In 2017, this person—who I don't know, but who'd creepily insisted to her 275,000 followers that I was a Kremlin agent—stated as fact that Trump would be convicted of sex trafficking. For the first and only time, I suggested readers unfollow someone. I stand by my assessment.
1/ Remarkably, this person appears to be the only person even tangentially connected to the media—she used to run a fringe-right website—who knows that I have *nothing* to do with her, as despite her calling me a Kremlin agent and me not knowing her some folks act like I do.
2/ As readers of this feed know, I'm a curatorial journalist, which means that a) I don't have sources, but curate hundreds of articles from around the world to ensure we have the most accurate, cross-indexed, and thorough information available, and b) I try to avoid predictions.
3/ This person, who has been—for no reason I can understand—stalking me for two years, and thereby successfully getting some in media to think I have any connection to her whatsoever, claims to be a reporter and claims she has "sources." Both claims appear to be false.
4/ Two years ago it was widely known—as it'd been widely reported—that Trump not only had owned a modeling agency but that that agency had had dodgy practices. MOTHER JONES (e.g.) had written of possible crimes committed by the agency well before 2017. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/donald-trump-model-management-illegal-immigration/ …
5/ There was *zero* evidence in 2017 that Trump was imminently going to be charged with federal sex trafficking—nor is there any today. My recent posts have only intimated that Epstein—like any defendant charged with pimping out kids—is in a position to offer info on his clients.
6/ There's evidence to suggest Trump was a client of Epstein's—along with many other powerful people, like Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew. Epstein's familiarity with and admiration for Trump's modeling agency suggests the former was (as suspected) partially an illegal operation.
7/ The rape allegations against Trump by a 13 year-old—withdrawn (perhaps only temporarily) for what reason we don't know, though Trump has a history of threatening or paying off witnesses—are part of a network of evidence regarding Trump and young girls. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3894806/Woman-alleged-raped-Donald-Trump-13-Jeffrey-Epstein-sex-party-DROPS-case-casting-doubt-truth-claims.html …
8/ I know from having formerly represented as a public defender (among dozens of other classes of defendants) indigent accused pedophiles—but frankly *everyone* knows this, public defender or not—that those with a predilection for underage sex exhibit the tendency pathologically.
9/ We therefore must look at Trump's statements to/about underage girls; his reported effort to see such girls naked at pageants; the rape allegation previously leveled against him; and his known associations—Nader, Epstein et. al.—in discussing whether Trump has such tendencies.
10/ The possibility Trump was knowingly trafficking underage models is one data-point in determining the likelihood of Trump being a former Epstein client who may have committed child rape—but of course as a lawyer I also believe we have to wait to see what investigation reveals.
11/ Someone who's been proven not to vet her "sources," to have bizarre ideas about our legal system no lawyer would have—like there being a "Marshal of the Supreme Court" who arrests people—shouldn't have said, in 2017, that Trump was certain to be charged with sex trafficking.
12/ It's constantly galling to me that some in media associate curatorial journalism by a digital journalism professor—and legal analysis by an experienced attorney—with supposed "reportage" by a self-described "chick-lit" author whose "reliable sources" appear to be ideational.
13/ This thread was made necessary by the horde of strange folks who follow this other person and periodically harass me publicly and privately—this time by claiming I agree (which I don't) with this person's premature and evidence-free claim about Trump's future legal situation.
14/ What I do *take back* from what I said two years ago is my proposal that people shouldn't follow this person, as my feeling these days is that everyone should follow who they like and—while I might have opinions on that—I don't mean to urge people to do one thing or another.
15/ Follow whoever you like, whether an attorney with substantial investigative and trial experience or someone who accuses others of being a Kremlin agent willy-nilly. But if you call yourself a journalist, don't associate two people who have nothing to do with one another. /end
PS/ The "assessment I stand by"—Tweet #1—is that the person in question isn't reliable. As I've said in this thread, it's not my place to urge folks who to follow or not follow, as that's certainly not a tendency I admire in anyone else on Twitter. I don't want to be a hypocrite.
You can follow @SethAbramson.