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.
-
-
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 @MrMokelly
Right. Not accused, and no evidence we know of that would change it.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
You are commenting about the merits of an investigation you are not privy to. You don't need to know the specifics of the evidence to acknowledge there is an investigation. You don't know the evidence in the Hunter Biden investigations either.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MrMokelly
I knew you'd agree with me eventually. You took the long way.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @MrMokelly
What They Mean Retweeted Scott Adams
Which takes us back to this tweet, where you said knew specifics about the investigation.https://twitter.com/scottadamssays/status/1377255095566409729?s=21 …
What They Mean added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Translates_ @ScottAdamsSays
It is weird how he alleges to know anything about the underlying evidence in an investigation when he is privy to NONE of it, but makes declarative statements about the evidence and what it shows. While telling us we don't know what the evidence is/shows. Weird I tell you.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You are hallucinating all of that. Literally none of that happened.
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @Translates_
So now you deny what you actually typed? You are willfully dishonest. "This story has a lot of layers, but apparently none of those layers include any evidence of Gaetz doing anything improper. " You are trolling now. You point blank attested to level of evidence. YOU did.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The story was not an evidentiary dump. It was an acknowledgement of the existence of an investigation and into what. THAT'S IT. You're being willfully obtuse now.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 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.