This suggestion of corruption done by Team Obama fits well with observed effects and Our loss of confidence in gov’t, the vote, the vax, and more. I’m a believer.

Was the shaken confidence part of the plan?

Those of us who have been paying close attention as this unfolded already knew most of this, but it’s a nice review/ summary.

In either case, we are free to research any or all of what is said.

Most people dislike learning history( schools test on names, dates, dry facts). What they should be learning is more like: “what the hell were they thinking, how did they get persuaded into atrocities….” The dramatization method might make history more palatable and interesting.

Ignorance of history is a big part of the problem for democracies. I was never a liberal when younger, I was “ignorant voting is wrong, I should read up on recent U.S. political history before voting”. It didn’t take long for me to decide that Dems were crooks and lunatics who should never be in charge of anything.

Making recent history interesting to young people seems very important to me.

Note that the phrase “gross negligence” was EXACTLY the phrase used by Comey in his first draft “exonerating” Clinton for her use of an unsecured home-brewer bathroom e-mail server holding classified information. It was reviewed by the Feebs Page and Strozk, who pointed this out to him saying it would drop her directly into a federal pen, since her gross negligence led directly to that information being hacked by multiple entities.

Let me know when Felonia von Pantsuit has been indicted, arrested, perp-walked, jailed, bailed, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to the legal maximum of 10 years and I might pay attention.

Until then all of this is just talk.

In a well-done dramatization, all the actions are fact, and all the verbiage and personal interactions are “dramatized”.

In less well-done dramatization, mixing and matching on those things can be a real problem, leaving readers uncertain of which things are fictional and which are factual, as you said. A real mess.

In the example you gave, a well-done dramatization would be based on that particular individual signing that particular agreement, but all speech would be fictional, preferably without the writer knowing what was actually said. And yes, adding flavor text regarding the smell of the room and such would all be fictional, as well – they are indeed trying to sell it to Netflix or some such, after all.

The idea is to communicate the known facts in a more enjoyable way using plausible characters. I think it works best in historical fiction, where the broad brushstrokes are knowable, but the individual characters are obviously not (following a peasant through a war 13th century war in Poland, or somesuch) – it works best because there is no possibility of the characters being directly factual, so there should be no deceit (intentional or otherwise).

Knowing in advance if it’s well-done or not tells you if it’s worth your time… but people often don’t even think about that stuff (I don’t think they even think to attempt to conceal it very often – it just doesn’t make it onto their radar at all), so finding out can be hard.

Completely understand your view of the dramatization.

As far as “just the facts” – at the top of Part 1, there is a link to the Deep Timeline Spreadsheet. Every date/event of this Deep Timeline has a supporting, referential link with the sources.

Here is the link:

https://directorblue.blogspot.com/2017/12/a-timeline-of-treason-how-fbi.html?m=1

“Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy leaned back in his chair, pen still warm from signing the agreement. “We’ll get what we need,” he told his chief counsel. “One way or another.”
Did Gowdy really say that? Why did signing the agreement make his pen notably warm?
How do you know Paul Combetta’s office smelled of stale coffee and overheated circuits? Were you there?

This reads like the author is trying to sell a script to Netflix or Amazon (or given the subject matter, perhaps to Shapiro’s Daily Wire).
The credibility is too damaged for me to recommend this to anyone.
I wish he had done like Joe Friday and stuck to “just the facts”. But of course “Dragnet” was also a dramatization “based on true events” – but at least it was entertaining!