This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The United States Secret Service refused an offer to use drones from local law enforcement in Butler, Pennsylvania, at former President Donald Trump's campaign rally July 13, according to a whistleblower.
U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., shared a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas with the allegation on Thursday.
He noted the FBI probe of the scene included evidence Trump's shooter, 20-year-old Thomas Crooks, used his own drone to survey the rally site just two hours before Trump took the stage.
"This raises the obvious question: why was the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) not using its own drones?" Hawley asked.
"According to one whistleblower, the night before the rally, U.S. Secret Service repeatedly denied offers from a local law enforcement partner to utilize drone technology to secure the rally," Hawley wrote.
"This means that the technology was both available to USSS and able to be deployed to secure the site. Secret Service said no. The whistleblower further alleges that after the shooting took place, USSS changed course and asked the local partner to deploy the drone technology to surveil the site in the aftermath of the attack.
"It is hard to understand why USSS would decline to use drones when they were offered, particularly given the fact the USSS permitted the shooter to overfly the rally area with his own drone mere hours before the event.
Hawley noted: "The American people deserve answers about your historic failure to protect former President Trump."
[postpoll]
The senator is giving Mayorkas seven days to provide "all records and communications concerning the availability or use of drones" at the rally.
"You must also testify next week about these staggering security failures by your department."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who campaigned for office on getting President Donald Trump and then orchestrated a flimsily grounded case against him, is being accused of blatantly violating the First Amendment.
"The tools of law enforcement must never be turned into weapons against political activity. The First Amendment prohibits government officials, from the most minor local officer to the attorney general of New York, from using their power and authority to target the speech of those they dislike," explains a brief prepared by the American Center for Law and Justice.
The document was being prepared to file in Trump's appeal in the Supreme Court of New York of a lower court's wild claim that he owes some $350 million in penalties for his business practices.
He then claimed Trump was liable for the hundreds of millions of dollars even though there was no evidence that anyone lost money because of Trump's deals, the banks with which he worked expressed a desire to do more business with him, there were no unpaid loans and no losses – by anyone.
The ACLJ continued, "No official has the authority to use their power to target speech through selective enforcement. And that is exactly what happened here. Facts in the public record demonstrate that the New York Attorney General Letitia James (the 'Attorney General') has taken the New York Executive Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 63(12) (Consol.), and using it to attack President Trump for his political activity and speech.
"The attorney general expressly ran for her office on a platform of prosecuting President Trump for his political speech and activity. She then did so, using the law in unprecedented ways to seek financial penalties and the dissolution of President Trump's businesses, based on her disagreements with his political views.
The ACLJ said, "No interpretation of state law authorizes the attorney general to engage in politicized prosecutions. Just as the Supreme Court emphasized in Vullo, although the attorney general can pursue violations of state law, she cannot do so for the reason of seeking to punish or suppress President Trump's protected expression. Contentions that President Trump violated New York law does not excuse the attorney general to use the law and coercive threats to stifle his speech. It does not matter whether she alleges a meaningful violation of state law or not; regardless, the attorney general has impermissibly used her authority to target the political speech of her opponent."
The ACLJ said it is arguing "the civil action she brought against President Trump was an unconstitutional act of retaliation for his First Amendment activity, and accordingly, the judgment of more than $350 million should be reversed."
The ACLJ said James' agenda against Trump "represents a grave miscarriage of justice and a dangerous precedent that should alarm all freedom-loving Americans. This verdict is not about upholding the law – it's about weaponizing the legal system to punish political opponents and intimidate conservative voices."
The legal team explained what already had been documented in court hearings: "There are no victims claiming harm here. Banks and insurance companies involved in Trump's business dealings have not alleged any losses. But the trial judge ruled that there did not need to be victims, damages, or even an intent to harm anyone under the so-called 'fraud' statute."
The team explained that James' "selective enforcement of the law reeks of political bias. During her campaign for AG, James repeatedly vowed to target Trump, even before having access to any evidence. This clearly demonstrates her predetermined intent to use the power of her office for political purposes."
The ACLJ continued, "By pursuing legal action against Trump based on his outspoken conservative views and policies, James is effectively attempting to criminalize protected political speech. This sets a chilling precedent for all Americans who dare to challenge the liberal establishment. The use of state power to harass and intimidate political opponents is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes, not a free republic. James' actions represent a dangerous abuse of prosecutorial discretion."
The legal team pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled on similar circumstances, determining that "another New York official violated the First Amendment when she targeted the speech of the NRA" in a case.
The ACLJ continued, "The ACLJ has long warned about the dangers of politically motivated prosecutions. The case against President Trump is a prime example of how the Left seeks to use the legal system as a weapon to silence conservative voices and consolidate power."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Joe Biden reportedly was diagnosed with COVID during a Nevada campaign trip last week – just before he made a social media post online over the weekend dropping out of the 2024 race for the Democrat party nomination for president.
But multiple reports now are revealing that Biden's health issue probably was much worse than COVID. In fact, it may have been a transient ischemic attack, often called a "ministroke," and that can be very serious for an 81-year-old like Biden who previously has had aneurysms, including one in 1988 that nearly was fatal.
Such circumstances would explain why he's not been seen in nearly a week, since Air Force One returned him to Delaware from Las Vegas on a flight that was so fast the plane "shook," according to witnesses.
"Law enforcement and medical teams gathered outside the University Medical Center trauma room entrance on Wellness Way in case the president of the United States arrived after he canceled an appearance at the Unidos US Convention in Las Vegas due to testing positive for COVID-19," the report said.
Instead, however, Biden's entourage was diverted from the hospital to the airport and Air Force One.
Reporter Jordan Schachtel then explained that Biden suffered an "undisclosed medical emergency," citing police sources.
His report said the official word from the White House that Biden had "respiratory symptoms" and "general malaise," but "we are told a very different story."
"We have verified that several of the core elements in Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk's viral X post from Monday are indeed true, according to law enforcement sources."
Kirk, in fact, reported that Biden had first been scheduled to be rushed to the Las Vegas hospital, with police closing "necessary streets to that POTUS could be transported immediately."
He reported then word was that Biden was being taken to Johns Hopkins, and later it was change again to have Biden taken to Delaware.
Schachtel reported his organization "obtained independent testimony from over half a dozen law enforcement officers who participated in the president's security detail, and others who spoke from firsthand knowledge of the incident that unfolded that day."
He reported, during Biden's campaigning, "all hell broke loose."
"Several law enforcement officers on duty that day were informed over the radio that the president was dealing with an unspecified medical emergency. Far from a case of the sniffles, this was sent out on encrypted police airwaves as if something akin to a five-alarm fire had broken out. Our sources estimate that it was 'easily' hundreds of Las Vegas Metropolitan officers and employees who heard the broadcasts live, so a curious media shouldn't have a problem reporting any follow-ups to this story. The dispatches made clear that this was much more than a mere change of plans, because it set into motion so much of their on-duty emergency response apparatus."
He noted, "Emily Goodin, the senior white house correspondent for The Daily Mail, reported that on the journey back east, Air Force One 'flew so fast the plane shook,' arriving in Dover in just 3 hours and 48 minutes."
Reports confirm a normal travel time for that route would be nearly five hours.
Schachtel reported, "Several of the officers we spoke to said this was indeed being reported and acted upon as a full-blown medical emergency, insisting that a simple positive COVID-19 test would not have warranted such a drastic, massive response."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ordered the state of New York to answer to charges in a lawsuit filed by the state of Missouri that it is interfering in the presidential election.
It is accused of "illegally scheming" to jail President Donald Trump, the GOP nominee for the 2024 election.
It is Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey who has brought the case, charging that, "New York is waging war on American Democracy – and Missouri will not let it stand."
The state is accused of an "illicit prosecution, gag order, and sentencing of President Trump" and the state is accused of deliberately undermining "his ability to campaign."
Such overt actions, the case complains, "sabotages Missourians' ability to cast a well-informed vote…"
Under the Constitution, such a claim of improper behavior made by one state against another goes directly to the Supreme Court.
Missouri's case asks that the Supreme Court determine New York illegally interfered with the election.
Trump was found guilty by a jury in leftist-Manhattan of business reporting violations in a trial rife with misbehavior.
The prosecutor took misdemeanors for which the statute of limitations had expired and claimed they were felonies because they were in furtherance of another, unspecified, crime. The judge's daughter was fundraising for Democrats off her father's courtroom decisions, and despite the appearance of conflict, he refused to exit the case.
The prosecution's chief witness was a convicted perjurer.
WND reported when the case was developing, Bailey explained, "We have to fight back against a rogue prosecutor who is trying to take a presidential candidate off the campaign trail. It sabotages Missourians' right to a free and fair election."
The Western Journal reported Bailey explained, "Radical progressives in New York are trying to rig the 2024 election. We have to stand up and fight back."
"The investigations and subsequent prosecutions of former President Donald J. Trump appear to have been conducted in coordination with the United States Department of Justice," he said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
With Joe Biden dropping out of the 2024 presidential hunt on Sunday, former President Donald Trump is now weighing in with his own reaction.
"Crooked Joe Biden was not fit to run for President, and is certainly not fit to serve – And never was!" Trump said on Truth Social.
"He only attained the position of President by lies, Fake News, and not leaving his Basement.
"All those around him, including his Doctor and the Media, knew that he wasn't capable of being President, and he wasn't – And now, look what he's done to our Country, with millions of people coming across our Border, totally unchecked and unvetted, many from prisons, mental institutions, and record numbers of terrorists.
"We will suffer greatly because of his presidency, but we will remedy the damage he has done very quickly. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
In a separate message, Trump indicated:
"Crooked Joe just got knocked out, so now I'll have to do it a FOURTH TIME!!!"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In recent weeks, U.S. authorities were alerted that Donald Trump was the target of an assassination plot by Iran. With heightened Secret Service security around Trump the result, many wondered how would-be assassin Thomas Matthew Crooks was able to take a shot at the former president on July 13.
But the Iranian plot to assassinate Trump is not new. WND spoke to Middle East expert and terrorism scholar Adrian Calamel, who noted that ever since the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, Qasem Soleimani, as well as Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, Iraqi commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces, was killed by a drone strike ordered by President Trump in January 2020 near a Baghdad airport, "several active assassination plots have been on the books."
The "kill list" includes Donald Trump, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security adviser John Bolton, former U.S. special representative for Iran Brian Hook, as well as other current and former officials of the U.S. government.
"Once you get on that list," Calamel, a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Arabian Peninsula Institute, told WND, "You don't get off that list. You're marked for death." According to Calamel, "[The Iranian regime's] goal is to drop one of these people on American soil to show us that they can hit us in our own country, just like we hit Soleimani and Muhandis on their soil, in Iraq."
"While we can talk about Biden's open border policies and who might be coming across," Calamel said, "I am more concerned about MOIS agents who have already infiltrated the country." For example, he pointed to the FBI's ongoing search for Majid Dastjani Farahani, who is suspected of "[recruiting] individuals for surveillance activities focused on religious sites, businesses and other facilities in the United States, [and he may acting or is] purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS)."
"That story went completely dead," Calamel told WND. "No follow-up. No arrests." All the while, he added, Farahani and others like him continue to recruit others for their nefarious plots around the country, whether it be gathering intel, planning a future attack, or attempting to assassinate a high-profile government official.
"When they finally pull the trigger, they'll be looking for some form of plausible deniability," Calamel cautioned. "Iran cannot face the wrath of the United States, so they'll blame ISIS, al-Qaida, or another bad actor."
A strong U.S. response to sanctions against Iran would be catastrophic for the Middle Eastern country, Calamel insists. "Considering this, if Trump gets elected, things are going to change and the regime could topple." Iran's threats against Israel and the United States would come with a heavy price, as Calamel suspects Trump would put "maximum pressure on [Iran] the first day he comes into office."
In his first term as president, Trump "clamped down and drained them" of their foreign currency reserves to $4 billion, said Calamel. "Under the Biden administration," however, as Calamel pointed out, "through oil sales to China, they've been able to grow that to more than $100 billion."
And while Iranians continue to struggle with a broken economy, Calamel noted that the regime is still funding Hamas to Israel's south, Hezbollah to Israel's north, the Houthis in Yemen, various other terrorist organizations and proxies around the world, pursuing their nuclear program, building an alliance with China, and more. "That's over $100 million that goes to increasing their war capacity," he emphasized. "Iran doesn't want to lose that," he explained, adding that "it likely increases their motivation to take Trump out now more than ever."
To that end, he said, "I suspect they flipped the switch after they saw Biden's debate performance and realized Trump may win." He argued, "Tehran is probably screaming that Trump is an existential threat and someone they need to take care of sooner than later."
"Until this past weekend," Calamel told WorldNetDaily, "I thought that Trump was going to be nearly impossible to get, so [the Iranian regime] would continue their focus on the low-hanging fruit like Pompeo, Bolton, Hook, or someone else."
"But if you're [Iranian supreme leader] Sayyid Ali Khamenei, what's going on through your mind right now is that Trump is not an untouchable target," Calamel asserted. Considering that Trump is a target of both domestic and foreign threats, Calamel said the Secret Service must increase security around the former president as he continues to pursue a second term in the White House.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A judge in Rhode Island has determined that the state is not allowed to simply change a law and take away beach property belonging to homeowners with waterfront properties.
The state earlier had simply changed its law and moved the demarcation line between public beach and private land 10 feet further inland.
That meant that that land was being taken away from homeowners without compensation even as they were required to continue to pay taxes on it.
That scheme apparently now is at an end.
The Pacific Legal Foundation revealed Superior Court Judge Sarah Taft-Carter said that state's "novel" beach access law violates the property rights of homeowners.
It's being called a major victory for those landowners.
The foundation explained, "In an order denying the state's motion for summary judgment, Judge Taft-Carter wrote that the law results in an unconstitutional taking of private property."
"Our clients are gratified that the court agreed with what they have said from the start—the beach access law violates their rights," explained foundation lawyer J. David Breemer. "As the court recognized, the beach access law infringed on our client's property rights by moving the existing public beach boundary line 10 feet landward, effectively confiscating our client's property, which is an unconstitutional taking."
The judge, whose final order will come later, said, "The act reduced the plaintiff's 'bundle of rights' inherent in the ownership of property by expanding the preexisting boundary line to 10 feet landward of the recognizable high tide line and confiscated the plaintiff's property resulting in an unconstitutional taking."
WND reported when the case was developing it was launched on behalf of the Rhode Island Association of Coastal Taxpayers.
Lawmakers simply voted to move the demarcation line for "public beach" property inland 10 feet, confiscating that same land from landowners in the state.
"Historically, the 'mean high tide line' served as the boundary between the public beach area and private property in Rhode Island," the legal team explained. The new law simply by fiat changes that by 10 feet, "giving the public an extra strip of land at the expense of private property owners."
The case accused the state of violating the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis, whose "organized crime" case against President Donald Trump is in disarray after she hired her paramour, at a cost to taxpayers of nearly $700,000, to work on it, then took luxury vacations with him, has learned that it is at a standstill now at least until December.
Willis brought a long list of charges against Trump and more than a dozen others over their statements regarding the 2020 presidential election. She tried to push the case through quickly, meaning that her intended trial would take place before the election.
However, because of her scandalous behavior regarding her hired boyfriend, a trial judge ordered him off the case, but allowed Willis to stay. Trump's lawyers and others interested in the case then filed an appeal, insisting that Willis, too, be booted.
The appeals court will at that time review the decision from Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee that allowed Willis to remain.
The report said the decision means Willis' claims "will remain on hold into the new year."
The report said Trump faces 10 counts in Georgia over what Willis has claimed was a scheme to overturn the state's results from the 2020 election. All defendants have pleaded not guilty, but four later took plea agreements.
"Proceedings were derailed earlier this year after one of those co-defendants, GOP operative Michael Roman, claimed Willis and Wade had an improper romantic relationship that Willis financially benefited from it. Roman claimed the relationship began before Wade was hired in November 2021 to work on the case involving Trump, and he sought to have Willis and her office disqualified and the charges dismissed. Trump and several others joined Roman's motion claiming the prosecution was invalid and unconstitutional," the report explained.
In fact, they both admitted to the romantic involvement, and McAfee eventually criticized Willis for her "tremendous lapse in judgment" and said an "odor of mendacity" hung over the case. But inexplicably based on the standard ethics code that even the "appearance" of conflict disqualifies a prosecutor, he let her stay.
One of the outside interests asking to join the case on behalf of Trump is the American Center for Law and Justice.
That organization announced it has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the appeals court calling for Willis to be removed from the case entirely.
The organization explained, "As we told you when the trial judge's decision on Fani Willis first came out, the judge's ruling made simply no sense. The judge found as fact that Fani Willis' conduct had an 'appearance of impropriety,' based on her relationship with Nathan Wade. Nonetheless, the judge allowed Willis to proceed with the prosecution anyway. The facts are clear that Willis must be disqualified from overseeing the high-profile election interference case against President Trump."
The ACLJ listed the facts:
"Willis appointed her alleged romantic partner, Nathan Wade, as special prosecutor – paying him over $650,000 in taxpayer money.
"She appears to have benefited personally from this appointment, taking lavish vacations funded by Wade's earnings from the case.
"Willis and Wade seemingly attempted to conceal their relationship, only admitting to it after being cornered by evidence."
What's present in the situation appears to be "corruption, cronyism, and abuse of power," the ACLJ said.
"How can the people of Georgia – or indeed, all Americans – have any faith in the integrity and impartiality of this prosecution? The Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial, free from conflicts of interest or impropriety. Willis' actions have irreparably tainted this case," the ACLJ argues.
The lawyers noted, "the mere appearance of such misconduct is sufficient grounds for disqualification under Georgia law and ethical standards. We emphasized that even an appearance of impropriety is inherently unacceptable and erodes the public's trust in the judicial process. In the present case, merely stopping the continuation of the 'repeatedly'-made 'bad choices' by removing Nathan Wade is not enough."
The taint that attaches to case through such conflicts cannot be corrected or remedied "after the fact," the brief argues.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Joe Biden, in what appears to be an effort to shore up and solidify his leftist voting base, is considering dramatic changes to the U.S. Supreme Court in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election.
Biden, trailing Republican nominee President Donald Trump in most polling these days, has a disorganized party behind him, following his displays of disorientation, confusion and worse in recent appearances, including where he called Ukraine's leader "President Putin" and his own vice president "Trump."
Reports explain he wants to interfere in the judiciary by demanding term limits for justices and imposing procedures where the executive or legislative branches could retaliate against justices for actions and opinions they dislike – under the guise of an "enforceable" code of ethics, actions considered to be aimed at undermining the independence of the judiciary.
One report pointed out, "Shaking up the Supreme Court may be Biden's way of trying to woo progressives back into his camp who are angry about some of the Supreme Court's recent decisions, including the immunity ruling and the change in federal abortion laws with the overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022."
Extremists like U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., have repeatedly attacked the court for its ruling that the Roe v. Wade decision that originally created an abortion "right" in the Constitution was faulty, and its decision that presidents have immunity for most acts while in office.
It was the Washington Post that said its sources confirmed Biden's pre-election scheme to propose changes to the court as well as push for a constitutional amendment that would eliminate immunity for presidents.
Reports said Biden launched the agenda during an online discussion with members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
"I'm going to need your help on the Supreme Court … I'm about to come out with a major initiative on limiting the court."
Trump responded with a statement in which he accused Democrats of "illegal and unConstitutional attack on our SACRED United States Supreme Court."
He said, "The Radical Left Democrats are desperately trying to 'Play the Ref' by calling for an illegal and unConstitutional attack on our SACRED United States Supreme Court. The reason that these Communists are so despondent is that their unLawful Witch Hunts are failing everywhere. The Democrats are attempting to interfere in the Presidential Election, and destroy our Justice System, by attacking their Political Opponent, ME, and our Honorable Supreme Court. We have to fight for our Fair and Independent Courts, and protect our Country. MAGA2024!"
Democrats have taken to openly bashing individual justices who make decisions that don't align with the Democrat Party agenda. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., for example, took a microphone at a pro-abortion rally on the steps of the court and individual threatened Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
Democrats repeatedly have attacked conservative justices for their friendships, their travels, and more, even though when the late Ruth Ginsburg was a justice – and openly berated then-candidate Donald Trump – they ignored such political and ethical issues.
A report pointed out, "Biden's desire to take some action comes as he desperately tries to win back confidence from his own party in the wake of his disastrous debate performance last month. Since then, Democratic donors, lawmakers and famous figures have publicly called for him to step aside to allow another Democratic candidate to top the ticket."
Kelly Shackelford, chief of the influential First Liberty Institute, reminded Americans that Biden himself once called interfering with the court a "bonehead" idea.
"Transforming the Supreme Court into another partisan body would destroy the independence of the judiciary and threaten the civil liberties of all Americans. Joe Biden once said that changing the structure of the court was 'a bonehead idea' that would 'put in question … the independence of the … Supreme Court.' He was right. The last thing we need in this country right now is a Supreme Court coup that would threaten judicial independence and our democratic republic. This is a radical attempt by a desperate politician."
He reported polling shows 72% of Americans say the politicization of the Supreme Court threatens judicial independence and 69% do not want Congress taking over and setting rules for judicial ethics.
NBC News' chief political analyst Chuck Todd said the reports are signs of Biden's "desperation."
"Look at the desperation in the air for Joe Biden right now," Todd said. "All of the sudden, out of nowhere, he's trying to do a Supreme Court reform for another way of playing to the left, because right now his biggest supporters are progressives. Because those that are in swing districts, they want him off [the ticket]."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A Pittsburgh television station is reporting “dramatic new details” in connection with the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump on Saturday, with sources Monday saying law enforcement was made aware of gunman Thomas Crooks on the roof nearly half an hour before shots rang out.
WPXI-TV reports: “According to multiple law enforcement sources, Thomas Crooks was spotted by law enforcement on a roof nearly 30 minutes before shots were fired that injured Trump, killed a former fire chief, and injured two others in the crowd.”
Channel 11's Nicole Ford confirmed that Beaver County's ESU team had eight members at the rally, including snipers and spotters. According to Ford's sources, one of them noticed a suspicious man on a roof near the rally at 5:45 p.m., called it in and took a picture of the person. We have learned from our sources the person in that picture is Thomas Crooks. We're told it's not clear if Crooks had a gun with him at that point.
According to multiple sources, a law enforcement officer had also previously seen Crooks on the ground and called him in as a suspicious person with a picture prior to 5:45 p.m. Our sources tell us an officer checked the grounds for Crooks at that point, but did not see him where the first picture was taken.
26 minutes after the second picture of Crooks was taken by law enforcement and the information called in, shots were fired from the roof of the American Glass Research building. Seconds later, a Secret Service sniper returned fire and killed Crooks.
As WorldNetDaily previously reported, local police reportedly encountered Donald Trump’s would-be assassin Thomas Crooks just moments before he opened fire on the former president Saturday, but failed to stop the shooter despite the clear threat.
The New York Post reports: “After rallygoers spotted Crooks on the roof of a manufacturing plant just 130 yards from the stage where Trump was speaking just after 6 p.m. Tuesday, police were notified and one officer climbed a ladder to investigate, law enforcement officials said on the condition of anonymity.
"There the officer encountered Crooks, who pointed his AR-style rifle at them.
"The officer then backed down the ladder, and Crooks immediately took aim and loosed eight shots at the former president – grazing him in the ear, killing one bystander in the rally crowd, and gravely wounding two others.
"After that volley of shots, Secret Service snipers shot Crooks dead."
Meanwhile, another witness to the mayhem has been interviewed on camera, saying he saw the shooter "move from roof to roof" before shots were fired.
"I was up at the fence line, saw the guy [the attempted assassin] move from roof to roof. [I] told an officer he was on the roof," the man explained.
"I heard that there was somebody that could see the person, so I went back to where they were standing, saw the person, went back and told the officer again that if he goes back to that particular spot he can see the person, figuring that he would go and radio. An when I turned around to go back to where I was is when the gunshots started and then it was just chaos."
Earlier, another rally attendee told BBC News he tried to alert authorities to the gunman, to no avail.
"We're pointing at the guy crawling up the roof," the man explained.
"He had a rifle, we could clearly see him with a rifle absolutely. We're pointing at him. The police are down there running around on the ground. We're like. Hey man, there's a guy on the roof with a rifle. And the police were like, Huh, what? Like they didn't know what was going on. …
"I'm thinking to myself why is Trump still speaking? Why have they not pulled him off the stage?"
The witness added he was "100%" certain the shots fired came from the gunman to whom he was trying to alert authorities.