s point it's sort of obvious there's no crime that Trump will be accused of, right? Because we would sort of know by now if they had anything in that area, and it doesn't seem to be.

So Stephen Collinson is trying to create a win out of this. And here's the first sentence of his piece. He goes, whether or not Donald Trump ends up facing criminal charges, the House committee probing the U.S. Capitol insurrection — so of course he has to use the word insurrection — has scored a critical win. What do you think he's going to say? So the January 6 committee has scored a critical win. What do you think it is? What would be the critical win that they have so far?

Well, the way he puts it is the critical win over the ex-president, over Trump, is that it's thwarting his effort to cover up the true horror of that day of infamy. But why do we care about that? Does anybody really care about thwarting his effort to cover up a true horror on that day of infamy? No. I agree it would be better to know the accurate story, and so therefore it would be bad to cover up anything that the public has an interest in. But I'm not so sure that he isn't just saying it worked politically.

Because I think, I feel like what he wanted to say — Stephen Collinson, and this I can't read his mind, so this would just be speculation — I feel like he wanted to say something different. I think he wanted to say that something horrible happened to Trump and that from a political perspective it's a disaster and will keep Trump from regaining the presidency. But you can't say that because that would be admitting this is just a political process, right? So you can't admit it's just a political process. So the way he words it is that it's a critical win. It's not a political win, because if you called it a political win, the entire public would say, you mean you wasted all of our time and our money over something that's just politics? Because that's what happened.

If there had been any kind of a criminal indictment or even anything close to it for Trump himself, then people would say, oh, I see why we did this. Now it makes sense. There was either a crime or a potential crime. Yeah, you got to look into that stuff if it's president, of course. But nothing like that happened. So now they're going to try to turn it into a critical win.

Do you know why they call it a critical win as opposed to a political win or a legal win? Do you know how they use the term critical win? Not a political win and not a legal win. It's because it's an undefined term. Here he is trying to score a win, but the only way he can describe the win is with an undefined term: critical. Now he tries to define it by saying there's thwarting his effort to cover up the true horror. But is that critical? What is critical about having a little more clarity over something I think we all understood the basic idea, right? Was there anybody who thought all of the protesters were bad? No. Is there anybody who thought that none of the protesters were bad? No. Everybody said some bad people, most of them not. We're all on the same page.

But to call it a critical win is clearly signaling that they didn't get what they wanted. Because if you got what you wanted, do you know what you say? Here's what we won. You just hear it is. We won an election. We moved the poll numbers one way or the other. We made money. We lost money. We changed the opinion of the public. Anything. They didn't do anything. There was literally noth