I just saw a CNN analyst say—speaking of the insurrection—that "there isn't much here we don't already know."
As the author of a 2,500-page trilogy on Trump's scandals that draws on 12,000 major-media citations to tell just a piece of that story, can I promise you this is false?
As the author of a 2,500-page trilogy on Trump's scandals that draws on 12,000 major-media citations to tell just a piece of that story, can I promise you this is false?
The analyst's followup comment was that for the trial to go differently than he expects, we'd need some sort of big surprise about what was going on at the Pentagon on January 6. That's a topic I've been researching, and I have no doubt whatsoever there are many surprises coming.
What's needed is a definitive curation of where the information about January 6 at the Pentagon stands at this very early moment in the investigation of the insurrection. If I weren't working on a hundred things at once, I'd have done it by now. But I'd *rather* CNN had done so.
And without trying to shame this particular analyst, can I just advise that people go in caution of *anyone* who says we're at the *end* of the investigation into the insurrection, rather than in its earliest days?
That's this former criminal investigator's advice, in any case.
That's this former criminal investigator's advice, in any case.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
