So called studies based on biased assumptions. What else would you expect?
Consider the source? How likely is anything snopes says to be accurate? Might have a few bits, but usually totally deceptive in conclusions.
"Historically, this indicates that the individual is a protected CIA operative. Additionally, Lisa Barsoomian has specialized in opposing Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the intelligence community. Although Barsoomian has been involved in hundreds of cases representing the DC Office of the US Attorney, her email address is Lisa Barsoomian at NIH.gov. The NIH stands for National Institutes of Health. This is a tactic routinely used by the CIA to protect an operative by using another government organization to shield their activities."
I don't think they purged "all" info. about her. Just certain info. . Maybe she was just a "good" lawyer opposing Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the intelligence community. But snopes just doesn't even metion that.
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/98yduw/connnecting_some_dots/
Cute. But how do you really know that I think anything about "jewishish" ciriminals? I didn't say anything about that.
To me, it is just plain and simple. Good vs. Evil. Always was, always will be.
A bonus is that you often learn firsthand the tactics of our enemy. Sliding, etc. . Plus, it often shows the true nature of those who claim to be just an anon. Multiple purposes.
Sounds good for you. Doesn't mean it's right for all. All anons have their part to play in this movie.