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

originally posted by: Trillium
Remember that DOJ plane that went to the UK last week
Well me think he was taken back to the embassy
(they had him since last year or before) no window show

So we could all Enjoy the New Show of today

Think he was the missing move

The KEY Stone

I was thinking about this. Up until yesterday, the last sighting of Assange at the embassy was about a year ago, with not so much as a glimpse of Assange in a window since then. Some people were wondering if he'd been secretly killed. And now suddenly he's back. Has he really been at the embassy, studiously avoiding windows for an entire year, or was he really somewhere else until they needed him back at the embassy yesterday?

a reply to: dashen

dashen, the gulfstream V in your flightradar pic seems to be circling RAF Bicester airfield, FWIW.

The confirmed wiki on Twitter is still Tweeting even with Assange in custody 😎

3312
New: Title TBD
Q
!!mG7VJxZNCI
11 Apr 2019 - 2:34:08 PM
If we are merely a LARP asking questions on the Chans, why are we being attacked daily by some of the world's biggest media co's, social media co's deliberately applying censorship/banning, shills paid/inserted to disrupt (media matters), blue checkmark coordinated attacks, etc.?
All for a 'conspiracy' on the Chans?
All for a 'LARP'?
Why is there a constant flow of disinformation being pushed re: Q?
Example:
Disinformation push re: Mueller is a white hat.
FAKE & FALSE narrative.
Think BLOCKADE.
When you can't attack the information directly, you attack the source, if that fails, you 'create false misleading information' to discredit knowing 'select' 'unaware' followers would not take the time to self-corroborate the claims (same vehicle/tactics used by FAKE NEWS media).
Logical thinking always wins.
Nothing can stop what is coming.
As the target(s) turn to the other side, the attacks will intensify.
We have the source.
Q

qmap.pub...


"We have the source"

a reply to: Sabrechucker

We have the source.

a reply to: Sabrechucker

We have attacked, and successfully exposed many of the lies and falsities of the "information"


the information "Q" ""supplied"" has been debunked

"Q" is literally grasping at straws trying to keep the followers going

originally posted by: xuenchen
The confirmed wiki on Twitter is still Tweeting even with Assange in custody 😎

Assange has not been in control of that Twitter account for many years now. Thats not a conspiracy, thats just a fact.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Well, there is the small problem of people having been to visit him recently at the embassy. Cassandra Fairbanks being one of them. She has been to visit him in the last month or so, and is livid on Twitter. As is Julians mother. They could all be in on it, and playing their part, but Cassandra especially seems genuine.

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

I've just accessed it, so no, not pulled.

a reply to: cherokeetroy

In April 2018, Craig resigned from the firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, following the indictment of Alex van der Zwaan, a lawyer at the firm's London office. Craig was the lead attorney supervising the firm's work for former Ukrainian president Yanukovich, in which Zwann participated. Zwaan was later charged by Mueller investigation and pleaded guilty to making false statements.[43][45][46] Later in 2018, NBC and CNN reported that following a referral from Mueller's office, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York was investigating Craig and others, including ex-lobbyist Tony Podesta and former Republican U.S. Representative Vin Weber, as part of a broader investigation into the activities of Paul Manafort.[47] In early April 2019, Craig's lawyers announced he will be indicted for FARA violations related to the 2017 Mueller special prosecution.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

He was also the Bond Runner for Maddie Albright. Think Kosovo? Bosnia?
Deep, deep state swamp creature.

a reply to: Sabrechucker

Being attacked by the media doesn't prove its not a larp. Just look at the Satanic Panic or something, or maybe you could say some religion is larp, but it can still be a big deal with a huge impact. Also, Trump being in on it doesn't mean it's not a larp. I'm not saying it is one though.

a reply to: Ravinski

Interesting to hear that we are helping inform people in the Netherlands, Ravinski.

Thanks for letting us know!!

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

Anyone who was Obama's General Counsel has got to be a top notch swamp creature.

a reply to: Cutepants

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi

Ah, Cranky later added the text line link.

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: tiredoflooking

That's not accurate, he's still charged with rape in Sweden, but they ended the investigation because there was nothing they could do. But they can restart it. He was also charged with two counts of sexual harassment, but those ran out of time. The rape charge is valid until August 2020.

I don't think he's going to Sweden, but the plaintiff and her lawyer have put in a formal request to continue the investigation, and as far as I can tell it will be restarted.

No.
Source?

He was never charged with rape.


en.wikipedia.org...

Julian Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority were the set of legal proceedings in the United Kingdom concerning the requested extradition of Julian Assange to Sweden to further a 'preliminary investigation'[1] into accusations of his having committed sexual offences. The proceedings began in 2012 and on 12 August 2015, Swedish prosecutors announced that they would drop their investigation into three of the allegations against Assange, because of the expiration of the statute of limitations. The investigation into the allegation of rape, as of 19 May 2017, has been dropped by Swedish authorities.[2][3]A disputed issue over the course of the legal proceedings was the claimed fear that Assange could ultimately be extradited to United States of America should he be sent to Sweden.

On 20 August 2010, two women, a 26-year-old living in Enköping and a 31-year-old living in Stockholm,[4][5] went to the Swedish police.[6]The police told them that they could not simply tell Assange to take a test, but that their statements would be passed to the prosecutor.[7] Later that day, the duty prosecutor ordered the arrest of Julian Assange on the suspicion of rape and molestation.[8]

The next day, the case was transferred to Chefsåklagare (Chief Public Prosecutor) Eva Finné. In answer to questions surrounding the incidents, the following day, Finné declared, "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape". However, Karin Rosander from the Swedish Prosecution Authority, said Assange remained suspected of molestation. Police gave no further comment at the time, but continued the investigation.[9]

The preliminary investigation concerning suspected rape was discontinued by Finné on 25 August,[8] but two days later Claes Borgström, the attorney representing the two women, requested a review of the prosecutor's decision to terminate part of the investigation.[8][11]

On 30 August, Assange was questioned by the Stockholm police regarding the allegations of sexual molestation.[12] He denied the allegations, saying he had consensual sexual encounters with the two women.[10][13][14]

On 1 September 2010, Överåklagare (Director of Public Prosecution) Marianne Ny decided to resume the preliminary investigation concerning all of the original allegations. On 18 August 2010, Assange had applied for a work and residence permit in Sweden.[15][16]On 18 October 2010, his request was denied.[15][16][17] He left Sweden on 27 September 2010. According to one source his departure was with the permission of the Swedish authorities.[18] Another source claims that the Swedish authorities notified Assange's lawyer of his imminent arrest on that same day.[19]

On 18 November 2010, Marianne Ny ordered the detention of Julian Assange on suspicion of rape, three cases of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. The Stockholm District Court acceded to the order and issued a European Arrest Warrant to execute it.[8] The warrant was appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal which upheld its issuance, but lowered it to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree, unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation rather than three.[20][21] The warrant was also appealed to the Supreme Court of Sweden, which decided not to hear the case.[22] At this time Assange had been living in the United Kingdom for 1–2 months. An extradition hearing took place in an English court in February 2011 to consider an application by Swedish authorities for the extradition of Assange to Sweden. The outcome of the hearing was announced on 24 February 2011, when the extradition warrant was upheld. Assange appealed to the High Court. On 2 November 2011, the court upheld the extradition decision and rejected all four grounds for the appeal as presented by Assange's legal representatives. £19,000 costs was also awarded against Assange. On 5 December 2011, Assange was refused permission by the High Court to appeal to the Supreme Court. The High Court certified that his case raised a point of law of general public importance. The Supreme Court subsequently granted permission to appeal,[23] and heard the appeal on 1 and 2 February 2012.[24] The court reserved its judgment and dismissed the appeal on 30 May 2012.[25] Assange has said the investigation is "without basis". He remained on conditional bail in the United Kingdom.[12][26][27] On 19 June 2012, Assange sought refuge at Ecuador's Embassy in London and was granted temporary asylum. On 16 August 2012, he was granted full asylum by the Ecuadorian government but has been unable to leave the embassy without being arrested.

On the 24 June 2014, The Guardianreported[28] that Assange's lawyers filed a request to Stockholm District Court to dismiss his detention,[29] based on an update to Sweden's code of judicial procedure (1 June 2014) to conform with EU law including a new provision that those arrested or detained have the right to be made aware of "facts forming the basis for the decision to arrest".

On 16 July 2014, the Stockholm District Court reviewed the detention order on request by Assange. During the course of the proceedings, Assange's defence lawyers said that the prosecutors have a "duty" to advance the case, and that they had shown "passivity" in refusing to go to London to interview Assange.[30] After hearing evidence, the district court concluded that there was probable cause to suspect Assange of committing the alleged crimes, and that the detention order should remain in place.[31]

In response, Assange's Swedish legal team stated to Radio Sweden: "We still think we have very good legal arguments to get this decision overruled, so we are confident in the result of the appeal. We think the court of appeal can make another decision on the same arguments as the district court."[32]Ecuador immediately issued a statement: "The Ecuadorian Government reaffirms its offer of judicial cooperation to the Kingdom of Sweden, to reach a prompt solution to the case. In this sense Ecuador keeps its invitation to judicial officers visit the London Embassy so that Julian Assange can be interviewed or via videoconference. Both possibilities are explicitly referred in the current procedural legislation in Sweden and the European Union."[33]

On 20 November 2014, the Swedish Court of Appeal refused Assange's appeal, upholding the 2010 detention order, though at the same time issuing a statement criticising the prosecution for not having done more to advance the case by proceeding with an interrogation of Assange.[34]

On 12 August 2015, Swedish prosecutors announced that, as the statute of limitationsfor the less serious allegations had run out, and they had not succeeded in interviewing Assange, they would end part of their preliminary investigation. After 18 August 2015, Assange could no longer be charged for any of the three less serious charges. However, the preliminary investigation into the more serious allegation remained open as the statute of limitations for this charge was not expected to expire until 2020.[35] Swedish authorities interviewed Assange on this allegation in November 2016.[36]

a reply to: Sabrechucker

Right, I just think Q was being intellectually dishonest there.

a reply to: tiredoflooking

On 19 May 2017, the Swedish chief prosecutor applied to the Stockholm District Court to rescind the arrest warrant for Julian Assange,[37] effectively ceasing their investigation against Julian Assange.[38] The case may be reinstated until the expiration of the statute of limitations. Additionally, Britain's arrest warrant pertaining to bail violations remains open.

In 2013, Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition but the English Crown Prosecution Service dissuaded them from doing so.[39]

The possibilty of investigation on the charge of rape remains open until 2020 but he was not ever charged.

a reply to: PokeyJoe

Ha, that's true but Craig was also deeply embedded with Clinton's back in the 90s.

originally posted by: Sabrechucker
3312
New: Title TBD
Q
!!mG7VJxZNCI
11 Apr 2019 - 2:34:08 PM
If we are merely a LARP asking questions on the Chans, why are we being attacked daily by some of the world's biggest media co's, social media co's deliberately applying censorship/banning, shills paid/inserted to disrupt (media matters), blue checkmark coordinated attacks, etc.?
All for a 'conspiracy' on the Chans?
All for a 'LARP'?
Why is there a constant flow of disinformation being pushed re: Q?
Example:
Disinformation push re: Mueller is a white hat.
FAKE & FALSE narrative.
Think BLOCKADE.
When you can't attack the information directly, you attack the source, if that fails, you 'create false misleading information' to discredit knowing 'select' 'unaware' followers would not take the time to self-corroborate the claims (same vehicle/tactics used by FAKE NEWS media).
Logical thinking always wins.
Nothing can stop what is coming.
As the target(s) turn to the other side, the attacks will intensify.
We have the source.
Q

qmap.pub...


"We have the source"

What does Q mean by "Disinformation push re: Mueller is a white hat"?
I still can't decide if Mueller is white hat, black hat, or trying to play both sides.

Q's comment about targets turning to the other side confirms that some of the DSers have flipped to try to save themselves.