Bill Palmer just posted this on Facebook - and it's true because I have been following him

[womanofthehills]

Palmer posts it and then a week later it comes out in the main stream newsl He says it's all out there - we just need more investigative reporting. Palmer and Rachael seems to be doing this. Some on DU seem to have a big problem with him - Why? He is on our side and is getting the latest incriminating information (with sources) out there.

Whenever Palmer Report breaks a story, skeptics like to say "If this were legitimate, wouldn't it be all over the news?" Days ago we reported that Preet Bharara was investigating Fox News at the time Hannity urged Trump to fire him; the major corporate news outlets are just now reporting that same story today. A month ago Palmer Report reported that Dmitry Robyolovlev had been flying in to meet with Trump; MSNBC finally reported the same thing last week. A month ago Palmer Report reported that Betsy DeVos was connected to the Trump Tower Russian email server; CNN finally reported the same thing the other day. I could provide dozens of similar examples.

Now Palmer Report is reporting that Michael Flynn paid Turkish money to the former FBI agent who smeared Hillary Clinton during the election. This story actually required little investigative effort, as Flynn is admitting to the payments in his new government filings, which our article links to. Anyone who reads our article can see for themselves that it 100% verifiable. And yet skeptics, despite being on our side of the political spectrum, are still falling back on "If this were real, everyone would be reporting it." If only those skeptics realized how foolish this makes them look. They'll look even more foolish a week or a month from now, when CNN finally decides to report the same thing. But that's not required for our reporting to vindicated, because any of you can look at Flynn's filings right now.

If you're legitimately skeptical about an article and you want to find out how solid it is, follow its supporting source links to see if they verify the facts being laid out in the story. And if you don't want to do that kind of legwork, then rest assured that lazily shouting generic skepticism in the comments section won't help our cause and won't make you look judicious.

If you truly want to ask skeptical questions of the media, go ask cable news and the corporate news outlets why they're typically days, weeks, or even months behind a nobody like me. They have the resources to dig up most of these stories far quicker than Palmer Report can. Stop skeptically asking me why my (fully source-linked and easily verified) reporting isn't simultaneously being reported by the big news outlets. Start asking them that question

[shraby]

1. Rachel had that on her show last night. Showed the paper the

transaction is on where he paid the guy.

edited to add:
I don't understand why people diss the report either. If the story stands up, he is doing his job at informing us.

[FBaggins]

2. Sorry... occasionally getting one right doesn't make him a journalist.

It certainly doesn't grant credibility to his next claims prior to real journalists reporting on them.

It merely proves the long-accepted truth about blind squirrels.

[womanofthehills]

7. Tell me one he has gotten wrong in the last month?

[FBaggins]

8. Is that the new benchmark for journalism?

"No fake news in a month"

He has no interest in reality - he's a sensationalist blogger who just wants traffic so that he can pay his bills. I'm not going to drive traffic to him even to link to his many errors. I did more than enough of that during his post-election "coverage".

[KittyWampus]

3. Palmer mostly doesn't do any original reporting. Just repackages what other have done.

[womanofthehills]

6. But he gets it out there fast

He is doing leg work and going to many sites to put out the latest info.

[wishstar]

4. He has been providing supporting source links in his articles, for skeptics to review

I usually just skim his stuff and go directly to the source links. No question about the delays before well- sourced reports and articles are covered by mainstream media and cable TV, and sometimes never get covered sufficiently. Most of Rachel Maddow's information has already been available online and is not really breaking news, but she does have a knack for providing context and finding significance and connection between what might seem like coincidences or unrelated reports, or overlooked and forgotten news stories that have revelance later when new info is revealed.

[wiggs]

5. DU heroine Sibel Edmunds claimed years ago wrt 9/11 that Turks had infiltrated our

government...IIRC. Wonder how much of her knowledge (courts slapped a gag order on her so I don't know that she knows more than was public) relates to what we are seeing??