TH3WH17ERABB17 -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- -12-

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

You seem to be playing loose with "higher" and "lower". If we go by the bible, the book of Job in particular, Satan seemed to be able to just prance up into haven and talk with the boss, face to face. I'd say that puts him higher than the average human.

As an atheist, I would say that I don't believe either of them exist but if they are indeed generals in the battle of Armageddon, trying to get kids to sign up with their army then, they are both "higher" than their foot soldiers.

a reply to: daskakik



It is President Trump who will lead the righteous army to victory!

Nah mate ... can't see it. But if he did ... he would be in the lead Tank and it would likely be at least Gold Plated with a big golden T on it.

Trump's Tank.

Oh, and Melanie will lead the Corsairs into battle.



P

besides "q" having to change and alter their post after the news happens...

If this "Kavanaugh controversy" is "fake" like "q" allegedly states, has "q" ever said why they didn't do the same thing with Gorsuch?

a reply to: pheonix358

That has nothing to do with scripture showing that the "lower" power in AgarthaSeed's post is still "higher" than even Trump, no matter what post they man.

The point was that even satanists worship a higher being. Atheist don't believe in a higher being, even the ones lower than god, like satan.

a reply to: Skyfloating

"The Cabal has created Atheism vs. Extremist Religion. It has created Communism vs Fascism"

well... that is false

a reply to: Skyfloating

So, since Trump was "pals" with the Clintons... does that him part of the ""Cabal Cultist"" then?

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: Skyfloating

So, since Trump was "pals" with the Clintons... does that him part of the ""Cabal Cultist"" then?

No coincidences = it should.

Not here though because...

Good morning all.

Apologies to Cranky for me being a touchy grumpy git in my response last night, sincerely man. I must learn to just go my bed when I'm tired instead.

Forgive me for sharing info from fb with you all. I can't stand fb and dislike using it as a source, but I log on there because I'm seeing a lot of interesting stuff posted on various Q groups that I don't see posted anywhere else.

Anyway, moving on.
And yes it's fb again. This is a page called 'Common Sense Soapbox', which is where I saw Ford's polygraph report posted . ..

www.facebook.com... EGc&hc_ref=ARSo8LuOVyLe45tmLaAVNVLYKR9XLY4fAiGVtQscNJqhWYyBOeDP2kz59CFs1lpl_po

The fb page posted it along with a comment . ..

Common Sense Soapbox is with Linda Griesemer-Robertson.
11 hrs ·
Okay, it’s time to just blow this wide open. “We should believe Dr. Ford! She took a polygraph! That means she’s telling the truth!” Sorry, but that’s not how this really works. In fact, if anything, the polygraph results further destroy her already flimsy story and lack of credibility.

First, the examination didn’t happen at a police station or even an office. It was at Ford’s hotel. Bizarrely, the person conducting the polygraph — who was a third-party examiner and not a law enforcement official — had Ford scribble down her nearly 40-year-old memory of the drunken party, and then asked her two vague questions.

1) Is any part of your statement false?
2) Did you make up any part of your statement?

This is absolutely important to understand: Again, the polygraph test didn’t actually ask the main accuser any questions about Kavanaugh. His name was never brought up by the interviewer. Instead, Ford was simply asked if she she believed her own hand-written statement.

It gets even more strange, as nowhere in that written statement does the name “Kavanaugh” appear, either. Furthermore, she scratches out corrections on her own statement and if you listened to her testimony yesterday, her story has shifted once again from the statement posted here. Oh, and icing on the cake, the statement to the polygrapher also contradicts the July 30th letter to Diane Feinstein and then another contradiction to her Washington Post story.

July 30 (to Dianne Feinstein): “It was me and four other people.”
August 7 (to polygraph examiner): “There were four boys and a couple of girls.”
September 16 (to Washington Post reporter): “There were three boys and one girl.”

The fact that Ford “passed” the polygraph based on a statement that she later herself contradicted while telling the story to other people shows how unreliable this “evidence” truly is.

Ford will get pulled to pieces if ever cross-examined.

a reply to: doobydoll

We are on the same topic this morning. Like the details you brought out.

The August 7 examination, held in a Maryland Hilton Hotel, consisted of a one-page, handwritten statement by Ford, an interview and two questions: Is any part of your statement false? And, Did you make up any part of your statement? 

She answered both with a no. The Virginia-based examiner, Jeremiah Hanafin, noted both answers were deemed "not indicative of deception"

www.azcentral.com...

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: doobydoll

originally posted by: Sabrechucker
a reply to: doobydoll

She crossed out early 80's
Crossed people out for boy's
said 2 persons (lEO Talk) crossed that out

and also apparently wrote it drunk

Oh ya.

Someone telling her to be as vague as possible regarding the date of the alleged assault, resulting in her crossing out the word 'early'?

The same someone reminding her to be more specific than 'persons', and making her write 'boys'?

She's being coached.

I think it was being dictated to her.

Take a look at the handwriting in the statement and compare it to that of the signature at the bottom. They're written by different hands.



Statement written by a left hand, signature a right hand?

It looks like someone else wrote it out and she signed it. If she didn't write it herself then it would make sense of the many corrections. It wasn't Ford who was being dictated to, it was her doing the dictating and someone else scribbled it down. She then read and pointed out corrections, and signed it.


Also, I've often been interviewed by police and given statements many many times. If ever I made any corrections to any part of any statement, each correction had to be initialled by myself to verify the changes were mine and not someone else's. All my statements also had to be signed by myself at the top and bottom of each page and directly underneath the last sentence of my statement, so nothing can be added in later (should anyone have such an idea of doing so). Nothing like that with Ford's statement. Those corrections/changes could have been made by someone else after she signed it.

I don't know if it's all different over there in USA tho.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: Skyfloating

You cant be an athiest and satanist at the same time. Athiests believe in no god.

And you can't be a kiddy-diddler if you are abstinent either. What's your point?

originally posted by: doobydoll

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: doobydoll

originally posted by: Sabrechucker
a reply to: doobydoll

She crossed out early 80's
Crossed people out for boy's
said 2 persons (lEO Talk) crossed that out

and also apparently wrote it drunk

Oh ya.

Someone telling her to be as vague as possible regarding the date of the alleged assault, resulting in her crossing out the word 'early'?

The same someone reminding her to be more specific than 'persons', and making her write 'boys'?

She's being coached.

I think it was being dictated to her.

Take a look at the handwriting in the statement and compare it to that of the signature at the bottom. They're written by different hands.

Statement written by a left hand, signature a right hand?

It looks like someone else wrote it out and she signed it. If she didn't write it herself then it would make sense of the many corrections. It wasn't Ford who was being dictated to, it was her doing the dictating and someone else scribbled it down. She then read and pointed out corrections, and signed it.


Also, I've often been interviewed by police and given statements many many times. If ever I made any corrections to any part of any statement, each correction had to be initialled by myself to verify the changes were mine and not someone else's. All my statements also had to be signed by myself at the top and bottom of each page and directly underneath the last sentence of my statement, so nothing can be added in later (should anyone have such an idea of doing so). Nothing like that with Ford's statement. Those corrections/changes could have been made by someone else after she signed it.

I don't know if it's all different over there in USA tho.

Good spotting. Note the different 8s and 2s...not even close.

a reply to: Quadrivium

If I am ever in any trouble, I sure do hope I get the chance for only 2 questions during a polygraph ..... I have never heard of such a thing! A two question polygraph?

And the handwritten note looks like it was written by a 4th grader.

Interesting theory/idea . ..

Speaking of Laura Ingraham:
The women that confronted Flake on the elevator work for George Soros.

SOROS STRIKES AGAIN: Flake screamer/assault victim is co-exec. dir. of the Soros-funded left-wing group Center for Democracy & Center for Democracy Action Fund.

twitter.com...

originally posted by: Jusvistn
a reply to: Quadrivium

If I am ever in any trouble, I sure do hope I get the chance for only 2 questions during a polygraph ..... I have never heard of such a thing! A two question polygraph?

And the handwritten note looks like it was written by a 4th grader.

I just hope the FBI gives her a real Poly Test. That one is sure to give her the rope she requires.

a reply to: doobydoll

That IS an interesting theory. And I sure do hope it plays out.

I have had the thought from the beginning that POTUS knew about this play before choosing BK, and that he chose him specifically to bring something to light.

I just don't know what exactly what that would be, and cringe at the thought of how utterly shameful this whole confirmation has been.

Trumpwave MAGA rally tonight 7PM est.

Listen to this . ..
It's a recording of a telephone call by a CNN reporter (can someone embed it please, sorry)

www.facebook.com...

Posted by this chap . ..

Marc Raymond Mendoza
27 September at 03:17 ·

Someone just sent me a video recording they made playing a voicemail they received from CNN producer Scott Bronstein. Sender's husband is an 87 Yale graduate. CNN is proactively contacting Yale alumni who were in Pierson Residential College seeking character assassination of Kavanaugh.
Tell CNN how you fell.
CNN Scott Bronstein (202) 898-7972

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Yes, I agree and hope for the same.

Was watching the video from the lady that does the body languish analysis and agreed with her saying that the prosecutor gave her the rope needed.

I struggle to understand how she got to the location to have poly taken, when she was too afraid to fly for the hearing.

Also of suspect is the fact that there is very little coming out about ford, and little to be found on the social media type sites, that I am aware of anyways..... so with the idea that they had the letter in July, and it's now September, that is what.... 3 months that all things negative about their star accuser could be scrubbed from existence off the webz...

And you know that she was at least on stoogebook because didn't she say something about seeing her friend post something that gave her the 'whatever' to say something to her friend about her traumatic experience as a teen?