This one’s right out of the “Obama’s birth certificate was faked!” playbook. If that’s your kind of thing, I would jump on this pile of horse hockey ASAP. I’m not a Jussie Smollett maven; I’m just going by the format of the podcast itself. It doesn’t actually tell the story of the incident, investigation, and trial - it just kind of starts in the middle with a search for inconsistencies in the record that might prove the whole brouhaha was a giant scam. What kind of scam, exactly, and to whose benefit? It’s never really stated, nor is a coherent alternate version of events ever described. “We’re just asking questions.” Unfortunately, Kelly makes the tactical mistake of inviting Jussie Smollett’s prosecutor Dan Webb to participate in the fourth episode, and Webb speedily uproots Kelly’s lovingly nursed garden of doubt-seedlings. Oops. Better luck next time, Kelly. I'm not offended by—or even all that skeptical of—the suggestion that there might be inaccuracies in the Jussie Smollett story as it was related by the nightly news. I'm offended because this podcast is such an egregiously perfect demonstration of conspiracy-minded thinking. Essentially, the main rule is that if you can conceive of an alternate version of events that is consistent with known facts, that alternate version must be "the real story." No affirmative evidence is required.

Exceptional reporting & pulling at the threads here. Provides thorough context, details, and professional insight on a very polarizing case (for some). More investigative journalism like this, please!

The podcast was good to listen to and I don’t regret it, however I do feel like she is grasping at evidence that is pretty weak in my opinion as a former cop.

This is why the public needs investigative reporters.

Why was episode 4 removed?

Excited to hear more!