Jump to content

Operation Boomerang AG Barr's Investigation of Acts of Treason by Federal Employees


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Kemp said:

Let’s play editor...

 

The crux of the article you shared is based off the first few sentences (pasted below).  As someone who writes professionally, let me show you how you can tell this is an Oped piece and not the “breaking news” you intended it to be.  Biased website aside, see the sentence from your article I pasted below?  Notice the bolded section the author wants you to focus on?  Just a tip, but a bolded statement in journalism is to help the reader focus on the crux and not the crucial fact-basis that comes after the crux, which you see below is nothing more than a generalization that “people familiar said”.   What comes after the masked over statement of “people familiar with...” is entirely 100% opinion-based with a blatant bias.  There are no facts in the article, no sources cited and therefore it has no merit or basis for sharing outside of leveraging the author’s similar opinion on things you have personally (and angrily) shared that tend to turn a good deal of posters off from you.   

 

But the findings ultimately turned over to Barr fell short of what Trump and others might have hoped, and the attorney general’s office elected not to release them publicly, the people familiar with the matter said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, DFT said:

Let’s play editor...

 

The crux of the article you shared is based off the first few sentences (pasted below).  As someone who writes professionally, let me show you how you can tell this is an Oped piece and not the “breaking news” you intended it to be.  Biased website aside, see the sentence from your article I pasted below?  Notice the bolded section the author wants you to focus on?  Just a tip, but a bolded statement in journalism is to help the reader focus on the crux and not the crucial fact-basis that comes after the crux, which you see below is nothing more than a generalization that “people familiar said”.   What comes after the masked over statement of “people familiar with...” is entirely 100% opinion-based with a blatant bias.  There are no facts in the article, no sources cited and therefore it has no merit or basis for sharing outside of leveraging the author’s similar opinion on things you have personally (and angrily) shared that tend to turn a good deal of posters off from you.   

 

But the findings ultimately turned over to Barr fell short of what Trump and others might have hoped, and the attorney general’s office elected not to release them publicly, the people familiar with the matter said

 

Thanks for your great knowledge on writing. I have made my living as a writer.

 

The bottom line remains that this anticipated blockbuster is a whole bunch of nothing, so far, and it's getting late in the game.

 

Don't despair, though. Big news coming on Hillary's emails. If only she was running for President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Thanks for your great knowledge on writing. I have made my living as a writer.

 

The bottom line remains that this anticipated blockbuster is a whole bunch of nothing, so far, and it's getting late in the game.

 

Don't despair, though. Big news coming on Hillary's emails. If only she was running for President.

I appreciate your perspective (sincerely).  My only rebuttal is the “nothing so far”, is by design as evident by the actions of Google, Facebook and Twitter, among the populous media; each of which have chosen a side (monetarily) and therefore, have proverbial skin in the game.  My opinion is they are incentivized as such.  Facebook, Google and Twitter have not nearly been as discredited as the media until really only recently.  So it should serve as a notice to all in my opinion (Democrat, Rebublican, Independent) that anyone with an interest in the results of a potential crime, should not be the administer of the information regarding said potential crime.  Unfortunately, those vested parties are not just admins of information, they are knowingly removing proven information from the public under the false pretense of it being “disproven”.  

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2020 at 11:50 AM, B-Man said:



288233_image.jpg

Fake news! You spread a lot of fake news 

5 hours ago, Kemp said:

😂🤣

 

New York (CNN Business)It was a conspiracy that Fox News portrayed as one of the greatest — if not the greatest — political scandals in American history.

Tucker Carlson called it a "domestic spying operation" that was "hidden under the pretext of national security." Laura Ingraham characterized top Obama administration officials as having been "exposed." And Sean Hannity flatly declared it to be the "biggest abuse of power, corruption scandal" the country had ever seen.
That was back in May. This week, however, the conspiracy theory collapsed when The Washington Post reported that a Justice Department investigation into the supposed scandal quietly ended with no charges.
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

 

You seem to be spamming the board with this. 1) if true, the post is exactly the same each day. 2) what factual basis for you have to post this over 100 times?

 

I'm still getting adjusted to rules here's but isn't spamming like this against those rules?

 

Checked for you, it is. Please follow forum rules and don't spam post:

 

 

 

Hard Rules:

 

 

 

Posts that contain the following material will not be tolerated and will be removed promptly (and depending on the nature of the offense - your ISP may be notified of these violations):

 

 

 

Do NOT post: Advertisements (We sell ad space to anyone who wants to get their website noticed).

 

Obscene material

 

Links to obscene material

 

Foul language

 

Personal or harassing threats

 

Libelous or defamatory information

 

Spam Messages

Edited by Backintheday544
Found the rules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

You seem to be spamming the board with this. 1) if true, the post is exactly the same each day. 2) what factual basis for you have to post this over 100 times?

 

I'm still getting adjusted to rules here's but isn't spamming like this against those rules?

 

Checked for you, it is. Please follow forum rules and don't spam post:

 

 

 

Hard Rules:

 

 

 

Posts that contain the following material will not be tolerated and will be removed promptly (and depending on the nature of the offense - your ISP may be notified of these violations):

 

 

 

Do NOT post: Advertisements (We sell ad space to anyone who wants to get their website noticed).

 

Obscene material

 

Links to obscene material

 

Foul language

 

Personal or harassing threats

 

Libelous or defamatory information

 

Spam Messages

Are you sure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

You seem to be spamming the board with this. 1) if true, the post is exactly the same each day. 2) what factual basis for you have to post this over 100 times?

 

I'm still getting adjusted to rules here's but isn't spamming like this against those rules?

 

Checked for you, it is. Please follow forum rules and don't spam post:

 

 

 

Hard Rules:

 

 

 

Posts that contain the following material will not be tolerated and will be removed promptly (and depending on the nature of the offense - your ISP may be notified of these violations):

 

 

 

Do NOT post: Advertisements (We sell ad space to anyone who wants to get their website noticed).

 

Obscene material

 

Links to obscene material

 

Foul language

 

Personal or harassing threats

 

Libelous or defamatory information

 

Spam Messages

 

Its not the same each day. The date changes. That's the point.

 

Meaning the calculus can change as each day passes. For instance,  if tomorrow some real actual evidence surfaces that shows Trump to be guilty of all the BS made up crap that he's been accused of for the last four years, then it can and should be re-evaluated. Not holding my breath on that however. 

 

Or we could find evidence that the Trump FBI has obtained FISA warrants based on the Trump campaign's own fake opposition research in order to place confidential human sources (spies) into the Biden campaign. Oh wait...I forgot that's not corrupt...or so we've been told by many of the geniuses here. 

 

Also,  if Joe Biden wins on 11/3, then it instantly becomes a neck and neck race between him and Obama the very moment he's sworn in. The daily reminder might have to change at that point.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, realtruelove said:

Very impressive.  I saw what you did there.

 

I posted the rules of the board, it's not impressive. It's a basic do this before posting thing.

Please don't call me a hero. Anyone can and are able to find them easily. 

1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Its not the same each day. The date changes. That's the point.

 

Meaning the calculus can change as each day passes. For instance,  if tomorrow some real actual evidence surfaces that shows Trump to be guilty of all the BS made up crap that he's been accused of for the last four years, then it can and should be re-evaluated. Not holding my breath on that however. 

 

Or we could find evidence that the Trump FBI has obtained FISA warrants based on the Trump campaign's own fake opposition research in order to place confidential human sources (spies) into the Biden campaign. Oh wait...I forgot that's not corrupt...or so we've been told by many of the geniuses here. 

 

Also,  if Joe Biden wins on 11/3, then it instantly becomes a neck and neck race between him and Obama the very moment he's sworn in. The daily reminder might have to change at that point.

 

 

 

What's your empirical evidence besides just reposting the same thing?

 

Are there convictions? I mean if we want to look at corrupt, Trump.associates and Trump orgs have more convocations than any admin I can think of. Trump even signed on to defrauding a charity. Why don't you ever post about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

I posted the rules of the board, it's not impressive. It's a basic do this before posting thing.

Please don't call me a hero. Anyone can and are able to find them easily. 

 

What's your empirical evidence besides just reposting the same thing?

 

Are there convictions? I mean if we want to look at corrupt, Trump.associates and Trump orgs have more convocations than any admin I can think of. Trump even signed on to defrauding a charity. Why don't you ever post about that?

Those are your rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

I posted the rules of the board, it's not impressive. It's a basic do this before posting thing.

Please don't call me a hero. Anyone can and are able to find them easily. 

 

What's your empirical evidence besides just reposting the same thing?

 

Are there convictions? I mean if we want to look at corrupt, Trump.associates and Trump orgs have more convocations than any admin I can think of. Trump even signed on to defrauding a charity. Why don't you ever post about that?

 

Spend some time perusing the threads here and links to primary source documents showing Obama FBI/DOJ/CIA malfeasance.  It's out there if you can be honest with yourself. I have zero expectation that you will. No worries.

 

I'm no fan of Trump personally.  I'm not shocked at all that he's bilked others in his business dealings.  This is about Presidential corruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Spend some time perusing the threads here and links to primary source documents showing Obama FBI/DOJ/CIA malfeasance.  It's out there if you can be honest with yourself. I have zero expectation that you will. No worries.

 

I'm no fan of Trump personally.  I'm not shocked at all that he's bilked others in his business dealings.  This is about Presidential corruption.

 

I saw them. The right said unmasking was a huge deal....and no convictions. How many Trump campaign managers are facing jail time? Heck, how many Republican national convention speakers are facing jail time? Yet you span a guy on twitter daily against forum rules and use whataboutism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

I saw them. The right said unmasking was a huge deal....and no convictions. How many Trump campaign managers are facing jail time? Heck, how many Republican national convention speakers are facing jail time? Yet you span a guy on twitter daily against forum rules and use whataboutism. 

I've been told the arrests are coming any day now....sometime last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...