-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- -§19§-

originally posted by: xuenchen
The "break in" at the Qummings "residence" sounds like a sympathy funnel for political reasons similar to the Smollett hoax 😎

Naw, They were looking for all those billions that were supposed to go to Baltimore.

a reply to: PokeyJoe

Turn that clown frown upside down.

🤡

a reply to: imthegoat

idk, I guess I'm still confused by Barr's decision. Is it petty and vindictive to uphold the law? I don't know how I feel about a man who's more concerned about upholding appearances than he is about seeking justice. As for the argument that they want to get Comey on bigger crimes, it's my understanding that they can bring multiple charges against him, it's not an 'either/or ' type situation. I guess we'll see what color of hat they all wear when (if) the IG report ever comes out


I'll say one thing...hearing a continuous string of excuses as to why there've been no arrests is wearing thin

Now they're blasting Qanon on NBC News. I think this is actually a good thing. Bring it all front and center & shine a big spotlight on it. Truth will prevail

twitter.com...

a reply to: cherokeetroy

That's what I was thinking also. Wasn't Paul manafort indicted on different batches of charges and had to be marched to various courthouses?

a reply to: cherokeetroy

Your frustration is understandable. I just have to think the time and effort and money will be better spent on the Big Charge. If no justice is forthcoming in the end, I think the American citizens will definitely enter a new "phase".

Lawlessness and spitting on the rule of law is ugly whether it comes from some piece of # in a black mask and hoodie milkshaking a conservative journalist or a high and mighty suit-wearing civil servant.

a reply to: cherokeetroy

Declassification will make them all look like fools. I hope the head of Q Annon, president Trump, will accelerate the declassification process.

a reply to: cherokeetroy

NBC was all over the Epstein coverage when we were talking about, right? Or when we were crowing about how Trump was spied upon?

Let's have them dive deep into our accusations.


Can't wait.

originally posted by: cherokeetroy
a reply to: imthegoat

idk, I guess I'm still confused by Barr's decision. Is it petty and vindictive to uphold the law? I don't know how I feel about a man who's more concerned about upholding appearances than he is about seeking justice. As for the argument that they want to get Comey on bigger crimes, it's my understanding that they can bring multiple charges against him, it's not an 'either/or ' type situation. I guess we'll see what color of hat they all wear when (if) the IG report ever comes out


I'll say one thing...hearing a continuous string of excuses as to why there've been no arrests is wearing thin

You're looking at palpable media message not detailed decision concerns. I say this over and over again - The law is not the same as inner company policy. Comey himself admitted he violated company policy - which is not much of a thing there and is NOT the same as a violation of law.

This cannot be stressed enough, when you work for the government the system is not what what folks think it is - the failure is not on the gov, but on US for not understanding how it works.

I get why folks see "...he let her off" as as treason but it isn't. If folks want that treated as treason then any cop anywhere can arrest any one of us for any reason and just say "well our moral outrage makes it so."

Moral outrage does not belong in the system of law because morality has nothing to do with law - don't hate the player hate the game.

We have no insight into NDA protections, Immunity deals, National Security cover and the all important Obama issued protections. The last are key, if one wants to violate those for Comey et al, then one must accept any applied to say Flynn to be violated by another Pres too.

(a key point was made back in thread one I think. The incoming President signs a lot of contracts, one allegedly says he will NOT prosecute a former President - Obama, BC, Bush, Carter and likely the wives are covered). DJT can't sign that and then just say "ah screw it, I'll indict them..."

I mentioned here at the outset, I expected all people would be dealt with in the most efficient manner available, not the most publicly humiliating.

Back whenever Warrior confirmed secret trials are indeed going on at Gitmo, some names we know, most we do not.

Most if not all will be got for parking tickets, back taxes, etc. if at all possible to avoid Billion dollar trials that will lead to nothing but media madness. The media/controller WANT trials and anything they can spin. They will get nothing to feed on, but because of that we are unlikely to as well.

a reply to: cherokeetroy

The first case brought needs to be a slam dunk and worth the effort. Comey's has bigger problems on the horizon with far better cases behind them.

Put it this way, busting Comey for leaking doesn't help advance the main case of the Obama Administration's Russiagate problems much.

Keep your eyes on the prize. Comey is just a stepping stone to bigger fish.

This was brought up in thread one. Good to see it out there in the chans. I hope that others were noticing this internally prior.

Good to track this one.

Yesterday was 1 yr delta.

Q1794

Aug 1 2018 23:36:07 (EST)
FISA
FISA
FISA
[20]
Public disclosure.
Impossible to defend.
ILLEGAL.
Re: MSM
“Never Interfere With an Enemy While He’s in the Process of Destroying Himself.”
Q

Q1802

Aug 2 2018 21:20:02 (EST)
Something BIG is about to drop.
Q

We shall see.

Two more players added to qmap.pub...

- Emmanuel Macron
- John Ratcliffe

Ratcliffe was added prior to POTUS tweet.

New EO 13882 recently published.

Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Mali

a reply to: crankyoldman

That makes sense.

This cannot be stressed enough, when you work for the government the system is not what what folks think it is - the failure is not on the gov, but on US for not understanding how it works. 

The system wasn't made to be understood by us. It's deliberately convoluted to keep us disempowered. That's why honing intuition is crucial.

I admit, I have very little faith in any government creatures including Barr. If they come through, I'll be surprised. The only thing I have any real confidence in is believing that as the energy of the planet shifts, anything of the lower vibration will fall away, including this corrupt system.

It will come down, it just may not happen in the way that we're expecting

originally posted by: xuenchen
The "break in" at the Qummings "residence" sounds like a sympathy funnel for political reasons similar to the Smollett hoax 😎

I'm surprised that the suspect wasn't described as White with a Red hat on his head. Funny how the description of the guy didn't say what race he was?

I have been thinking about the situation with Joe diGenova and John Solomon in conjunction with the "FBI report".

I have been searching for an actual copy of the supposed report and can not find it on any government web page. This leads me to believe it is complete hogwash, and is partisan politics. At the same time diGenova was talking about the release of a Comey report, and that has not happened yet either. John Solomon as well has not been quite as accurate lately.

These all tie together, and diGenova and Solomon were fed false information, as all leaks must stop including those that we normally get good behind the scene information from. Who ever informed them was fed false information to pinpoint exactly who was giving them this information.

How does this tie into the dubious (at least as far as I can tell) "FBI report"? There is no signing entity that is redacted, there are no initials that are blacked out for the typist or origin there of. The purpose of it is to scare people away, however it is having the opposite effect for people who are curious. Furthermore it cites academic journals in a format I have never seen before, simply giving their title where they are from but omitting the authors names from the publication. This is a massive red flag, especially when it comes to intelligence agencies. You want to know who the source of these citations are for the sake of cross referencing them for bias, so you can have their names at hand for further reference. Furthermore rather than referencing the actual names of the authors they have an entire qualifying sentence about the author to give them the appearance of validity.

This leads me to believe this was thrown together by someone who does not know what they are doing. Because if you are actually dealing with this situation you want to know exactly who to contact for more information on the subject at hand for expediency sake. Thus this "Sensitive Memo" is at best some low level operatives draft, and very likely disinformation with the intent to deceive who ever reads it . Heck it even has Wikipedia and Snopes cited!

a reply to: dubiousatworst

What FBI report are you referring to?

a reply to: carewemust

the one yahoo put up.
www.scribd.com...

originally posted by: dubiousatworst
a reply to: carewemust

the one yahoo put up.
www.scribd.com...

Where is that FBI report on the actual FBI website ? 🍔🚬

a reply to: xuenchen

it isn't there.

originally posted by: EndtheMadnessNow
Yesterday was 1 yr delta.

Q1794

Aug 1 2018 23:36:07 (EST)
FISA
FISA
FISA
[20]
Public disclosure.
Impossible to defend.
ILLEGAL.
Re: MSM
“Never Interfere With an Enemy While He’s in the Process of Destroying Himself.”
Q

Q1802

Aug 2 2018 21:20:02 (EST)
Something BIG is about to drop.
Q

We shall see.

An impeachment inquiry has begun

Great Catch...

This headline is from today, but references the 26th efforts. It fits your drop: IMPOSSIBLE to defend - releasing grand jury testimony - ILLEGAL - to do so.

Under Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a judge may grant access to confidential grand jury material when sought in preparation for, or use in, a judicial proceeding. The committee urges that an impeachment investigation is a judicial proceeding for purposes of this exception to grand jury secrecy.

Q#2327

Did the delay and smear tactics used
by D's re: Justice K help R's re: public
support / endorsement re:
confirmation & NOV 6 E?
Did select D's expose themselves re:
leaks / release of confidential
personal info, [CDE[F]?

Note the "E" after 6 = 6(e)

This is going to the Supreme Court by design in a Rush Ruling.

This is about leakers within the departments is my guess.