A blog post has appeared on social media that claims Thomas Matthew Crooks, who was shot dead while trying to assassinate Donald Trump during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, in July, made payments to Ryan Wesley Routh, charged in a separate apparent assassination attempt on Trump.
The screenshot of the blog post started circulating on social media a day after the second assassination attempt on the former president and the claim has since gone viral. Several users on social media have been trying to find out the truth behind the claim as a lot about both Crooks and Routh still shrouded in mystery. However, the claim is baseless and false.
Claims Looks Strange
The claim first appeared in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, on September 16, a day after the second assignation attempt and hours after alleged shooter Ryan Wesley Routh was arrested.
The blog post read: "What the An article emerges alleging that Thomas Crooks made payments to Ryan Routh?! Shooter #1 paying shooter #2 ????"
However, the claim is completely false. The blog post in question was originally published on August 30, 2024, but did not mention Ryan Wesley Routh at the time, as confirmed by an archived version on the Wayback Machine.
Routh was only arrested on September 16, 2024, for allegedly planning an assassination attempt on former President Trump at Trump International Golf Course in Florida.
The blog was subsequently updated on September 17, 2024, to include Routh's name, without a proper disclaimer indicating the modification. This lack of transparency goes against standard media practices, which typically involve disclaimers when articles are edited.
Misleading Claim
The changes to the blog post, including the added references to Routh, can be confirmed through its source code and by comparing the archived versions from August 30 and September 17, as shown in the Wayback Machine comparison page.
Also, no credible evidence has been found linking payments between Ryan Wesley Routh and Thomas Matthew Crooks. A search on Google News also did not reveal any reliable sources supporting such a link.
Hence the misleading claim can be labeled 'False.'
