It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

-@TH3WH17ERABB17 -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART -8-

page: 120
158
<< 117  118  119    121  122  123 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Federal Court Issues Summons to George Soros, John Podesta, Frank Giustra,David Brock, Hillary Clinton and others for Racketeering and Corruption


SUMMONS (1) Issued Electronically as to GEORGE SOROS. (zsth)



SUMMONS (14) Issued Electronically as to AMERICAN BRIDGE 21ST CENTURY, DAVID BROCK, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, CLINTON FOUNDATION, CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE, CLINTON-GIUSTRA ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP, CORRECT THE RECORD, JAN GILOOLY, CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA, JOHN PODESTA, SHAREBLUE, JONATHAN WACKROW.(zsth)


These were issued between June 15 and 20.

ETA: Its only a civil lawsuit.
edit on 2018 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Skyfloating


That's superb investigating! What are they "summoned" to do?



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Nothing you have posted answers the simple question I asked. Instead you are once again stepping around it because your statement was factually incorrect. You used a Q drop with two words that do not answer my question. Once again, where has Q stated they are in fact MI?

Of course people can discuss a topic without belief in a topic, however, I pointed out you are using Q's information to attempt to validate an argument you pose when that very information is information you do not believe to be legitimate. AKA contradictory beliefs, AKA cognitive dissonance.

You have no alternate theories yet make claims Q is illegitimate? Therefore your claim to illegitimacy is null.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Skyfloating


This article uses the word "indicted".

o4anews.com...

If true, it's a big forkin deal, and deserves an ATS thread.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: Millions
I can "reveal" quite a bit.


Most just want everything explained in a way that "makes" them understand, but it doesn't work that way. True knowledge should never be overtly conveyed, and more often than not, when the "seeker" is given direction, the initial desire wanes]


Thanks for the response, eisegesis. Your posts are always interesting, although as I am sure you are aware, can frustrate the hell out of me, haha. I get what you're saying about not holding our hands with this stuff. But can you tell me - do you get the impression that Clinton, podesta, etc, are as deeply into the occult as is often claimed here?

I've seen the symbolism, but personally, can see this just being coincidence where specificn hand positions , etc, are caught on camera mid-movement. The spirit cooking 'art ' is a bit harder to dismiss. Then there are the more extreme claims like child sacrifice, blood drinking and so on. I don't know whether to take this stuff seriously. I believe in the political conspiracy, but don't know enough about the occult to know whether there is an occult aspect to what has been going on. What do you think? (Just to clarify - i'm not asking for you to explain any of your own knowledge/ insight - just wondering if you believe in the occult angle to this). Thanks.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Outlier13
Nothing you have posted answers the simple question I asked. Instead you are once again stepping around it because your statement was factually incorrect. You used a Q drop with two words that do not answer my question. Once again, where has Q stated they are in fact MI?

The answer was taken from what I posted. Don't like it? Take it up with those who came up with the theory you questioned fiver about.


Of course people can discuss a topic without belief in a topic, however, I pointed out you are using Q's information to attempt to validate an argument you pose when that very information is information you do not believe to be legitimate. AKA contradictory beliefs, AKA cognitive dissonance.

No, I don't know why you can't wrap your head around the idea but that really isn't my problem.


You have no alternate theories yet make claims Q is illegitimate? Therefore your claim to illegitimacy is null.

No, I can go along with the hoaxer, government psy-op and even Trump trolling but you asked for one of my own, which I don't have.

My claim is that none of the proofs really prove that they are legit. I don't have to prove that they are not legit. I just have to point out how things like NK peace talks were in the news before Q posted about them or how the 7 Delta post was posted hours after Trump retweeted the WH Father's Day Card and therefore not proof to back up my claim.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

The link shows that it is a civil lawsuit so I don't think indicted is the right term.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 01:04 AM
link   

edit on 2018 by Skyfloating because: nvm



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

You cannot answer the question and continue to deflect. You made a factually incorrect statement and don't like being called out by it which is why you continue to deflect. It's not that I don't like your response. It's that your response is lacking the necessary supporting evidence to support your statement.

Your choice is to use information you believe to be illegitimate which means you are conflicted.

You do have to prove all existing proofs are illegitimate if you make the claim they are all legitimate. One by one you must prove this.

You win a debate by providing a conclusion(s) that supports your premise(s). It's how it's done. Otherwise you have no credibility as an opposing argument. Want to prove Q is illegitimate? Then do it otherwise...what's the point?



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 01:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skyfloating


Thank-you. That headline will bring a lot of attention to the thread! On my way over there now.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 01:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Outlier13
You cannot answer the question and continue to deflect. You made a factually incorrect statement and don't like being called out by it which is why you continue to deflect. It's not that I don't like your response. It's that your response is lacking the necessary supporting evidence to support your statement.

Actually what I posted was one example of where Q says that they are MI and also one example of where they say their mission is to help POTUS.

The first is vague but it is what the community claims and I was even directed to an article like this one somewhere along the course of these threads.

The second is not vague and Q constantly states that they are there to support the POTUS. If you have not seen that then I don't know what else I can tell you.


Your choice is to use information you believe to be illegitimate which means you are conflicted.

Nope, my choice is to show why that information is not proof of Q being legit. I can't do that without bringing up that same information.


You do have to prove all existing proofs are illegitimate if you make the claim they are all legitimate. One by one you must prove this.

No, much of the info is perfectly legit but my claim is that they don't prove that Q is legit. I don't really think it should be too hard to understand the difference.


You win a debate by providing a conclusion(s) that supports your premise(s). It's how it's done. Otherwise you have no credibility as an opposing argument. Want to prove Q is illegitimate? Then do it otherwise...what's the point?

I'm not debating. I'm pointing out info that might not be the proof that some people claim it is. Nothing more nothing less.



edit on 25-6-2018 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

There is not Q drop where Q states "We are military intelligence".

A better word for Q would be authentic or genuine versus your use of the word legitimate. Q infers they are close to POTUS. There are and have been multiple proofs that prove this. You can try to debate, debunk, argue, disprove or whatever but it won't change the fact there are valid proofs that inexplicably show Q and POTUS are in the same circle. I would concede that some proofs can be a bit of a stretch but the majority of the proofs I have reviewed are irrefutable.

Will some of Q's drops be wrong? Sure. I don't know how it would be possible to get all drops right in a real time situation. Just doesn't happen. Is the information that is wrong evidence of an intentional psy op or that Q is a LARP? I don't believe this.

Still my question remains why would you commit so much time to a topic you do not believe in?



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Outlier13
There is not Q drop where Q states "We are military intelligence".

Do you know what vague means? Did you see where I said that was what the Q community claims?


A better word for Q would be authentic or genuine versus your use of the word legitimate. Q infers they are close to POTUS. There are and have been multiple proofs that prove this. You can try to debate, debunk, argue, disprove or whatever but it won't change the fact there are valid proofs that inexplicably show Q and POTUS are in the same circle. I would concede that some proofs can be a bit of a stretch but the majority of the proofs I have reviewed are irrefutable.

Irrefutable in your opinion.


Will some of Q's drops be wrong? Sure. I don't know how it would be possible to get all drops right in a real time situation. Just doesn't happen. Is the information that is wrong evidence of an intentional psy op or that Q is a LARP? I don't believe this.

Again, just your opinion.


Still my question remains why would you commit so much time to a topic you do not believe in?

That is what people do when they are discussing something. Some might "believe" that something is true and others might not "believe" it so the later, like me, try to discuss and share why they don't "believe in" that thing or idea.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 02:35 AM
link   
In a nutshell, here is a logical explanation (based on uncovered facts) of what the core threat is. And why it must be revealed fully and neutralized.

twitter.com...



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 02:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
a reply to: tiredoflooking

Catching up so apologies if anyone has already said this...

POTUS trip to UK still scheduled for Friday 13th July. He's git a meeting in Europe next day so not sure I he's even staying overnight.

BBC today is already running with a story saying the UK police are complaining how much it will take out of their budget securing his visit. This story also allows them to say protests are expected, which is effectively calling for people to turn up to protest 3 weeks in advance (am v disgusted with this manipulation).



The numbers again Rel.

The President is scheduled to visit UK on 13/7/2018.

1 + 3 + 7 = 11

2 + 0 + 1 + 8 = 11

11.11

Friday 13th is also an unlucky date/day for the superstitious, where they believe bad things happen on that day. Where does this superstition originate from I wonder? Is it something to do with the number 13?

If numbers are symbolising Light/dark energy, I wonder if Q and the President is countering/neutralising the bad energy of Friday 13 by 'marking' it with the combination of numbers = 11.11? Does 11.11 symbolise Light energy? Are they literally bringing the Light into darkness with these numbers? Are they 'acting out' the symbolisms, you know, like the Satanists do with their beliefs?

I dont know enough about this numbers stuff yet, but it's certainly interesting.

edit on 25-6-2018 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

You made a direct statement that was incorrect. You need to own your mistake. You made the statement "MI is who Q claims to be". I challenged you to show me the Q drop where Q makes this statement. You provided a Q drop stating only "military intelligence" at the top of the drop...2 words. Now you're trying to deflect and claim you were implying your response was what the "general consensus" is and not your own response? Trying to side step your inaccurate statement does not exonerate you from culpability.

The proofs are not my opinion as there are many that are substantiated by facts. Therefore they cannot be opinion. My statement, "I do not believe this" is an an example of opinion as it is not substantiated by facts. I understand how to clearly convey my thoughts.

You don't have an alternative theory on Q and only cherry pick some of Q's drops while simultaneously admitting "much of the info is perfectly legit" yet still claim Q is not authentic? (you said "not legitimate" - I use authentic).

You sound conflicted and still haven't offered a believable reason as to why you continue to post here or why you follow Q so closely.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 03:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Outlier13
You made a direct statement that was incorrect. You need to own your mistake. You made the statement "MI is who Q claims to be". I challenged you to show me the Q drop where Q makes this statement. You provided a Q drop stating only "military intelligence" at the top of the drop...2 words. Now you're trying to deflect and claim you were implying your response was what the "general consensus" is and not your own response? Trying to side step your inaccurate statement does not exonerate you from culpability.

Seems like the thing that flew over your head was that one of the "theories" that fiver gave, and that you accredited to them, was that the whole Q is IM and supporting POTUS was their theory. It isn't. They said "what is more believable" and then gave the "general consensus". That is what started this whole thing.

I posted one of the drops where this idea came from. You disagree and that is fine but you really would have to take it up with those that came up with that theory, not me and not fiver.


The proofs are not my opinion as there are many that are substantiated by facts. Therefore they cannot be opinion. My statement, "I do not believe this" is an an example of opinion as it is not substantiated by facts. I understand how to clearly convey my thoughts.

You saying they are irrefutable is an opinion.


You don't have an alternative theory on Q and only cherry pick some of Q's drops while simultaneously admitting "much of the info is perfectly legit" yet still claim Q is not authentic? (you said "not legitimate" - I use authentic).

You can't differentiate? Q posts about things that are happening. Some of those things are happening so that makes them legit. That doesn't mean that they are saying the truth when they claim that they snapped pics from AF1 or that they were in the Oval Office and snapped a pic a minute before Trump tweeted.


You sound conflicted and still haven't offered a believable reason as to why you continue to post here or why you follow Q so closely.

I already told you, we are discussing Q. I don't believe they are who they say they are and I'm sharing why.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 03:47 AM
link   
a reply to: doobydoll

Good catch Dooby!

As this Wiki link shows, Friday 13th being unlucky is thought to have derived from one of the following 2 events:

1) The Last Supper with 13 attendees on the night before Jesus Christ's Friday arrest,
2) Friday 13th 1307 when Knights Templar across Europe were arrested or killed. link says this was first mentioned in a 20th century freemasonry book.

Note that in Italy 13 is seen as a lucky number. I presume this may be because they take the Vatican perception of these events.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 03:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13
Most understand why.
Intel.
Lower morale.
Gauge commitment and resolve of the movement.
Prevent growth of movement.

Transparent.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 03:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Skyfloating

I'm a bit rushed to get to an appointment but wanted to say:

It's worthcross checking/re_reading Q posts from qntmpkts.keybase.pub...between 15th and 20th. Viewing in the knowledge of this civil suit may provide new insights.

References to Whitehouse and senior staffer as well as abandon ship on 20th.

ETA - there is a certain ironic beauty in the case being launched by the public (civil) instead of the government.
edit on 25-6-2018 by RelSciHistItSufi because: Eta




top topics



 
158
<< 117  118  119    121  122  123 >>

log in

join