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- -22-

page: 255
159
<< 252  253  254    256  257  258 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: crankyoldman

cranky, my decode of the china deal tweet on the page 254 ALSO turns up Taylor Swift in one of the gematria equivalents!!




posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

I wonder if "These people are sick" means the entities that took over the bodies are being rejected - much like a transplant?



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Creep Thumper

The kind words are well earnt CT!



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 02:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
a reply to: queenofswords

I wonder if "These people are sick" means the entities that took over the bodies are being rejected - much like a transplant?

IMO, a lot of entities have taken over Hillary's body. She's had at least 10 different faces over the past 5 years.



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 03:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Trillium

I wonder if that is the "someone BIG" 40Head was talking about.



40head tweet was from 11am’ish. When did MA get picked up?

ETA; Nevermind. See now that report was fake.
edit on 14-12-2019 by PilSungMtnMan because: (no reason given)


ETA: 40head now retracted his news. Bad intel.
edit on 14-12-2019 by PilSungMtnMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 03:11 AM
link   
From @40_Head ...

Hold up...

IOW, something may or may not have happened.

Cheers



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 03:12 AM
link   
dup
edit on 14-12-2019 by cherokeetroy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

Yup. Just saw that. smh.



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

That was funny.



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Artem "I helped Hillary" Sytnyk in his elite vacation case has been fined 145,- dollars for not reporting 4 or 5 trips to a farm paid for by businessman Mykola Nadeyko. What a way to meet your demise!

Convicted of corruption: Why Zelensky should fire Sytnyk

On December 13, the Rivne Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal filed by the head of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau Artem Sytnik and found him guilty of illegal benefits - free resting in elite hunting grounds of the Polissye-Sarny farm in Rivne region. Now, according to the acting legal norms law, he should be dismissed by President Zelensky or the Verkhovna Rada.


By law, Sytnik now has three options. The first is that President Zelensky will dismiss him. The second is that he will be dismissed after decision of parliament, where Volodymyr Zelensky's party "Servant of the People" has a majority. The third - Sytnyk can write a letter of resignation and save the face.


edit on 14-12-2019 by Moravec because: Added old Glenn Beck report for memory sake



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: imthegoat




To be fair Trump does take a salary as its required, but he donates it. Just want to make sure facts are clear before someone else comments calling you a liar or something. So he is technically still "employed" by this corporation that is a subsidiary of the U.N.


I would like to correct your correction


The President is given a salary which he donates.

To be employed by any company requires a signed agreement ... I can tell you right now, The President has not signed or agreed to any such thing.

They can throw as much money as they want at him and he will just redistribute it somewhere it will do some good.

To work for anyone requires an agreement.

P



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: CoramDeo
a reply to: dashen

#metoo


BREAKIN G NEWS: Judiciary Committee Democrats APPROVE two articles of impeachment



Two articles passed on party-line votes of 23 to 17


You cannt make this stuff up.

Democrat votes=23
Republican votes=17

PainQ

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL



How/where does 23 equate to pain?



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: imthegoat




To be fair Trump does take a salary as its required, but he donates it. Just want to make sure facts are clear before someone else comments calling you a liar or something. So he is technically still "employed" by this corporation that is a subsidiary of the U.N.


I would like to correct your correction


The President is given a salary which he donates.

To be employed by any company requires a signed agreement ... I can tell you right now, The President has not signed or agreed to any such thing.

They can throw as much money as they want at him and he will just redistribute it somewhere it will do some good.

To work for anyone requires an agreement.

P


The Constitution requires the President to take a salary and that salary sum cannot be altered. Hence the reason he has to donate it rather than deny the salary all together. So yes, he is required. His agreement is to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America as stated by his oath.



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 06:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
a reply to: Guyfriday

Thinking of Podesta arrest, I revisited Q25 (5by5 = Eyes On):

Anonymous ID: grTMpzrL No.147449010 📁
Nov 1 2017 00:34:11 (EST)
Follow up to last post.
Return to comments re: Pelosi and John M (some of us refuse to say his last name for a reason).
This all has meaning - everything stated. Big picture stuff - few positions allow for this direct knowledge.

Proof to begin 11.3.
We all sincerely appreciate the work you do. Keep up the good fight. The flow of information is vital.
God bless.



If proof begins "11.3" then how could this fit to today, Friday Dec 13th = 12/13?


Re_read;
Proof to begin 11.3.
as
Proof 2 begin 11.3.


This gives us all the right numbers to form:

2 begin 11.3 = 12/13... if we put the 2 inbetween the two 1s!


Added bonus:
Proof 2 begin = Proof begins 2 years after post date of 2017 = 2019.


Rel the numbers 311 really are jumping out at me but I just can't put my finger on why. It's driving me nuts.

If you remember a few weeks back, you mentioned the 113 or 311 numbers in a couple of your posts and as I was reading, I was intensely drawn to that number. So much so that I kept looking at it, because it was as if it represented something I should remember, but I can't quite grasp what.

The number first jumped out at me a couple months ago when our Prime Minister Boris announced UK exit from the EU - 31st October - 31.10. 311.

Then it popped out at me again when Brexit was postponed, to 31st January - 31.01. 311.


I just KNOW 311 has some meaning/significance. I stood up to go make a cuppa splosh before finishing this post, but my phone rang and stopped. I picked it up and the first thing I saw on the front of the screen was the time, 11.30am. 113. Spooky lol. So I'm taking it as a sign that yes this number is quite significant right now for some reason.



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 06:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Tileman
In simple gematria pain equates to 40???



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

EMN, your post made me consider... what happens when we can teleport the whole planet?



Peter F. Hamilton wrote an incredible sci-fi trilogy where something similar happened, "The Night's Dawn Trilogy". His stories are incredibly long but brilliantly crafted and well worth the read, combining old-fashioned hard sci-fi with mysticism and fantasy.



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Guyfriday

Excerpt from Attorney Dershowitz's FoxNews' HANNITY interview Friday night:


Alan Dershowitz: Look, the most important development happened TODAY.

The Supreme Court of the United States absolutely pulled the rug out of part two of the impeachment referral by granting certiorari, by granting review in a case where Trump challenged a congressional subpoena!

And the Supreme Court said we’re going to hear this case!… Think of what that message is – It’s Trump was right!
More at: www.thegatewaypundit.com... rshowitz-explains-video/

Correct Interpretation? The second impeachment article against President Trump is "Obstruction of Congress", which stems from the White House ignoring Congressional subpoenas. The Supreme Court says it might be within the White House's purview to ignore Congressional subpoenas?


FYI:

There's two ways to challenge the validity of, or the requirement to obey, a subpoena.

One can first file a "motion to quash" with the courts, asking the court to "quash" or invalidate the subpoena, for reasons such as in this case executive privilge or lack of authority of the body issuing the subpoena. This is an affirmative, offensive step taken by the recipient of the subpoena.

The other way is through contempt/failure to respond to the subpoena. If one fails to respond to a valid subpoena, the entity or party issuing the subpoena must apply to the appropriate court to enforce it. The court enforces subpoenas through contempt proceedings - first it orders the person to comply with the subpoena, then if there's no compliance, enforces that order with a contempt finding. The recipient can then appeal a contempt finding against it and within that appeal challenge the validity of the subpoena. I believe one can also challenge the initial order to comply with the subpoena, but that may be forum or state specific.

A recipient of a subpoena can challenge the legality of the subpoena in either manner - affirmatively, or wait and see if the party issuing the subpoena will move to enforce it - which doesn't always happen.

I've let subpoena enforcement slide plenty of times. Maybe the information I sought was tangentially relevant; I obtained the information some other way; or enforcement was not worth the effort (try subpoenaing the phone company or IRS, LOL good luck).



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: imthegoat




To be fair Trump does take a salary as its required, but he donates it. Just want to make sure facts are clear before someone else comments calling you a liar or something. So he is technically still "employed" by this corporation that is a subsidiary of the U.N.


I would like to correct your correction


The President is given a salary which he donates.

To be employed by any company requires a signed agreement ... I can tell you right now, The President has not signed or agreed to any such thing.

They can throw as much money as they want at him and he will just redistribute it somewhere it will do some good.

To work for anyone requires an agreement.

P


You can agree to something without signing a paper agreement. Contracts 101.



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: imthegoat

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: imthegoat




To be fair Trump does take a salary as its required, but he donates it. Just want to make sure facts are clear before someone else comments calling you a liar or something. So he is technically still "employed" by this corporation that is a subsidiary of the U.N.


I would like to correct your correction


The President is given a salary which he donates.

To be employed by any company requires a signed agreement ... I can tell you right now, The President has not signed or agreed to any such thing.

They can throw as much money as they want at him and he will just redistribute it somewhere it will do some good.

To work for anyone requires an agreement.

P


The Constitution requires the President to take a salary and that salary sum cannot be altered. Hence the reason he has to donate it rather than deny the salary all together. So yes, he is required. His agreement is to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America as stated by his oath.


True. Note the word "shall":

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: LanceCorvette

He was elected under the Constitution to be the President.

Where in the Constitution is the agreement to work for a company?

P



new topics

top topics



 
159
<< 252  253  254    256  257  258 >>

log in

join