Roy Den Hollander—the now-dead "primary suspect" in the attempted assassination of Judge Salas—had cancer. Below was his GoFundMe, tied to his LinkedIn. This will aid any FBI theory Hollander was paid to kill Salas by someone who knew the former was dying. https://www.gofundme.com/f/medical-profession-corruption

PS/ To be clear, the FBI is likely investigating *many* theories of the case—most of them mundane. I'm not suggesting anyone can or does know what happened here. I'm simply noting how an investigator might view this *one* piece of evidence. Or, you could also view it differently.

PS2/ For instance, a dying man might be angry if he thought a judge had ruled in favor of insurance companies. Or, a dying man who desperately needs money might feel he has nothing to lose and take a paid contract to kill someone out of desperation. Or many other possibilities.

PS3/ In 2015, Hollander was reviewing docs in a case involving Prudential Insurance Company. Major media says it was in that year that he had a case before Judge Salas. So one of many lines of investigation for the FBI will be whether that 2015 case involved Salas and Prudential.

PS4/ Other lines of inquiry may include, for instance, Hollander working in 1999 and 2000 to improve a company's "delivery of intelligence and security in the former Soviet Union"—work involving "preparing intelligence reports" and dealing with "Russian employees in the firm."

PS5/ The FBI may consider that in 1999 Roy Den Hollander "counseled companies, individuals and nonprofit organizations in Russia on legal and business issues, including international financing and marketing," or that in the 1980s he worked a major Atlantic City casino fraud case.

PS6/ Essentially, Hollander's background is a "target-rich" environment for a criminal investigator—though of course they'll first scour his home for any obvious signs of his motive (including a confession, a suicide note, personal effects, financial records, and so on). Routine.

PS7/ And of course there will be a million red herrings in the case, as there always are in any complex investigation. Hollander and Barr attended the same law school? Not only did they attend 8 years apart, but even if they knew one another, what in the world would *that* prove?

PS8/ We don't know what they found in his home, so we can't know what line of inquiry they like for a *starting* point (once material evidence collection is over). His cancer and the 2015 Prudential-Salas line seems promising, but even with a nexus, why wait 5 years for revenge?

PS9/ And of course everything—everything—will need to be fully corroborated, e.g. they'll want to be *certain* that Hollander really had cancer and that his role in any 2015 federal case that Judge Salas presided over was a meaningful one (i.e. it's not just evidentiary "noise").

PS10/ But I'll say this: those on social media concerned about such "starting facts" aren't being alarmist. Assassination attempts on federal judges—let alone those working on cases Russia would be interested in—are vanishingly rare. And the primary suspect worked in/with Russia?

PS11/ But until anyone on social media says "I know what happened! Here's how it went down!"—which frankly almost no one ever does—could we not play this stupid Twitter game of everyone on every side accusing everyone else of conspiracy-theorizing? Let the investigation play out.

PS12/ Mainly my message here is to the mainstream media: stop running stupid stories like that. This is *social* media—people are allowed to note that the facts of a case are odd without you scurrying to your Watergate-era typewriters bemoaning the "conspiracy theorizing" online.