For the fourth time: I have zero theories about this case and have said we'll need to wait for the investigation. Sick of the Instagram posts and Twitter comments falsely saying I said things I didn't. I wish these trolls best of luck in finding another bridge to demand tolls at.
PS/ I agree that Twitter makes all of us into bad readers—me as much as anyone else. But I'd ask folks when—in 5 years of this feed—have I struggled to express myself or state my views confidently? If I cared to have a "theory of the case" here, I'd articulate it unambiguously.
PS2/ The furthest I went in any direction was to say that anyone committed enough to harming this judge to develop an assassination plot would be exceedingly likely to know she had been in the national news pre-attack for taking over one of the highest-profile cases in America.
PS3/ So I said, therefore, that it seemed exceedingly likely that the nationally significant case this judge was and is sitting on would've been part of the *conversation* surrounding the assassination scheme. That doesn't mean the Epstein case was the *reason* that it occurred.
PS4/ What's crazy is how easy it is to find folks who *are* saying Trump was involved, Epstein accomplices were involved, and so on—and saying so unambiguously. Why attack me, not them? I guess because folks think this feed is an effective anti-Trump vehicle that must be stopped.
PS5/ To call the timing of something "suspicious" is not to present a theory about it—it's to say that investigators *will* be suspicious and will act accordingly. They may well find nothing there! When I was an investigator, our first lesson was "investigation is 99% failure."
PS6/ So I stand by my banal remark—born of investigative experience—that "you don't have to have any interest in researching criminal conspiracies to believe that one of the Epstein judges facing an attempted assassination 96 hours after she gets the case is suspicious as hell."
PS7/ When I worked in criminal investigation—then supervised criminal investigators as a trial lawyer—we always began with suspicions. Indeed the legal standard for initiating an investigation (if you're a cop) is literally *called* "reasonable suspicion." Not hard to understand.
PS8/ So a lawyer/former criminal investigator saying "that's suspicious" is saying "the cops will have to look into that." It's not, "I have a theory! And it's right! And here are all the details!"
As and when I come to such conclusions about *anything*, I always say so clearly.
As and when I come to such conclusions about *anything*, I always say so clearly.
