Keep in mind that the Benghazi committee didn't work out for the Republicans. The goal was to drive down Hillary's numbers, but they were still high by the time that committee was done. Even from a cutthroat standpoint, the Benghazi committee was not a blueprint for success.
We see constant reminders that doing the most cutthroat thing, or making the most aggressive short term move, is very often a losing strategy in politics. Trump and his pals relied almost exclusively on this strategy – and it's a big part of why they're no longer in power.
For any congressional investigative committee to succeed, it has to be seen by the AVERAGE AMERICAN as being "fair." If they think the committee is biased, they'll just write off its conclusions. It's why the Benghazi probe, for all its noise, accomplished nothing for the GOP.
Pelosi knows she has to approach this committee in such a way that average Americans in the middle will end up being more receptive to her arguments about its fairness, than McCarthy's arguments about its unfairness.
This committee isn't for the purpose of convincing you, the base, that 1/6 was Trump treason. You already know it was. This committee is to convince the people in the middle that 1/6 was Trump treason. It's a show for their benefit, not yours. You have to keep that part in mind.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Palmer Report

Palmer Report Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @PalmerReport

20 Jul
House Republicans picked Jim Jordan for the 1/6 committee for a reason: they know he’s a non-starter and Pelosi will have to veto him. They’re hoping it’ll allow their other four picks to survive, who are all no names, but who are also unsuitable. Pelosi has some options.
Pelosi can make a point of vetoing Jordan, while allowing the four no-name House Republicans onto the committee. She can then say “see, I allowed the Republicans to have their people, just not that mentally unstable clown Jordan.”
Of the four no-name House Republicans, two voted to certify the election, and two voted against it. Pelosi can veto the two who voted against it, along with vetoing Jordan. But then the Republicans can claim the committee isn’t bipartisan, because she vetoed 3 of their 5 picks.
Read 6 tweets
19 Jul
DOJ bases its charging decisions on likelihood of conviction. Would have been hard to convince a jury that a half senile elderly man like Wilbur Ross committed perjury on purpose. This “Fire Merrick Garland” stuff is premature, overwrought, and makes us look a bit silly.
Pressure Garland to be aggressive? Of course. That’s our job.

Demand that Biden fire Garland? Ridiculous. Zero chance of happening. And calling for it merely weakens Biden’s and Garland’s position. You’re making it harder for Garland to do what he IS looking to do.
Not one of us has any idea whether Garland’s DOJ will prosecute Trump. Today certainly didn’t tell us anything in that regard. Shouldn’t we at least wait for that decision, before giving up and trying to destroy the Biden administration out of resentment?
Read 10 tweets
18 Jul
Can we stop with this nonsense about how Trump almost won There’s no such thing as getting extra votes in just one state, in a vacuum. For him to have gained 22,000 more votes in Wisconsin, it would have required a nationwide trend in which he gained about 1.5 million votes.
In other words, Trump would have needed to be about 1.5 million votes more popular nationwide in order to have won the closest states he lost, and therefore flipped the electoral college. Which means he lost the electoral college by 1.5 million popular votes. Not even close.
This whole “if twenty thousand votes had gone differently here and there, Trump would have won” narrative is statistical gibberish. It could not have happened that way. The trends that impact the vote in any one state, impact the vote in every other state.
Read 6 tweets
18 Jul
Don't let the media goad you into believing that whining about Joe Manchin is "activism." It's not.

Our job is to pressure Manchin, bend him to our will, and get our legislation passed.

Whining always has the opposite effect.

You can whine and lose, or you can fight and win.
Same thing with Kyrsten Sinema. If you’re whining about her, it means you’re losing and she’s winning. If you want to win, stop whining, and start fighting.
“But we’ll primary them next time!” No, that’s also loser thinking. You’re giving up on our entire legislative agenda, assuming the loss on that, and plotting revenge. Who plots revenge instead of trying to win? Don’t be that kind of loser. This is all too important.
Read 5 tweets
16 Jul
Media is trying to manufacture controversy by insisting the Democrats have abandoned voting rights in favor of infrastructure. Nope. They just have the votes for infrastructure now, so they're doing it now. They're still amassing votes for voting rights, so they'll do that later.
The media is getting worse about pushing the notion that if something in politics doesn't happen immediately, it'll never happen. It's as if the entire political universe is something that began yesterday and ends tomorrow. Anything to ratchet up the tension and keep you tuned in
The media has also managed to assign such magical omnipotent powers to Joe Manchin, all they have to do is mention his name and liberal activists will conclude that any given battle is "doomed." This kind of ratings-driven reductive nonsense does real harm to political outcomes.
Read 6 tweets
16 Jul
Dear @molly0xFFF – you've publicly identified yourself as one of the editors who hijacked Palmer Report's Wikipedia page. You've also inserted yourself into our Twitter replies. Accordingly, perhaps you'd like to answer some questions about the con game you've been playing:
1) Why have you allowed a rogue editor named "Dr. Swag Lord PhD" to continue editing Palmer Report's Wikipedia page, after he was caught removing all positive/neutral sourcing from the page, and after he used threats to chase another established editor off the Talk page?
2) Why have you failed to reinstate the positive/neutral references that USA Today, Washington Post, the Palm Beach Post, and other major newspapers have made to Palmer Report? How do you justify your policy of only allowing negative sourcing about Palmer Report?
Read 41 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!