She documented everything. She understood nothing. That’s the difference between research and wisdom.
I don’t usually read liberal historians. But my nephew sent me a link to someone named Heather Cox Richardson, who apparently writes these long summaries of what happened each week. So I read her January 11 piece. And here’s the thing: she’s got all the facts. Every single one. But then she draws exactly the wrong conclusions from them.
Let me walk you through what she found, because it’s actually useful if you know how to read it.
The Epstein Files Situation
Richardson documents that Congress passed a law—the Epstein Files Transparency Act—requiring the Department of Justice to release all the Epstein files by December 19. She notes that so far, the DOJ has released less than 1% of the material. She frames this as the administration “openly flouting the law.”
Now, I’ve been following this story. Richardson gets the facts right. But she doesn’t ask the obvious question: who’s really controlling the DOJ? She assumes the administration is hiding something. I assume the deep state bureaucrats are the ones slow-walking this, and the administration is fighting them. Same facts. Different conclusions. Mine requires thinking.
The Fed Chair Investigation
This is where it gets interesting. Richardson reports that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell announced he’s under federal criminal investigation related to a $2.5 billion renovation project. She quotes Powell saying this is really about whether “monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.”
Then she quotes Senator Thom Tillis—a Republican—saying the administration is “weaponizing DOJ to control the Fed.” Tillis said he’ll oppose any Fed nominees until this is resolved.
Richardson treats this like it’s some kind of bombshell. A Republican criticizing the administration! But here’s what she doesn’t understand: Tillis has always been soft. He’s establishment. When a Republican senator starts sounding like a Democrat, that tells me the investigation is probably onto something real. Why else would Tillis be so nervous?
Venezuela And The Oil Money
Richardson documents that an executive order is blocking oil companies from being repaid for losses from Venezuela’s 2007 nationalization. ConocoPhillips says it’s owed $12 billion. The order claims repaying them would “materially harm the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”
She presents this like it’s suspicious. But think about it: we just captured Maduro. We’re stabilizing the region. And Big Oil wants their cut before regular Americans see any benefit? Follow the money. I don’t agree with everything the administration does, but keeping that revenue out of corporate pockets until the situation stabilizes? That’s just common sense.
The Jack Smith Testimony
Richardson notes that Republicans released Jack Smith’s testimony where he said, under oath, that his office had “developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt” of crimes. She treats this like vindication.
But here’s what she’s missing: they released the transcript. If this was real evidence, would they release it? They’re showing their hand because they’ve got nothing. That’s how I read it. Richardson reads it the opposite way. One of us is thinking critically.
What She Gets Wrong
Richardson compiled all of this—the Epstein files, the Powell investigation, Venezuela, the Jack Smith testimony, Greenland, all of it—and her conclusion is that the administration is lawless and dangerous.
My conclusion? She’s documented a government finally taking action while the establishment tries to stop it. Same facts. Completely different framework. She sees chaos. I see a system being disrupted by someone who doesn’t play by their rules.
The Tillis quote is actually the most revealing part. When Republicans start sounding like Democrats, that’s when you know the swamp is scared. Richardson thinks Tillis is being brave. I think Tillis is telling us exactly who he really works for.
I’ll give Richardson credit: she does the research. She compiles the sources. She’s useful—if you know how to read between the lines. Most people don’t. Most people just accept what the “experts” tell them. But some of us look at the same information and see what’s really there.
That’s called independent thinking. And I’m full of it.
About the Author
