Regarding the Keith Raniere and Allison Mack indictment

Anons, this isn't part of the current discussion here, but I was catching up and noticed >>1176941 in bread #1472. There is an assumption that they are charged with child sex trafficking and that is not necessarily so.

18 U.S. Code § 1591 - Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion

The use of the word OR is important. While this section does deal with child sex trafficking, it is also "by force, fraud, or coercion". This seems to be the part that deals with their case. While we know they were most likely involved with underage girls, we don't need to spread disinformation. That may come out later.

Here is a link to the indictment.

https:// radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/allison-mack-arrested-indictment-cult-sex-slaves-2.pdf

And here is a link to 18 USC 1591.

https:// www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1591

Let's keep our research credible.

>>1178894

>>1178929

I'm not so sure we're on the right track with this yet. Let me point out what bothers me…

Q Post 1241 (relevant portion):

Reminder.

Iran is next.

Marker.

CLAS - Sec 11A P 2.2.

“Installments.”

$250B.

Jan 1.

Jun 1.

No inspection @ GZ NR sites.

No missile tech prevention.

Load carrying.

ICBM.

First, the CLAS to me means that this is from a classified document. Maybe I'm wrong.

Next, right under that is installments in quotes. To me, that means that word is in the document. Then note the $250B, Jan 1, Jun 1. Then the rest - no inspection, no missile tech prevention, etc.

So, I'm thinking that these are details in the Iran deal that we do not have access to (at least at the moment).

Like I say, I may be way off base here. These are just my thoughts.

>>1178991

I agree all theories are worthy and need digging. I was just pointing out what I think we need to look for. Notice in the second post after Q says important, he says it refers to more than just continued payments. That's the key point I've been digging for. I haven't found anything yet.

I was just wondering if any other anon had the same thought I have about this crumb.

>>1179013

Agreed. We just need to find the proof.

>>1179025

I promise I'm not being obtuse, but I read the indictment and did not see CHILD sex trafficking. As I pointed out, the specific statute covers child trafficking, OR by force, etc. If you've seen specific wording, please show me the document that states that as a fact.

>>1179049

Yes, I found the framework for the Iran deal and checked the codes quoted in it. I keep looking specifically for some documentation that outlines continued payments and the other wording in Q's posts.