>>1983329 (pb NOTABLE) Maria POTUS interview 111 days after Q drop references her

There is significance anons with 1/11/18:

On 1/11/18 "Sessions creates team to focus on Hezbollah financing and drugs"

"The HFNT will begin by assessing the evidence in existing investigations, including cases stemming from Project Cassandra, a law enforcement initiative targeting Hezbollah’s drug trafficking and related operations."

sauce:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-sessions-announces-hezbollah-financing-and-narcoterrorism-team

This is what all of this is leading up to anons!!

Read about Project Cassandra here:

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/

Project Cassandra has been mentioned TWICE in DOJ press releases!!

12/22/17

AND

1/11/18

>>1984284

sauce?

All this talk about SC nominations.

What have (you) done to educate yourself on the nominees?

I found a scathing opinion by Joan Larsen who is on the short list.

Q is trying to teach us to QUESTION EVERYTHING

I don't see many anons digging into the short list or questioning. Just sayin

We want Justices that support and uphold our Constitution! PERIOD.

Q, NOT JOAN LARSEN FOR SCOTUS!

While she was MI Supreme Court justice she joined the majority in a 5-2 decision to protect

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS THAT LIE

2 of the Justices sided with the Intermediate Appellate Court which Justice Larsen could have easily joined their dissent. Lies are not knowledge/information and do not help an INTERNAL INVESTIGATION and therefore have no business being protected!

The opinion:

http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov/OPINIONS/FINAL/SCT/150042_83_01.pdf

The dissenting Justices correctly followed SCOTUS caselaw. Larsen and the 4 others decided to legislate from the bench.

OIG Horowitz' current investigation = INTERNAL INVESTIGATION

Under Larsen's belief and decision it is ok and protected for

COMEY TO LIE TO HOROWITZ

MCCABE TO LIE TO HOROWITZ

RR TO LIE TO HOROWITZ

LP TO LIE TO HOROWITZ

STRZOK TO LIE TO HOROWITZ

We CAN'T HAVE A JUSTICE ON SCOTUS THAT BELIEVES IT IS OK FOR PEOPLE IN POWER TO LIE!

I encourage anons to learn about these people on POTUS' SHORTLIST FOR SCOTUS

We the people need to speak out if there are questionable decisions that they have made in their past!!!!

>>1984304

Thanks, anon. I have a big interest in audits - gonna check it out!

>>1984372

The sauce is there, anon.

>The opinion:

>http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov/OPINIONS/FINAL/SCT/150042_83_01.pdf

>>1984376

Read the dissenting opinion…Garrity was discussed and Garrity does not protect LIES!

The opinion:

http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov/OPINIONS/FINAL/SCT/150042_83_01.pdf

>>1984437

>the missing sauce you like to ignore

Work on your reading comprehension

Straight from the opinion page 8 footnote 14:

Many cases have developed Garrity into the rule as it is understood today. As is

particularly relevant to this opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States has clarified,

since Garrity, that its interpretation of the Fifth Amendment only applies to truthful

statements. See, e.g., United States v Wong, 431 US 174; 97 S Ct 1823; 52 L Ed 2d 231

(1977); United States v Apfelbaum, 445 US 115; 100 S Ct 948; 63 L Ed 2d 250 (1980).

As the Court of Appeals correctly observed, however, Michigan caselaw has not

expressly kept pace with this federal development of the Garrity rule. The last published

authority on the topic came from Allen, 15 Mich App 387, which concluded that Garrity

applies to false statements; Allen was not directly repudiated by a Michigan court until

the Court of Appeals’ opinion in this case. The parties do not challenge this repudiation

and, given the developments in Garrity jurisprudence in the time since Allen was issued,

we see no reason to disturb it.

>>1984630

Does not protect LIES. PERIOD.

SCOTUS decisions since Garrity clarify that lies are not protected.

The government here did not “compel” defendants to lie. Rather, it sought only to

“compel” defendants to tell the truth. That defendants chose to provide exculpatory

falsehoods, rather than inculpatory truths, resulted in their loss of protection under the

Fifth Amendment and MCL 15.393. See Wong, 431 US at 178 (“[E]ven the predicament

of being forced to choose between incriminatory truth and falsehood, as opposed to

refusing to answer, does not justify perjury.”).32 Our Constitution and laws protect

compelled “information”– incriminating truths, not exculpatory falsehoods.33

YOU may be ok with a SCOTUS justice protecting LIES FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT

I AM NOT OK WITH THAT!!!!! Calling Joan Larsen out for Q+ for the FRAUD that she is!!!