Saucey sauce?

Maybe I'm missing something - I'm not looking at the Lindell event and have no knowledge of where this comes from.

From a text analysis viewpoint, this text reads likes its been written by a highschool dropout who never learned to use English technically or professionally. If it is legit (and everyone else commenting knows where it's from) then all I can say is, this guy cannot write for the life of him.

Without knowsing sauce or context, and having only the text itself, I'd say it would be virtually impossible for a professional with any moderate level of expertise or education (such as who might actually work on such programs) to write this way.

"....and discussed ..... domestic surveillance programs I worked in including election tampering and the abuses of .... who directed and supervised this illegal domestic surveillance programs I worked in, first in ...

<facepalm>

and discussed ..... domestic surveillance programs I worked ON including election tampering and abuses COMMITTED BY .... who directed and supervised THOSE programs.

"this programs"? ROFL.

"I presented information to him to support the claims I was making in my previous whistleblower complaints. I was seeking immunity to allow me to present my evidence of these super-secret surveillance programs I worked in."

I presented him with information in support of the claims I had made in previous whistleblower complaints.

super-secret? Not super-dooper-secret?

"....programs I worked in" is written (or spoken) FOUR times: completely redundant!!!

"us gov"? Not US gov?

If this is evidence verified and presented, then it only means the author cannot write shit or talk in any sort of professional capacity. But on its own, this level of crap writing would be powerful circumstantial evidence that it's all bulldust, written by a larper or fraud.

If anyone can verify or indicate sauce... please do!

Saucey sauce?

Maybe I'm missing something - I'm not looking at the Lindell event and have no knowledge of where this comes from.

From a text analysis viewpoint, this text reads likes its been written by a highschool dropout who never learned to use English technically or professionally. If it is legit (and everyone else commenting knows where it's from) then all I can say is, this guy cannot write for the life of him.

Without knowsing sauce or context, and having only the text itself, I'd say it would be virtually impossible for a professional with any moderate level of expertise or education (such as who might actually work on such programs) to write this way.

"....and discussed ..... domestic surveillance programs I worked in including election tampering and the abuses of .... who directed and supervised this illegal domestic surveillance programs I worked in, first in ...

<facepalm>

and discussed ..... domestic surveillance programs I worked ON including election tampering and abuses COMMITTED BY .... who directed and supervised THOSE programs.

"this programs"? ROFL.

I presented information to him to support the claims I was making in my previous whistleblower complaints. I was seeking immunity to allow me to present my evidence of these super-secret surveillance programs I worked in.

I presented him with information in support of the claims I had made in previous whistleblower complaints.

super-secret? Not super-dooper-secret?

"....programs I worked in" is written FOUR times: completely redundant writing!!!

"us gov"? Not US gov?

If this is evidence verified and presented, then it only means the author cannot write shit. But on its own, this level of crap writing should be powerful circumstantial evidence that it's all bulldust, written by a larper or fraud.

If anyone can verify or indicate sauce... please do!