Here’s the thing about the January 6th Committee’s big wins

| 9:09 am EST January 12, 2022
Dear Palmer Report readers, we all understand the difficult era we're heading into. Major media outlets are caving to Trump already. Even the internet itself and publishing platforms may be at risk. But Palmer Report is nonetheless going to lead the fight. We're funding our 2025 operating expenses now, so we can keep publishing no matter what happens. I'm asking you to contribute if you can, because the stakes are just so high. You can donate here.

The January 6th Committee just keeps racking up wins. It’s now becoming clear that it’s obtained mountains of damning evidence against Donald Trump and his associates. It’s also increasingly clear that key inside witnesses have privately sold Trump out to the committee, and will do so again publicly during televised hearings.

Keep in mind that the committee has achieved all of these wins through the use of smart and savvy investigative strategy, including interviewing hundreds of lower level witnesses and using the information they’ve provided as leverage against higher level witnesses who otherwise might not have been pressured into cooperating.

None of the committee’s wins have been achieved through “aggression” or “urgency” or “growing a spine” or “showing passion” or any of the other terms that the doomsday pundits out there have used while criticizing the committee. That’s because these kinds of reality show style terms are mere gibberish that don’t actually mean anything in the real world, and therefore couldn’t possibly ever produce a cooperating witness, uncover a key piece of evidence, or form the basis of an actionable criminal referral.

As it becomes more clear that the January 6th Committee is winning, and doing so via good old fashioned detective work, these doomsday pundits will only get more loud and urgent with their hyperbolic insistence that the committee has failed and “lacks a spine” (or whatever trendy nonsense terms they’re tossing around this week).

We’re talking about the kind of pundits who have based their entire brand on painting themselves as being smarter and savvier than the committee, which means they need the committee to fail – or at least be seen as a failure – in order to keep their brand intact. As it becomes more difficult for them to sell this narrative, they’ll resort to attacking the committee more hyperbolically and dishonestly. A big part of your job, as an actual political activist, is to push back against these doomsday fraudsters and prevent them from poisoning the well.