Is it a coincidence that a new Epstein story is breaking the same day as the sketchy-sounding Gaetz accusations? Notice how those stories conflate in your mind. Gaetz is anti-war, doesn't take big donations, and is often mentioned as a future presidential candidate.
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
I noticed how the investigation was greenlit by Bill Barr. So maybe your political insinuations are less of an issue than the known facts would suggest.
#Predicate1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MrMokelly
Investigating what? Gaetz isn't even the target, we are told.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
You DO know that not being the target does NOT mean "not involved." Jeffrey Epstein was the "target" of his investigation. Maxwell was a subject of the investigation. You are a subject of an investigation until information determines you are then the target.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MrMokelly
Or until information determines the information is not credible. Have you ever been accused of a crime you didn't commit? I have.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
You said "investigating what"...he is an associate of an arrested and charged sex trafficker (Greenberg). It is standard operating procedure to investigate his associates, business partners et al. It is factually accurate to denote he is specifically being investigated.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MrMokelly
I didn't realize knowing people was illegal. Let's wait for a shred of evidence.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
He is not accused of "knowing people." He is not being investigated for "knowing people." That's willfully and wholly dishonest. The story wasn't about him "knowing people."
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MrMokelly
The point is that we have no evidence of anything, and trusting that it exists is pre-2016 thinking.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
I don't need evidence to trust that an investigation exists. Why is that so hard to understand???? Federal investigations have legal predicates in order to begin. They don't "begin" the day charges are filed or the trial starts. This isn't hard. Not to be confused w/ MERITS.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
You're having some kind of weird conversation with yourself in which you imagine things I've said and refute them.
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
Right, it is weird how my tweets directly respond to what you typed, even using the key words and phrases you chose in which to frame your argument. Literacy, it is a curse, I know.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.