I want to be very clear up front here that there is still zero evidence that Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock converted to Islam or was inspired by ISIS. Literally zero at this point in time and the FBI has previously said there was no evidence for this. Nevertheless, in a weekly newsletter put out today, ISIS once again claimed that Paddock was a convert. This makes the fourth or fifth time the group has made this claim since Sunday:

A translation of the newsletter into English by Site Intel Group reads in part, “The executor of the operation, Abu Abdul Barr al-Amriki, 64-years-old, converted to Islam 6 months ago.”

ISIS members are not providing any proof but are claiming Paddock’s conversion is being covered up:

Rukmini Callimachi, who covers the ISIS beat for the NY Times, points out once again that contrary to popular imagination, ISIS does not claim every terror attack as their own. In fact, ISIS claims have proven largely accurate according to her own scorecard:

The argument from some has been that ISIS is probably lying about this attack because they are desperate for a win after all of the losses they have suffered in Mosul. That may, in fact, be what is behind this. However, Callimachi points out ISIS has not claimed every attack it could have in the past:

What remains odd here is ISIS’ insistence on making this claim (repeatedly) combined with the fact that the group presumably had no way to know that some other, more obvious motive would not be discovered by investigators. If Paddock had simply left a note in his room (or a video) claiming some other grievance, ISIS’ claim would have immediately been proven false. But the group didn’t seem worried about that possibility.

Paddock’s brother said the gunman had no political or religious affiliation. He also said he hadn’t really spoken to him in about six months. So is ISIS paying close attention to the public statements to put out a lie (very possible) or did something change for Paddock recently?

If Paddock did convert six months ago, where is the pledge of allegiance to ISIS like the one made by Omar Mateen? So far it seems there isn’t one and that doesn’t fit. If you’re going to die for ISIS you need to leave some proof to show what the attack was about. Paddock was a calculating man. He wouldn’t have overlooked this by accident. Unless a pledge to ISIS turns up, the group’s track record of largely accurate claims about previous attacks is just not enough to convince me they are telling the truth in this case.