Comments on Epstein Dead by Jaybird

That's not an accurate restatement of my position.

I actually linked to an article that I thought talked about stuff really well at the time (Here, let me link to my comment where I talked about it).

I'd prefer people writing about it who are aware of the weird dynamics going on with the whole thing. And how the new information isn't doing a good job of making the weird dynamics less weird.

But if you were trying to be nice, let me apologize.

I guess it never occurred to me that that was an option on the table.

It's not that it doesn't work on my schedule.

It's that stories are dropped or mishandled in order to benefit The Powerful or in service to an agenda.

And the Lawrence O'Donnell story is a great example of that sort of thing.

In any case, when more news comes out in a week or so that shows, oh, two people going into the prison or something and there's no record of any visitors because, apparently, procedures weren't followed, you can talk about how the news media, seriously, is doing a great job and I can talk about how, no, they're not.

If you're telling me that I held the news media in contempt, wrongfully, allow me to say that pointing out that the news *FINALLY* got around to covering that the cameras had malfunctioned like it was a tutorial level in one of the Hitman games weeks after Epstein's body was discovered, then let me say this:

I still am unconvinced that I should have held the news media in less contempt.

If your point is something else, I don't know what the something else is.

I've gotta say, I've been looking for stuff that makes me say "yep, the conspiracy theorists were crazy" and having people point out that, weeks after the fact, they're *FINALLY* reporting on how the cameras malfunctioned as an own of my position is...

Yeah. I don't understand why CJ thought this would be a takedown.

And that's without getting into the photoshopped picture of Epstein's right hand lady or the guy in charge of his modeling agency up and disappearing.

It was apparently two cameras that malfunctioned.

(Reuters) - Two cameras that malfunctioned outside the jail cell where financier Jeffrey Epstein died as he awaited trial on sex-trafficking charges have been sent to an FBI crime lab for examination, a law enforcement source told Reuters.

Epstein’s lawyers Reid Weingarten and Martin Weinberg told U.S. District Judge Richard Berman in Manhattan on Tuesday they had doubts about the New York City chief medical examiner’s conclusion that their client killed himself.

The two cameras were within view of the Manhattan jail cell where he was found dead on Aug. 10. A source earlier told Reuters two jail guards failed to follow a procedure overnight to make separate checks on all prisoners every 30 minutes.

We finally have news about the footage. It's unusable. (Well, some of it.)

At least one camera in the hallway outside the cell where authorities say registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein hanged himself earlier this month had footage that is unusable, although other, clearer footage was captured in the area, according to three people briefed on the evidence gathered earlier this month.

It was not immediately clear why some video footage outside Epstein's cell is too flawed for investigators to use or what is visible in the other, usable footage. The incident is being investigated by the FBI and the Justice Department's inspector general's office, which are attempting to determine what happened and how to assess whether any policies were violated or crimes committed.

And, holy cow, I didn't know this:

Prosecutors have since moved to drop the charges against Epstein - although they continue to investigate those who might have conspired with him.

And Mother Jones...

It's weird what comes to light.

Ah yes, the other unproven conspiracy.

Did we achieve "fishy" with that one?

Or do we have to say that, hey, we just don't *KNOW* whether that's fishy too?

I suppose it doesn't matter, now that Epstein is dead.

Why are we even still talking about this?

You are spinning a bunch of common facts of prison life into a grand conspiracy based solely on…common facts of prison life and a displeasure that Epstein is dead.

Well, there's also the thing where Epstein's whole life for the last couple of decades was central to a different grand conspiracy that involved powerful elites and sex and all sorts of embarrassing things.

It has nothing to do with what I *WANT*. I want Epstein to have gone to trial.

The fact that he didn't is convenient to too many powerful people.

Now I'm stuck here asking "what the hell happened?" and seeing stuff like guards falsifying logs, cellmates being transferred, and hyroid bones being broken.

And people saying that this ain't even fishy.

What the hell?

At this point, I'm wondering if the tapes are destroyed if people will say that that doesn't prove anything.

Or if the tapes show two guys going into the cell, they'll argue that that doesn't prove that Epstein was *MURDERED*. Maybe they were visiting.

Huh. Maybe she will.

But that doesn’t rule anything out, it only keeps the possibilities open.

Indeed it does, and that's part of the problem.

But, for example, if the bone was *NOT* broken, it would indicate against strangulation.

Like if we had guards who followed protocols and walked past every 15-30 minutes, it would indicate against funny business. Like if they didn't falsify their own freaking records, it would indicate against funny business.

Instead, we're in a place where the guards falsified records but we're saying that that doesn't mean anything because we just don't know. And that there was a new guard there that night but it doesn't mean anything. And they failed to patrol but that doesn't mean anything. And his hyroid bone was broken but that doesn't mean anything.

It feels like smoking weed after existentialism class.

Does anything mean anything? Even in theory?


That said, his neck bone thingy being broken seems pretty fishy.

Wanna hear a *REAL* conspiracy theory?

The only time the hyoid bone is broken during suicide by hanging is when the suicide by hanging happens to occur while in police custody.

Is there any evidence that Epstein was attacked before?

Much more so in a prison, in the prisoners cell, where cameras track movement in the hallways and cover the doors.

Cameras, you say?

Chip, what I am asking is whether he had anything to tie his bedsheets to that he could have then tied his bedsheets to.

If the only thing that he could have tied his bedsheets to is stuff waist-height or lower, then that tells me that his hanging was not percussive but relied on slow and steady pressure.

You give a list of exceptionally difficult and unlikely things that need to have happened if there were to be foul play.

It's a good list!

Are there any in things in there that are knowable in theory that we know did *NOT* happen and thus we can wave away conspiracy theories as being silly?

Are there any things in there that are knowable in theory that it looks like something very much like them did, kinda, happen?

For this to be true, what extremely unlikely things would have had to have happened first?

Do we know if pictures were taken of the body when it was found? Probably not as, certainly, attempts were made to revive...

But do we know what the cell looked like when his body was discovered? Has that description wandered out into the wild?

If real life, how likely is it that rich and powerful people could arrange to kill a man in jail and get away with it?

While I have no idea how this would happen, I do think that the prerequisites would have to include a lot of little things like having his cellmate transferred, having irregular guards being on duty, having these irregular guards fail to check on him during a particular window, they'd have to falsify reports, and that sort of thing.

Those pre-reqs would have to be met first, I'd guess.

The worst part is that since these all, by themselves, appear to be coincidences, that we'd not have conclusive information about anything. Just a whole bunch of coincidences.

If it turns out that his cell doesn't have anything to hang his "rope" device from and the only thing above waist height was his bed, doesn't it pretty much eliminate the "jump from a chair" option leaving with only the self-strangulation that comes from leaning?

It seems to me that it would.

Right? Am I right on that?

I saw that and thought about linking to it, but thought "they asked a guy that knew him 3 years ago if he were the type to commit suicide and he said that he wasn't... that's not exactly useful."

But the last few lines of the interview are *VERY* interesting indeed.

Just not, you know, useful.

Wait, do we know if the "he hung himself" variant was the "jumping off of a chair" kind or the "self-strangulation at the foot of a bed" kind?

I guess, if he's got bone breaks, it's the "jumping off of a chair" kind, huh?

Do we have a picture of his cell? (Or a cell just like his cell?)

Proof there wasn't a conspiracy:

An autopsy found that financier Jeffrey Epstein sustained multiple breaks in his neck bones, according to two people familiar with the findings, deepening the mystery about the circumstances around his death.

Among the bones broken in Epstein’s neck was the hyoid bone, which in men is near the Adam’s apple. Such breaks can occur in those who hang themselves, particularly if they are older, according to forensics experts and studies on the subject. But they are more common in victims of homicide by strangulation, the experts said.

If there were a conspiracy, we'd never have found out that he'd suffered broken bones.


Which makes it perfectly fine that his body has been claimed by an unnamed associate. Because there's no conspiracy.

So we can stop talking about this.

This article says she's in Boston.

That and $5.99 will get you a venti cappuccino with almond milk.

It is difficult to give the media the benefit of the doubt when billionaires are involved.

But, sure. Let's wait and see what comes out.

Maybe it won't be like with Acosta.

Seth McFarlane made jokes about it back in 2013 because of stories he'd heard. It was, apparently, an "open secret".

4Chan, of course, knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy.

Seth McFarlane.

It’s like Ronan Farrow and Harvey Weinstein never happened.

Let me repeat my praise of the article: It talks about what we know so far, what we don’t know, the cameras, and even has a section devoted to “the inevitable suspicion and speculation”

Articles that just repeat what officials say aren't sufficient. Talking about what we don't know yet? Including about the cameras? That's what makes it good.

The fact that it rounds up (regurgitates) what officials have said is not what makes it good.

It comes out and says "there's a lot of stuff we don't know yet".

Which is good.

Because we don't.

I did. The one that I said was good is the one that doesn't rely on "officials said".

And the best case scenario is that the irregularities are due to laziness.

Putting this here:

Will Ghislaine Maxwell see Christmas?

My money is on "no".

Lotta people kill themselves before the holidays, you see. Plus, one of her friends recently killed himself and that sort of thing has contagion effects.

Yeah, they've done a great job acting as transcribers and disseminators of press releases.

Given how the media has done with Epstein so far over the last howevermany years, how much of the benefit of the doubt do you think they've earned here?

Yeah, we're not talking about Global Warming either, which could kill us all.

The problem with Epstein's death is that if there is justice to be served, part of that process involves a trial. Epstein's suicide removes that.

The bare *MINIMUM" situation we have here is that the guards were involved in a conspiracy to falsify records about what they were doing that night.

The "good" outcome is that we find that they were negligent and lazy.

We are in a place where we are learning that the guards falsified records *BUT* we shouldn't assume that it's conspiracy-level falsification of records but run-of-the-mill falsification of records.

I keep remembering stuff like the Weinstein stories that editors made decisions to not run or Cosby stories that journalists decided to leave a handful of allegations out of and I'm not sure that "to all appearances" suffices here.

I mean, remember the allegation that, during Jim Acosta's vetting process, he said that he backed off of Epstein because he was told that Epstein "belonged to intelligence"?

What ever happened with that?

Is there a point at which we should say "hey, journalists haven't really done a good job investigating this"?

When asked about this, of course, Acosta dodged the question.

During the press conference, Acosta corrected what he said were other misconceptions or misstatements about his handling of the case and dismissed much of the reporting on the Epstein case as “just going down rabbit holes.”

Nothing new to report since then, I guess.

Perhaps we soon ask why I still care about this story because, after all, Epstein is dead.

The most important thing we can do is tell people who are demanding answers to slow down and quit asking questions because we can trust the media to do its job.

Because it addresses such things as "there are a *LOT* of questions and, yeah, there probably ought to be" rather than taking the attitude that "hey, we get what we get and we don't get upset!"

The question is what are your reasons for having high priors for something fishy going on?

Because he was the billionaire at the center of the biggest conspiracy theory since Iran-Contra?

From the NYT:

As good Bayesians, can we point out previous predictions?

Because, if I said something like "I hope he doesn’t hang himself in his cell during a period where the security cameras aren’t working" and it turns out that he hangs himself in his cell during a period where the security cameras aren't working, can we incorporate that into our discovery that, yes, he hung himself in his cell and, for some reason, we haven't found out a whole lot about the footage yet?

Theoretically, I mean. As good Bayesians.

A guy goes from being a billionaire playboy kingpin to being a common prisoner certain to face a horrible life behind bars constantly fearing rape and murder?

What happened when El Chapo went to prison in Mexico? (This is something that actually happened, mind.)

And its already been established that America has crappy prisons where guards ignore prisoners who are suicidal.

From what we know, he claimed that he was not suicidal but was attacked.

I'm not about to argue against the crappy prison thing, though.

And besides, what makes you think that Epstein’s importance to this case have made any difference to his choices, or the choices of the guards?

Eh. I'm not going to put together a psych profile for him, personally. I'll just say that there are plenty of reasons to want to live. Even for billionaires on trial.

As for the guards, there are a bunch of folks in charge of keeping him safe. Not just the ones in charge of walking past his cell every 15-30 minutes, but also the guys who schedule those guys, the guy that that guy reports to, and the guy that *THAT* guy reports to.

Given the list of names of Epstein's associates, there are a lot of reasons to tell these people to tighten things up.

And a lot of reasons to forget to tell these people to tighten things up, depending.

I'd suggest a rule like this:

If such things happened while El Chapo was in prison in Mexico, would we be likely to say "what the heck?"

If so, I think we should be willing to say "what the heck?" here.

If we would say "hey, we know that Mexico has crappy prisons. They have an entire movie genre devoted to it!", then I suppose it's only fair to say that here as well...

But I kinda can't avoid the fact that Epstein is at the center of the biggest conspiracy theory since Iran-Contra and that colors the irregularities that surround him (even the regular irregularities).

Hey. If you guys want to read an article that I consider to be a pretty good one on this whole thing?

It's found here.

It talks about what we know so far, what we don't know, the cameras, and even has a section devoted to "the inevitable suspicion and speculation":

As tech and media commentator Charlie Warzel noted on Sunday, Epstein’s death is “in many ways, the post-truth nightmare scenario”:

The sordid story contains almost all the hallmarks of stereotypical conspiratorial fodder: child sex trafficking, powerful global political leaders, shadowy private jet flights, billionaires whose wealth cannot be explained. As a tale of corruption, it is so deeply intertwined with our current cultural and political rot that it feels, at times, almost too on-the-nose. The Epstein saga provides ammunition for everyone, leading one researcher to refer to Saturday’s news as the “Disinformation World Cup.”

This article is what I'm looking for.

Congrats, NY Mag. Well done.

Well, the conclusion is not, necessarily, "I KNOW WHAT HAPPENED! IT WAS BILL BARR IN THE CONSERVATORY WITH THE RUSSIAN BLANKET" but something more like "this ish is fishy as hell and the more irregularities are further evidence of its fishiness rather than coincidences that happen all the time".

Well, so long as no judges related to this case end up dead, I'm willing to not jump to conclusions before, oh, Friday.

Given the assumption that he died of hanging, would shouts and shrieks constitute evidence that goes against the assumption of hanging?

It seems to me that such reports have obvious follow-up questions.

It seems to me that there are, in theory, answers to these follow-up questions that don't rely on official statements alone.

It seems to me that acknowledging this would be a good thing.

I mean, today we are hearing that there was “shouting and shrieking” from his cell when he died. Who was shouting and shrieking? Epstein? The guards? Hillary Clinton? The news report doesn’t say.

Does it talk about the footage to/from the cell prior to the shouting and shrieking?

But at some point in the near future, as the investigation continues, we will either know or know that we don’t know.

Can you give me a timeframe? I'm 100% down with saying "well, maybe the NYT hasn't talked about the cameras yet" at this point.

I am less down with us never hearing about the cameras ever again.

Is there a point on that ray where you'd be willing to say "yeah, we should have heard about it from more than just TMZ by now"?

You're absolutely right. I do have a handful of questions about why they hadn't yet gone into that particular building and they involve stuff like jurisdiction and whatnot.

I’m hoping that the media is looking hard find out when and where the warrants issued.

I'm with you on this.

(I'm wondering if this story will just up and disappear the way the Panama Papers or the Deborah Jeane Palfrey story did.)

Is there a point at which you will feel it is appropriate to wonder why TMZ is still the only organization to tackle the cameras?

I am 100% down with waiting until that day to come back to this.

Yeah, this is closer to my take too.

Are there things that are easier about searching/cataloging this house now that Epstein's dead?

Something that does a good job of communicating my unease:

Was the trip planned before he died? (I can easily imagine the plane tickets being bought a week ago... I can also easily imagine them being bought at 6AM.)

Kazzy, I'm not "blaming" anybody for anything.

I *AM* saying that a *HUGE* conspiracy was recently unearthed that put a *HUGE* number of the elite in the crosshairs of law enforcement and, perhaps more importantly, the media.

And one of the things I'm kinda hoping for on the part of the media is a display of competence.

Sourced reporting on the footage would be a good thing. But if source reporting is impossible, what exactly do you want?

A public statement that says "we know that this is kinda important but we can't get *ANYBODY* on the record."

I think that that would be newsworthy.

Or, wait, I'll phrase it better.

I assume that that would be newsworthy.

I assume they’ve asked about the footage. I assume they’ve gotten nada-zip-zero on that.

How many assumptions are appropriate, do you think?

How much speculation would you feel is appropriate?

How's about a webpage? Would that be good?

Oooh! CNN is talking about the Mooch!

Even something like "The FBI grabbed the footage and is reviewing it" would be newsworthy!

Would "we can't get anybody to answer questions about the security footage" be newsworthy?

I submit: IT WOULD.

Current Epstein-related CNN headlines:

"Barr cites 'failure' at New York jail that held Jeffrey Epstein"

"Trump promotes Epstein-Clintons conspiracy"

That's what they got.

Let's go back and see what I said. Let me copy and paste it:

You have no idea how much I wish that a *REAL* news organization would make some phone calls to ask about this sort of thing.

It’s enough to make you wonder why it hasn’t.

Must be because it’s the weekend.

Now, what is the "this sort of thing" I referred to in the post?

Let me copy and paste *THAT*:

The news here is that, sure, the SOP was *NOT* that cameras were pointed inside of the cells *BUT* it ought to be possible to see if the guards walked past every 15-30 minutes. Or if nobody walked past.

Even 4 hours of footage of nothing happening except the guard walking past every 20 minutes would be newsworthy.

And now I ask:

Have you seen any news articles talk about the footage?

I've seen no shortage of tweets yelling "THE CAMERAS WERE ON THE FRITZ" but none of them were sourced.

Have you seen a news article talk about the security tapes?

Because I haven't.

Can you admit that CNN is doing at least decent work on this?

No. I can't.

Right now there isn’t any evidence of foul play

The evidence we appear to have is that protocols weren't followed.

That's not necessarily evidence of foul play, but half of the list of things on "foul play" require protocols not being followed.

I'd be fine with an article that says "these are the things we don't know yet (but want to know)".

That would be preferable to "anyone who doesn't believe the official story about the suicide of the most important witness at the center of the weirdest conspiracy to surface since Iran-Contra is a conspiracy theorist!"

Kazzy, I don't know what you're disagreeing with.

Is it just my tone? Or is there a material fact that I got wrong?

(Out of curiosity, have you read a story yet that mentions whether there is footage? I've seen no shortage of tweets that say that the footage was glitchy... have we seen a story that mentions whether it exists? *I* haven't. You'd think that that'd be something that we'd know by now.)

Is it fair to say that CNN has made some phone calls to try to determine what SOP was and whether SOP was followed here?

So what we know is this:
Standard operating procedure is to put someone on suicide watch for a couple of days and then take them off of it.

We know that Epstein might not have attempted suicide earlier but, instead, claimed to have been attacked by a fellow inmate.

We know that Epstein was not on suicide watch when he, apparently, committed suicide.

We know that his cellmate was removed for reasons unknown.

All of those things are things that CNN reported.

Is it fair to say that CNN has made some phone calls to try to determine what SOP was and whether SOP was followed here?

That this shit is fishy as hell and the journalists aren't doing a particularly good job of getting into the onion?

If that's what you're implying that I'm implying, then let me say that I stand by the position that is your interpretation of my implication.

I regret reading the wrong article at the top of CNN's page. I did not intend to move goalposts.

My main takeaway from this article was this part here:

It wasn't clear whether those injuries, which were not serious, were self-inflicted or the result of an assault, the sources said. Epstein told authorities he had been beaten up and called a child predator, they said.

Which tells me that, yeah, I guess it is kind of appropriate for him to have been taken off suicide watch if he never attempted suicide but was, instead, attacked.

And now we're back to a weird place where the (arguably) most important witness at the very center of a weird elite pedophilia ring (a conspiracy, even) was allowed to be put in that position in the first place.

And the best case scenario is that nobody involved cared.

And that is, indeed, the best case scenario.

Saul, you're still not understanding.

The point of my comment was not "hey, look at these guys, they're credible".

The point was "Trump just tweeted these tweets out to all of his followers."

Explaining to me that someone that Trump did not tweet out is more credible than the people that Trump did tweet out is interesting, I guess. But you're arguing against a point that I'm not making.

Let's check it out and read it together.

Epstein's cell was not regularly monitored the night he is believed to have killed himself, a source with knowledge of Epstein's time at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York told CNN.

Nice to have *THAT* confirmed, I guess.

Epstein, 66, was in the special housing unit in a cell by himself when he was found dead early Saturday. He initially had a cellmate, but that person was removed for reasons unknown, the source said.

It's protocol for inmates coming off suicide watch not to be placed alone in a cell, according to the source.

Reasons unknown. Huh. Protocol wasn't followed, I guess.

Protocol within the federal detention center's Special Housing Unit is for guards to check on inmates every 30 minutes. If the inmates appear to be asleep, protocol states guards should make sure they're OK, the source added.

If guards falsified documents saying they made rounds when they didn't, there's a chance for criminal prosecution, the source said.

Well, I hope we talk to someone who is responsible for looking at those documents at some point.

No foul play is suspected in Epstein's death, a federal official told CNN Saturday. The bureau's release called it "an apparent suicide," and said the FBI is investigating.

How reassuring!

Do we know which federal official? Because if it was the Honolulu Postmaster, I'm not impressed. If it's the Federal Prison Guy, I'm a little more interested.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons declined to comment Sunday.

So whomever the guy was, it wasn't the Federal Prison Guy.

"I was pretty stunned. Disbelief. It's still a little shocking that something like that could have happened given his high-profile status in the Bureau of Prisons," she said Sunday on CNN's "Reliable Sources."

Brown said it's important to look at what happened with Epstein's suicide but also to keep the focus on the victims and on the case.

"There's so many avenues that have yet to be investigated ... not only on Epstein himself and the crimes he committed --- and what other people might have helped him do and other co-conspirators involved in this -- but also on how this whole thing happened back in 2008 and why it happened, and whether there's any corruption there to look at," Brown said.

I've no doubt that there was corruption back then. I think it's worth looking at whether there is corruption this time around as well.

The article could have been worse, I guess.

It's not like it'd be fair of me to expect CNN, of all places, to say something like "this is a clusterjunk of unprecedented proportion, it looks bad, and even the best case scenario smells fishy."

But it'd be nice to have talked to a source (they wouldn't even have to name him or her!) who said "we know that this looks exactly like a damn deep state op". They could even have gone on to say "But it wasn't!"

Because I've been looking for stories that talk about this sort of thing and TMZ is the only site that had been talking about this sort of thing as of the time of that story coming out?

One great thing to do that would make me look *REALLY* foolish is to find a sourced article from a reputable source that answers these questions!

Sure! (See also: The Panama Papers!)

We're in a place where the media is not particularly trustworthy. (There should be a term for this sort of thing.)

This is a bad place to be.

These are all really awesome questions!

We should have people in charge of asking them!

(Is there any evidence that editors are easily swayed from printing things that are inconvenient to powerful people? Have there been any recent stories that finally broke and then had a stampede of journalists running over toddlers in order to get a microphone and announce that they knew this too, it was an open secret, but they could never print the story because it would be too poorly sourced?)

Saul, this guy was a billionaire who ran a pedophile ring for the world's elite at his own private island that was nicknamed "pedophile island".

This is, like, true according to the documents that we actually have.

Waving this away because it's a conspiracy theory is... well, it's lazy. It's inchoate.

(And the point isn't that the guy is a reliable source. The point is that Trump retweeted the tweets.)

You have no idea how much I wish that a *REAL* news organization would make some phone calls to ask about this sort of thing.

It's enough to make you wonder why it hasn't.

Must be because it's the weekend.

TMZ is reporting:

Jeffrey Epstein's death may never be conclusively determined, because we're told standard practice in the area where he was detained is that cameras do not point inside cells.

Sources familiar with the correctional facility in question tell TMZ, there are cameras in the Special Housing Unit -- the SHU -- but SOP is that cameras do not point into the cells. We're told cameras capture, among other things, the doors to each cell to determine if anyone walks in or out, but they don't point inside.

One source familiar with the facility says the drill is for guards to pass by each cell in intervals ranging from 15 to 30 minutes depending on the circumstances.

The news here is that, sure, the SOP was *NOT* that cameras were pointed inside of the cells *BUT* it ought to be possible to see if the guards walked past every 15-30 minutes. Or if nobody walked past.

Even 4 hours of footage of nothing happening except the guard walking past every 20 minutes would be newsworthy.



AOC is on it. I want to see what happens. Pelosi bigfooted her this summer once... I'm watching with great interest to see what evolves.

45 just retweeted the following two tweets:

I really enjoyed this political satire:

Which is why he was on suicide watch?

A good point here:

Well, once we see the footage of what happened, I'm sure that all the conspiracy theories will be cleared up.

Oh, sorry. "Let It Happen On Purpose". (As opposed to MIHOP which is "Made It Happen On Purpose".)

What's really crazy is that the fact that he was on Suicide Watch means that the LIHOP theory is the *FLOOR*.



An interesting take from the only political mind worth following on Twitter: