I'm holding my opinion on Barr until all the truths are revealed. Deception is necessary and much of what is "public knowledge" is all for the purpose of providing cover. Here is what I do know to be facts: Trump selected Barr, Barr appointed Durham.
My theory in re Barr is that his disputing PDJT on politics (Elections results, for example). makes it so that what Durham produces on the criminal side will not be easily tarnished as just being done for political reasons.
You know, if listening to all these politicians and DSers has taught me one thing, it's that you have to listen to their words VERY carefully. I have not heard Barr say that there was no election fraud - what I have heard him say (emphasis added to get to the point) is that HE has not SEEN any evidence that there was ENOUGH fraud to change the outcome of the election. What most people think when they hear that is that Barr is saying there was not enough for it to matter - what I hear is that Barr has not personally seen enough - maybe because he did not look because that role was assigned to someone else. I could be wrong, but I think Barr is playing a part in this movie and that part requires the perception of impartiality.
If election fraud is a national security issue then that puts it under the purview of the military and Barr is kind of irrelevant. This would allow him to repeat the normie narrative on election fraud to boost his credibility (with the corporate media) for the shit that actually is in his purview. This would make sense from an information war perspective.
I'm holding my opinion on Barr until all the truths are revealed. Deception is necessary and much of what is "public knowledge" is all for the purpose of providing cover. Here is what I do know to be facts: Trump selected Barr, Barr appointed Durham.
My theory in re Barr is that his disputing PDJT on politics (Elections results, for example). makes it so that what Durham produces on the criminal side will not be easily tarnished as just being done for political reasons.
would like that to be the case.....in the meantime , for optics OF COURSE.....FUK BARR.....
You know, if listening to all these politicians and DSers has taught me one thing, it's that you have to listen to their words VERY carefully. I have not heard Barr say that there was no election fraud - what I have heard him say (emphasis added to get to the point) is that HE has not SEEN any evidence that there was ENOUGH fraud to change the outcome of the election. What most people think when they hear that is that Barr is saying there was not enough for it to matter - what I hear is that Barr has not personally seen enough - maybe because he did not look because that role was assigned to someone else. I could be wrong, but I think Barr is playing a part in this movie and that part requires the perception of impartiality.
If election fraud is a national security issue then that puts it under the purview of the military and Barr is kind of irrelevant. This would allow him to repeat the normie narrative on election fraud to boost his credibility (with the corporate media) for the shit that actually is in his purview. This would make sense from an information war perspective.
,,,Barr's little machinations won't mean squat when the fertilizer hits the ventilator and the Dark State circles their wagons....
..."oh he wrote a book about how much he hates Trump"...
...yeah, that's the ticket"....