I'm writing a PROOF article that aims to summarize *everything* about 1/6. Every person responsible. How/why everything happened. So many details Substack might not let me put so many links in one piece. It's harder than I expected. Why didn't I realize it'd be near-impossible?
The seed of this article was an obscure interview I read that seems to explain exactly why 1/6 unfolded as it did and who was responsible. I've never seen it reported on elsewhere. It's like a key that unlocks January 6. I want to tell the story in one article and make it public.
A big part of being a criminal investigator or criminal defense attorney, both jobs I've had, is distinguishing good from bad evidence when the source is generally unreliable. We think good evidence always comes from reliable people. It just doesn't work that way, unfortunately.
I believe that certain interviews with insurrectionists hold the key to understanding why January 6 unfolded as it did. The difficulty is that these people are only being partially truthful, so the task is to separate wheat from chaff. Because the former is *incredibly* valuable.
Many people don't know that members of one of the five categories of potential January 6 defendants have publicly turned on the Trump campaign (another category of potential defendant) and accused it of causing the insurrection in ways that reliable evidence appears to *confirm*.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
