Is it a bombshell just because someone is reporting what half of the country already knows? Because someone on FOX reported it? Why?
It’s not really a bombshell if it doesn’t explode and cause real damage.
“Because someone on FOX reported it? Why?”
Probably the reason is that the source is U.S. Intel, not so much Fox.
The old Lawyer axiom. “It is not what you know, it is what you can prove”. In this election, you can add the adendum, “You can’t prove it if it is not allowed to be presented”. In other words, the SC has become a Kangaroo Court.
Real story is hidden here.
Report is due per EO is due Friday.
Deep State is delaying releasing it until January so it won’t have any impact on the court hearing and January 6 vote in Congress.
I am so bloody effing damn crazy sick of the stupid idiotic banal term “bombshell”.
Just sick to frikking death of it.
Sick of it. It is the stupidest, laziest, most inane word used in any kind of article now.
If I see the description “bombshell” I am more likely to ignore or pass over an article. And I think Marie Bartiromo is great, but I don’t even want to read or watch.
Some “bombshell”. Now, “The sky is blue” is a “bombshell”. “Water is wet” is a “bombshell”.
I just cannot bear the imbecility of it any more.