Blade_Runner wrote:
A former US Navy officer - not a anonymous whistleblower whose identity is protected - writes a testimonial and appears before TV cameras, identifies himself to all concerned, and tells the world of his business relationship and experiences with H****r B***n, turns over all he has in documentation and computer files regarding that business to the FBI, and in so doing, paints a target on his back.
And you make some s**tbrained excuse why you think this man is a liar. If I were in your boots, I'd sue for a refund of all the money I'd spent on schooling, formal and otherwise. You lack critical thinking sk**ls and you are a lousy judge of character.
A former US Navy officer - not a anonymous whistl... (
show quote)
Served a single four year term, that automatically entitles him to be believed regardless, is that what you are saying? Perhaps if he had served a career, served in battle or at least had SOME distinction to his service record, then perhaps he may be given some additional credibility based on his service record, a single, unremarkable, four year stint grants no one additional undeserved credibility. What about his service records gives YOU cause to lend extra credibility to his claims, extra credibility you don't also grant to H****r, also served AS AN OFFICER, ALSO IN THE NAVY. True, H****r's stint ended less than honorably, can we say beyond a reasonable doubt Tony's didn't? Do YOU know Tony's service record independently from what Tony himself says of it?
Exhibit A.
Tony Bobulinski wrote:
My name is Tony Bobulinski. The facts set forth below are true and accurate; they are not any form of domestic or foreign disinformation. Any suggestion to the contrary is false and offensive. I am the recipient of the email published seven days ago by the New York Post which showed a copy to H****r B***n and Rob Walker. That email is genuine.
1. Odd that he "assumes" readers will assume the "statement of facts" to be a "form of domestic or foreign disinformation", suggests that it IS in fact a "form of domestic or foreign disinformation". You know the old saying, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...", how does that end? Ah yes, that it is anything BUT a duck, right?
2. The pre-defensive reaction to any future evidence of disbelief of his "statement of facts" that he shows. Seems he wants you to know ahead of time that when you rightly disbelieve his "statement of facts" that he will not be pleased and will be offended.
3. Typically, when one prefaces a "statement of facts" with a confession that the statement will be considered false, it is typically followed by false statements. Seems pretty cut and dry here.
4. The wording in this "statement of facts" is not typical when the t***h is being portrayed, specific emphasis on, "That email is genuine.". Most would have included that declaration in the previous sentence with a simple "it is genuine".
Exhibit B.
Tony Bobulinski wrote:
I am the grandson of a 37 year Army Intelligence officer, the son of a 20+ year career Naval Officer and the brother of a 28 year career Naval Flight Officer. I myself served our country for 4 years and left the Navy as LT Bobulinski. I held a high level security clearance and was an instructor and then CTO for Naval Nuclear Power Training Command. I take great p***e in the time my family and I served this country. I am also not a political person. What few campaign contributions I have made in my life were to Democrats.
I am the grandson of a 37 year Army Intelligence o... (
show quote)
1. Notice the plea for additional credibility due to a family tradition of serving our country, one he himself barely provides lip service to with a singular four year stint. Notice a pattern here, 37 years, 20+ years, 28 years but Tony only served 4? Can we DEDUCT credibility due to his being a s**thead? All those family members serving careers in the military, including his own brother (28 years) and he just s**ts on the tradition with a measly, pathetic 4 years? Why bother joining at all? Why bother mentioning the service at all? What does it prove? That he is in fact a s**thead? Seriously, can we DEDUCT credibility for that statement?
2 Another plea for additional credibility based on a claim that he held a high level security clearance.
3. "I take great p***e in the time my family and I served this country.", repeatedly showing us what a s**thead he is? We should DEDUCT even MORE credibility for "repeated s**theadery".
Exhibit C.
Tony Bobulinski wrote:
If the media and big tech companies had done their jobs over the past several weeks I would be irrelevant in this story. Given my long standing service and devotion to this great country, I could no longer allow my family’s name to be associated or tied to Russian disinformation or implied lies and false narratives dominating the media right now.
1. "If the media and big tech companies had done their jobs", damn if that doesn't sound familiar, kind of like something we keep hearing over and over and over and over again, "It is all the media and BIG TECH's fault".... Damn, I know I have heard that same thing so damned frequently..... Ah, yes, the very same thing Trump supporters keep claiming, I knew I would remember where I kept hearing that same pathetic whine over and over. Wait.... I thought Tony was trying to imply being a Democrat supporter..... Is Trump and his supporters ALL closet Democrats?
B. 4. Yet another plea for additional credibility due to, "I am also not a political person. What few campaign contributions I have made in my life were to Democrats."? Tony sounds like a Republican (not the only line in this "statement" where he sounds like a conservative) but implies that he supports Democrats? Sounds like another case of begging for additional, undeserved credibility based on what sounds to be a lie.
2. "Given my long standing service and devotion to this great country", What "long standing service"? Four years is "long standing". Lies do not lend credence to one's stories.
3. "tied to Russian disinformation or implied lies and false narratives dominating the media right now.", come on already..... Okay... Let's divide this up some.
a. "tied to Russian disinformation", what "Russian disinformation"? There wasn't any "Russian disinformation" until this whole convoluted Biden scandal came out and then the only "Russian disinformation" was the scandal itself and the claims that there was any "there" to it.
b. "implied lies and false narratives" the only "implied lies and false narratives" was the shaky story so full of holes and obvious intent that it could ONLY be believed by those truly desperate enough for dirt on Biden to believe something, anything, even if so blatantly false.
c. "tied to Russian disinformation or implied lies and false narratives dominating the media right now.", well of course. We all know the Democrats are the ones making ALL the claims that the MSM are so biased and "f**e news". ONLY an ultraconservative would EVER believe ANYTHING they hear or saw on MSM, right? In case it isn't 100% obvious, I am being facetious here, if this statement, "tied to Russian disinformation or implied lies and false narratives dominating the media right now.", doesn't SCREAM "I AM A TRUMP SUPPORTING REPUBLICAN!", what will?
Wow.... I'm spent... So much revelation in so few lines and yet those blind to it remain blind? He screams out that he is lying, he screams out that the statement is "disinformation" (with a nod to who may be behind it all), he even screams out that he is either a dyed in the wool trump supporting Republican or parroting what one has told him and is likely paying him to parrot in this "statement of facts". If your eyes fail you, open your ears and hear the guy scream out the intent, to destroy Joe Biden's run for president and help Trump get re-elected. Being a patsy in this smear campaign, backed by Trump, his campaign and likely backed by Putin, Do you really want to be a patsy?
Take a good look at ALL the "evidence", take a good look at where it all comes from, who is leaking it to you? Consider timing, look to notice who benefits the most from any of this. It is all too obvious if one cares to see. This whole scandal has ALL the earmarks of a dis-information campaign and who are the "sheeple" that are taking the bait, hook, line, sinker, fishing pole, fisherman and boat?
There is no more gullible a mark than one eager to be fleeced.