The people who debunked the conspiracy theory are using reasoning that is incredibly stupid. This is a sign that they don't have any intelligent reasons so they are "scraping the bottom of the barrel". For two examples:

a) Joe Scarborough quit his job in Congress after she died, and some people wonder if it was because he was involved with her death. In a letter to Vanity Fair, Scarborough wrote: "I didn’t leave Congress because of her death; I announced my retirement from Congress in May 2001 — she passed away several months later."

Scarborough and some journalists claim that his announcement to retire a few months before she died is proof that her death has nothing to do with his retirement. However, that argument is so stupid that it is suspicious.

To understand how stupid that argument is, consider a woman who is accused of killing her husband in order to get his life insurance. She responds that she demanded that he get life insurance before they were married, and that he died a few months after the wedding, and therefore, there is no connection between his death and her demand for life insurance.

For another example, consider a person who plans to burglarize some of the homes in his neighborhood. Before he starts the burglaries, he makes preparations to sell his house and purchase a house in another city. He makes these plans because he wants to go to another city after he steals the items so that none of his neighbors notice that their stolen items are in his house.

He then burglarizes the homes and moves to another city with his stolen items. When the neighbors complain that it is suspicious that he moved soon after the burglaries, he replies:
"I made plans to move a few months before the burglaries occurred!"

b) Another of their incredibly stupid remarks is that Scarborough was in Washington when she died in Florida, and therefore, he could not have been involved with her murder. This CNN article describes it as:

"Scarborough’s opponents and a bevy of internet trolls have tried to blame him for her death, even though he was in Washington at the time."

Unless you are very young or amazingly naive, you should realize that many criminals arrange for murders and other crimes to take place when they can provide proof that they were in a different location at the time of the crime.

Michael Berkland was the medical examiner who claimed that Lori Klausutis' death was an accident. Years earlier he worked as a medical examiner in Kansas, but he was fired because:
"Investigators found eight undissected brains when they reviewed files and specimens handled by Berkland, indicating he had fabricated autopsy results".

He then moved to Florida and got another job as a medical examiner. It was at this job that he determined that Klausutis' death was an accident. However, two years later "he was fired for not completing autopsy reports."

His habit of fabricating autopsy results has caused some of us to wonder if we can trust his autopsy of Klausutis. We want some other medical examiners who have better reputations to investigate her death.

Many people get more than one doctor's opinion about a medical problem they are suffering from, so what is wrong with getting more than one opinion about a mysterious death? Why would anybody oppose a second, third, or even a fourth opinion about a mysterious death?

About 10 years after Michael Berkland was fired from his job as medical examiner in Florida, he was arrested for several reasons, the most interesting of which was for taking and storing pieces of dead bodies. He had "more than 100 containers of human tissue, including brains, hearts and livers", which he "kept in leaky cups and dinner boxes".

His illegal and bizarre behavior has caused some of us to wonder about his mental health and honesty. This in turn has caused some of us to want medical examiners who have better reputations to investigate Klausutis' death.

Trump is often criticized for doing what his critics do. For example, whenever Trump makes a spelling mistake in a twitter message, some journalists insult him, but who among us has not made typing or spelling mistakes?

Trump is insulted for promoting the Scarborough Conspiracy Theory, but a few years ago the liberals were promoting the same, exact theory. An example is this article at the Daily Kos with the title: The Ugly Story in Joe Scarborough's Political Closet

That article lists several reasons as to why we should suspect that Lori was murdered. One reason is:
"What is the likelihood that an apparently healthy woman, who ran marathons, would faint and hit her head on a desk in such a way that would cause death? It's pretty unlikely, our research indicates."

Trump made a brief, vague remark about the Scarborough Conspiracy Theory, but that article provides a lot of detail about why we should suspect that she was murdered. However, Joe Scarborough, his wife, and the journalists are not whining about that article. Why not?

Although some copies of that article have been deleted already, and some other articles that discuss the conspiracy theory have been deleted, there are still some on the Internet, as of May 2020.

We ought to wonder if the reason the journalists considered it acceptable to promote the conspiracy theory in 2011 was because Scarborough was a Republican at that time. Now that he is a Democrat, the journalists do not want to attack him. Now they protect him and attack Trump.

Joe Scarborough's wife, Mika Brzezinski, tried to pressure Twitter into removing Trump's remarks:
"Twitter, you shouldn’t be allowing this, and you should be taking these tweets down, and you should be ashamed of yourself."
She also insulted Trump:
"Donald, you’re a sick person. You’re really a cruel, sick, disgusting person."

Other people who dislike Trump also complained that his remarks should be deleted from Twitter, but why would people who dislike Trump want to censor his idiotic, baseless, and debunked theory? Why don't they use his stupid remarks as evidence that he is unfit to be the president?

Scarborough, his wife, and other people who dislike Trump should have responded to Trump's tweet with something like this:
"Trump just announced that he suspects that Joe Scarborough was involved with a murder. We ask everybody, especially the Trump supporters, to please investigate the death of Lori Klausutis, and see if you can find evidence of a murder. If you cannot find any evidence, then you should ask, 'Why does Trump see evidence?' The reason may be because his hatred of Scarborough is so intense that he can see a murder where nobody else does. Or perhaps Trump had a stroke and can no longer think properly. Regardless of the reason, his idiotic remark is more evidence that he is unfit to be president."

How would Scarborough, his wife, and other people have reacted if Trump had posted a remark on Twitter that he believes Bigfoot creatures are wandering around in the forest, and that he wants to fund a group of forest rangers to search for the creatures? Would Scarborough, his wife, or the people who do not like Trump whine that Twitter should delete his "baseless" theory? Or would they give publicity to his "stupid" proposal in order to show people that Trump is unfit to be president?

The people who dislike Trump should have laughed at Trump's remark, and they should have encouraged the police to do a more thorough investigation in order to prove to the world that Trump is an incompetent nitwit who needs to be impeached immediately.

Instead, they reacted with panic, fear, and hysteria, and they tried to suppress and censor Trump's remarks. Why are they showing fear rather than joyfully exposing Trump's faulty reasoning?

An honest person will be annoyed when the police investigate whether he was involved with a crime, but he will not be afraid of an investigation. An investigation of an honest person will simply provide more evidence that he is honest. This concept is similar to putting rocks into an acid bath to determine which of them are diamonds.

Honest people do not need twitter to censor false information. As I wrote many years ago, the truth does not need protection.

If Joe Scarborough has nothing to do with Lori's death, then he could proudly announce,
"I support Trump's suggestion to investigate Lori's death, but not because I suspect that she was murdered. Rather, to help you realize that Trump is intellectually incompetent, and an embarrassment to the nation, and he should be impeached."

An honest person might be concerned that the police are so incompetent, careless, lazy, stupid, or corrupt that they falsely accuse him of a crime. Therefore, an honest person will want an investigation of himself to be extremely thorough. Furthermore, he will not want the investigation to be conducted in secrecy. He will want the results available to the public so he and everybody else can see what the police have done.

Joe Scarborough could have responded to Trump's tweet with a remark similar to:

"Okay, let's try to settle this issue. Let's have a much more thorough investigation of Lori's death. Let's have more than one medical examiner provide an analysis, and let's put all of the information out in the open so that everybody can see the details about her health, her life, my associations with her, and all related issues."

If your wife (or husband, child, friend, or relative) were to die at age 28 for no apparent reason, would you try to stop an investigation of her death? If millions of people around the world suspected that your wife was murdered, would you make an announcement to the public that her death was so emotionally traumatic to you that you don't want any further investigations into it? If President Trump were to suspect that your wife was murdered, would you ask Twitter to censor his remarks?

Timothy Klausutis, Lori's husband, wrote this letter to Jack Dorsey in which he complained about "a constant barrage of falsehoods, half-truths, innuendo and conspiracy theories since the day she died."

His letter is full of adjectives that imply that he has been suffering emotionally from these conspiracy theories. For example, one of his sentences is: "The frequency, intensity, ugliness, and promulgation of these horrifying lies ever increases on the internet."

However, he did not ask Twitter to delete every tweet about the conspiracy theory. Rather, he asked to remove only the tweets from President Trump and his son.

Why doesn't he ask Twitter to remove all of the tweets about that "debunked falsehood" and "vicious lie"? How does his life improve by removing only the tweets from the Trump family? And why doesn't he care about all of the people who are promoting the conspiracy theory on other social networks, message boards, and websites? Why doesn't he care about this article at Daily Kos (mentioned in #4)?

If he truly wants to stop people from promoting the conspiracy theory, then he should follow what I suggested in #7. Specifically, instead of writing a letter to Twitter, he should write a letter to the American people and the police departments, and instead of asking to censor the Trump family, he should ask:
"Please settle this conspiracy issue once and for all by conducting a more thorough investigation so that I don't have to be bothered with accusations that my wife was murdered."

Many journalists responded to Timothy's letter by supporting his request to censor Trump, rather than suggesting that the police put an end to Timothy's suffering by settling the issue with a more thorough and open investigation. For example, this article has the title:
"Husband of deceased Scarborough staffer pens heartbreaking letter detailing pain Trump has caused with his incendiary tweets"

Timothy's request to delete only the tweets from Trump family is evidence that he does not care if people talk about the conspiracy. Rather, he is frightened that people will listen to what the Trumps are saying because the Trumps are in positions of authority.

This CNN article says that when Trump mentioned the conspiracy theory in 2017, it caused a lot of people to look into it. The article describes it as:
"Trump brought up the baseless theory once in 2017, causing a surge of newfound attention about Klausutis’ death — and unwelcome phone calls to her family members."

Timothy is not concerned about the tweets from the "ordinary" people because ordinary people don't have much influence on public opinion, or on whether the police re-investigate a crime, or on whether the second investigation is more thorough or more honest. When "ordinary" people talk about a conspiracy theory, the public ignores them, but when Trump talks about a conspiracy theory, the public listens.

If the wife of your neighbor died at age 28 for no apparent reason, and there were people around the world, including President Trump, suspecting the death was a murder, wouldn't you be interested in knowing if it was a murder?

We could say that the public has a right to know when a death is natural or the result of a murder. We could say that the police have the responsibility to investigate suspicious deaths in order to identify crimes and protect us from criminals.

Why should anybody be allowed to prevent an investigation of an unusual death? How does a nation, or the public, or anybody, benefit by suppressing an investigation into an unusual death?

The only people who benefit by suppressing investigations and conspiracy theories are the people involved with crimes.

If a child in your neighborhood were to die, and if people around the world, including President Trump, were promoting the theory that he had been raped and killed by a pedophile, would you be interested in supporting an investigation of those accusations? Would you want to know if there is a pedophile in your neighborhood? Or would you demand that Trump be censored, and that investigations be blocked?

The police departments, the public, and government officials should be interested in discovering the truth about which deaths are natural, and which are murders.

Some people want Lori's death to be re-investigated to resolve the conflicting information. For example, this article at Daily Kos (mentioned in #4) said that she ran marathons, but the Washington Post claims that she was not:
a) a marathon runner, b) pregnant, or c) a college intern.

If Lori was none of those three things, then why did some people claim that she was? Were people making mistakes? Or was somebody creating false statements? Or is the Washington Post making mistakes or false statements?

One of the techniques to get away with crimes is for criminals to spread a lot of confusing and conflicting information in an attempt to send investigators on the wrong path, and to keep them frustrated and confused. Therefore, when we encounter people spreading false information about an event, we should consider that they are doing so because the event is actually a crime, and they are trying to prevent us from discovering the truth about it.

Likewise, when we find that people are trying to prevent us from resolving conflicting information, we should wonder if they are trying to keep everybody confused and frustrated. Why would an honest person want to prevent investigators from resolving conflicts?

As of May 2020, I suspect that the reason the journalists are trying to stop us from looking into The Scarborough Conspiracy Theory is because it will expose their crime network, and how they control Joe Scarborough and other government officials, business leaders, school officials, and doctors.

It would also result in people realizing that at least some of the conspiracy theories are true, and that can cause people to investigate other conspiracy theories, such as the theory that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with explosives.

In other words, the journalists are not trying to protect Joe Scarborough or hurt Trump. Rather, they are trying to protect their crime network.

I suspect Lori was killed by the same network of criminals that most of the journalists are working for. Perhaps an investigation into her death will show that the crime network arranged for Lori to get a job with Scarborough in an attempt to encourage a romantic relationship between the two of them, which they could then use to blackmail Scarborough with. When she became pregnant, they offered to kill her to prevent a scandal, and when he agreed, he became their blackmailed puppet.

I would not be surprised if the reason Scarborough switched from a Republican to a Democrat is because the crime network told him to do so.

My advice is to support Donald Trump and his son in their request to investigate Lori's death. We have nothing to fear, and nothing to lose. If a honest investigation shows that she truly did die of natural causes, then we will terminate an idiotic conspiracy theory. And if an investigation shows that she was murdered, then we will expose a crime network, and some of their blackmail techniques. No matter how you look at it, investigating her death will be beneficial.

We are not going to hurt ourselves by looking into her death. No matter what the result is, we will benefit. We either expose a crime network, or we put an end to a stupid conspiracy theory. So support an investigation of her death. Don't be an apathetic sheep. Find the courage to do something useful with your life!