So many questions surround the Las Vegas mass shooting that it’s difficult to believe the FBI when the agency immediately claimed that the shooter, Steven Paddock, had absolutely no terror ties. This was in opposition to ISIS claims, that assert Paddock converted six months ago and had been radicalized.

It’s interesting to note that the shooting occurred right at the end of Yom Kippur in front of a pyramid, but even by discounting the most wild conspiracy theories, the FBI’s complete and utter denial that the man had any terror contacts seems suspicious. The evidence, from what has been released seems to support ISIS’s responsibility statement. In fact, over 200 of Paddocks foreign financial transactions were flagged by the “intelligence” agency as possible “covert terrorism financing.”

The attack was planned very carefully. Suspicions concerning another person were first reported but have now been denied. There is a discrepancy concerning the date Paddock checked into the hotel room, there’s an ISIS video predicting the carnage, and he made several trips to the Middle East. Now we also know that a security guard was killed six minutes before the shooting began. Don’t casinos have their own, pretty awesome security teams? How do these things somehow discredit the claim made by the terror organization?

In fact, ISIS does not claim responsibility for attacks they haven’t carried out. There’s so much evidence for this fact, that the New York Times’ terrorism “expert” had to give credence to the claim. Plus, the L.A. Times reported this weekend that the FBI investigated the Orlando mass shooter for “10 months, and found nothing.”

However, it is well known that the Orlando killer who opened fire at the gay night club was a card-carrying jihadist who’d pledged allegiance to the Islamic State.

Using just that information, either the FBI is a bunch of liars, or they are incompetent.

But, there’s more. The Bureau was warned about the Boston Marathon bombings in advance, more than once, yet they did nothing. In another example, an FBI translator wed the ISIS jihadist who she was supposed to be investigating.

Also, the disturbing incident in Garland, Texas was helped planned by the FBI. And they did nothing as the terrorists were on their way to behead Pamela Geller. Fortunately, she had a separate security team on detail who were able to save her life. She said, “We survived despite the FBI.”

Although they knew all about the plot, they neither warned her, nor tried to stop the murderers. In 2015, ISIS recruiter Mohamed Abdullahi Hassan, also known as Mujahid Miski, communicated with the Garland jihadis before attack. He’d been communicating with them for over a year.

She reported, “Hassan allegedly traded more than 550 messages with attacker Elton Simpson, from November 2014 up until the day of the May 3, 2015, terror attack. Miski was also in contact with the Boston Muslims plotting to behead me. It has also been alleged that Miski influenced the San Bernardino Muslim mass murderers. Where was the FBI?”

Where indeed? Well, they were in on the plan. If her security team and the Garland Police had not stopped it, who knows whether the information would have ever been released about their involvement in the attack.

Geller wrote, “It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the Obama FBI wanted me and the other speakers at the event dead. Dutch freedom fighter Geert Wilders was the keynote speaker; he has been living with armed guards for years for supposedly “insulting Islam.” My colleague Robert Spencer has received numerous death threats from Muslims. Cartoon contest winner Bosch Fawstin drew Muhammad. Did Obama’s pro-Islam FBI want us all dead?”

Her assertions are legitimate. Now, the American people are supposed to take their word for it when they say that they investigated Paddock found nothing?

Incidentally, one of the individuals injured in that Texas attack is suing the FBI for their involvement. Hopefully, he’ll win and the FBI will have to pay for its rampant corruption.

ISIS has claimed that Paddock was their man—something that they do not go around doing if it is not true. How can the FBI expect the American people to believe their new statements considering their reprehensible past?

There are simply too many questions surrounding these events to believe that investigators are offering the honest truth. If over 200 of Paddock’s monetary transactions were being investigated, doesn’t that signal some sort of radical connection? According to the faulty FBI, nope.

The liberal belief about the idiocy of the American people is both insulting and untrue. However, they think they can get away with it, because they have so often in the past.