I didn't realize the true utility of Woodward's PERIL until today—when I read about the House's 1/6 subpoenas. As I know from the list of those following the PROOF project, 50+ members of Congress know the work PROOF has done. But Woodward offers the gravitas demand letters need. 
(PS) I earnestly wondered why Congress would quote a book that just came out 2 days ago—and that Congress first saw, at most, 2-3 weeks ago—in letters the House has been worker on far longer. Then I realized: the House must quote media, and Woodward is seen as the gold standard.
(PS2) One couldn't use the bare-bones research done by Woodward to create the House's lengthy subpoena list—you'd need to read the work of indie journalists to create such a detailed roster. But the House can't or won't quote indie journalists, so PERIL created a new opportunity.
(PS3) I'm not saying PROOF was the only insurrection research consulted—of course not; not even close—but the article I published detailing that 50+ members of Congress follow the PROOF project seems to underscore that PROOF was one of the sources used. sethabramson.substack.com
(PS4) What's sad is that Congress is certainly using some PROOF research, but by not citing PROOF it misses an opportunity to encourage *more people* to read PROOF. Instead, it's encouraging people to read PERIL—a comparatively superficial work that doesn't need its imprimatur.
(PS5) The good news: PROOF will continue either way, and continue being used by Congress, and continue not being acknowledged by Congress. Congress will amplify Woodward—who goes on TV and says wrong things about 1/6—but as long as folks here keep recommending PROOF, that's fine.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
