7]

So again, its normal for the FBI NOT to release all information publicly during an active investigation.

And the release of Crook's body was perfectly normal, the timing perfectly ordinary.

So I ask again....why all the panty shitting?

You keep hiding behind the same stonewall as the FBI

Tell them to release to entire report - unredacted - and then we’ll decide

 

[Skylar]

You keep hiding behind the same stonewall as the FBI

Tell them to release to entire report - unredacted - and then we’ll decide

The FBI doesn't ordinarily release publicly all the information in an active investigation. How then their normal procedure 'stonewalling' this time?

And again, how is it rational for you to believe a 'foul play' narrative, when by your own admission you don't have evidence supporting such a narrative?

This isn't a small issue. You're literally making up your 'foul play' narrative from your imagination.

 

[Mac-7]

The FBI doesn't ordinarily release publicly all the information in an active investigation. How then their normal procedure 'stonewalling' this time?

And again, how is it rational for you to believe a 'foul play' narrative, when by your own admission you don't have evidence supporting such a narrative?

This isn't a small issue. You're literally making up your 'foul play' narrative from your imagination.

You are the one demanding specific information from me that only the FBI could supply