Things like this give credence to the belief Barr is a white hat.
Nothing personal anon, I totally didn't even look at your username. But, if he'd come out and said the EXACT OPPOSITE, "I saw the movie, and it's undeniable now, the election WAS stolen. The proof is obvious," then you would have posted
Things like this give credence to the belief Barr is a white hat.
No matter what happens, people who want to believe Fatbarr, or Mueller, or Milley, or Rosenstein is a white hat are going to use it as justification for that belief.
If they openly agree with Trump, white hat. If they openly disagree with Trump, that's just disinfo; white hat.
I'm not saying I have a solution, just putting the observation out there that people believe what they want to believe and actually are using evidence to the contrary as evidence for the accuracy of their beliefs.
The error is in thinking that we even need to know either way, or that someone should be scolded for speculating on a forum that is primarily about speculation.
Maybe, just maybe, the point is that if we're confused then the cabal is also confused.
if we're confused then the cabal is also confused.
Likely true, and a valid point.
But no one is being "scolded for speculating", at least not by me. I merely pointed out that Trump has publicly skinned and eviscerated Barr, then put all the fat and guts in a giant blender and hit FRAPPÉ—calling him weak, fearful, spineless, selfish, concerned more about his job than his country, suggesting he's a traitor—and that when people see Barr acting that way and Trump calling him out for it, they STILL take it as some sort of "evidence" of Barr's being a white hat.
That willingness to use anything people say, positive or negative, as proof they're helping Trump is what I was calling attention to.
Q posts consistently defend Barr. I'm certainly hoping he's on our side. Things like this give credence to the belief Barr is a white hat.
Why would he appoint Durham as a special counsel if he wasn't?
This reminder sealed it for me. Thanks for the reminder!
Exactly.
Nothing personal anon, I totally didn't even look at your username. But, if he'd come out and said the EXACT OPPOSITE, "I saw the movie, and it's undeniable now, the election WAS stolen. The proof is obvious," then you would have posted
No matter what happens, people who want to believe Fatbarr, or Mueller, or Milley, or Rosenstein is a white hat are going to use it as justification for that belief.
If they openly agree with Trump, white hat. If they openly disagree with Trump, that's just disinfo; white hat.
I'm not saying I have a solution, just putting the observation out there that people believe what they want to believe and actually are using evidence to the contrary as evidence for the accuracy of their beliefs.
The error is in thinking that we even need to know either way, or that someone should be scolded for speculating on a forum that is primarily about speculation.
Maybe, just maybe, the point is that if we're confused then the cabal is also confused.
Likely true, and a valid point.
But no one is being "scolded for speculating", at least not by me. I merely pointed out that Trump has publicly skinned and eviscerated Barr, then put all the fat and guts in a giant blender and hit FRAPPÉ—calling him weak, fearful, spineless, selfish, concerned more about his job than his country, suggesting he's a traitor—and that when people see Barr acting that way and Trump calling him out for it, they STILL take it as some sort of "evidence" of Barr's being a white hat.
That willingness to use anything people say, positive or negative, as proof they're helping Trump is what I was calling attention to.
And Sessions.
And he also endorsed Romney and endorsed McCain.
Time for pattern recognition to kick in. Or better yet, the realization there is no pattern to recognize.
Don’t forget about Jeff Sessions appointing “Undercover Huber.” Where is Huber these days? Undercover racking up his 1700th sealed indictment?
Stealth Bomber perhaps? Probably closer to Double Agent.