Theory : was Julie potentially responsible for leaking some of this information to Avenatti?

It's speculated that the source of Avenattis info was Suspicious Activity Reports (http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-did-michael-avenatti-get-trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-bank-information-2018-5), which are stored at the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), part of the US treasury. Her current clearance (albeit it is low level) might just get her access to it. I'd regard it as not impossible anyway.

The more interesting question, to my mind, is why she'd go public now? Avenatti is already under investigation for how he got that information - for her to come public (albeit for something else) would suggest either a.) she's relatively clean b.) they're unimaginably desperate, or c.) she's already been burnt (caught) and knows it, and therefore has nothing to lose. I'm tempted to say it's a) or c), they have enough money to hire a large number of useful idiots, so b) doesn't seem likely. Her having already been caught doesn't seem utterly impossible, but I do think it's probably unlikely. So I'm tempted to think it's about 3:1 odds of being a) over c).

Threads on Julie have been purged over at cripple all night, not so with Ford etc, so I'm tempted to say Julie might actually be more important than she appears.

>>3207047

No argument that they are incredibly desperate currently, however I think there are still things they could easily achieve - if b.) is true, I'm assuming that she is either the source of leaks to Avenatti, or is some kind of relatively involved (((agent))) for someone or other (clowns?). If this is the case, I don't see why they'd use her personally, rather than just grabbing some random schmuck off the street - if nothing else, it brings her to our attention, which is going to risk exposing priors. They must have known people would dig the second her name came to light.

I think the point I was trying to make by excluding b.) is that she's either an agent (in which case using her that way is surreally desperate), or she simply isn't an agent at all, and is simply the "schmuck", without relevance to Avenatti and his deepstate connections. If she's been burnt on the other hand, then it might explain why she's so willing to be a public face now.

I do agree entirely r.e the rest, I just think the precise nature of using one of your valuable assets in this way feels off - they don't have much manpower (or grrrrlpower in this case perhaps), but they're sure to have enough, and I find it hard to believe they couldn't offer ~6 figures to some randomer to lie for them, especially once you throw in the obligatory gofundme.

>>3204855

I think the promotion within the ranks is definite possibility almost regardless of the possibility. Her resume feels dirty, I find it hard to believe she doesn't have some kind of connections. I didn't have any luck when I went digging though (the physics laboratory from the resume feels like a possible clown recruitment, but that's all that stood out).

>>3217637

I'm not certain r.e her father - I dug around a bit last night, but my impression is her internet history has been scrubbed along with Julies. They're wising up to how good our OSINT is getting, and they're carefully wiping info from the web beforehand.

I might actually be able to help with this part though

>To further my speculation, a PSYCHOLOGY PROFESSOR should be a person of exceptional awareness of human nature and psychological dynamics however Dr. Ford comes off, in my opinion, as someone completely opposite of an educated psychology major.

I'm a psych grad, w/ some post grad experience in the field, I actually ended up leaving because of just how low quality most psychology professors actually are (and that was starting from the hard-science end of psychology, my post-grad stuff was pure biology). It's a pretty well spread field too - from a browse through her published work, it appears she belongs to a similar end to the one I worked in (she seems to specialise in a subset focused around the use of drugs to treat psychological disorders - specifically I'd say she appears to be investigating what I'd call "treating symptoms" as opposed to "treating syndromes" - in simple terms this means not just saying "x has adhd, give them drug y", and instead saying "x has adhd, with symptoms a,b, and no c at all, so give them the drugs that treat a & b). On the basis of this, I wouldn't actually expect her to necessarily know much about human nature and/or psychological dynamics - she probably does know a relatively large amount, but it isn't necessarily cohesively linked, since the majority of her work is towards the statistics end of things. I wouldn't assume she'd necessarily come across as a genius in those areas.

I will however say r.e MK ultra, assuming it works -ish the way I've read about it (I can't remember the name of the source, but its either Springmeir or someone similar), she could actually be rather useful for them. She knows enough about psychopharmacology to help with the dosing and / or development of drugs for these kind of purposes, I'm fairly certain of that. Stanford was a hotbed of MKultra activity, so some linkage via her father would be plausible too. I don't think there's going to be enough information left on the internet to get even close to a well-educated guess on the truth of it, but I'd say she certainly has the capacity based on her current work.

I think you're bang on r.e money too - it's great to hear just how expensive her area is, it definitely increases the odds there's more to her than meets the eyes. She does seem to do a lot of work with pharmaceutical companies, so there's a definite route for large financial kickbacks from them - I wouldn't be surprised if she has multiple lowkey sources of income (not even counting democrat blood-money) (multiple sources also means its harder to trace back to an actual cia front, if they can just direct another org to pay instead. better cover).

>And my instinct is that someone (the left) is paying a shit ton of money for her to endure this whole affair.

I'd v.much agree with this too - she seems independently wealthy, but this smells a lot like she got paid a substantial sum to expose herself to the limelight. The endless delays so she could prep, the internet history being scrubbed, the "backup" stories that don't get the same level of attention but seem to corroborate her, run through le based creepy porn lawyer. It's all very suspicious, and assuming she has willingly decided to be center stage, her having deep CIA links wouldn't be surprising. She also has links to Julie through her attorney (who almost has to be a dem stooge given the magnitude of the case).

I'd say I'd be willing to bet she's a clown at this point. It would certainly be utterly unsurprising if she did turn out to be one.

Can't watch the video right now i'm afraid (late here, people asleep), but will watch tomorrow and get back to you on it.

>>3231816

Happy to help

r.e the video you linked, I can't really say whether it's correct or not - most of the critical pieces it mentions aren't going to be open source info. He is entirely correct r.e melges, but I would also note if he/they are actually anonymous (or even a splinter faction), I wouldn't trust them, at all. They were comped a long time ago. Interesting video anyway though - certain elements of it do feel correct (ford on list of cia suspects, active cia threats currently being splinter factions post operation drumstick, quite possibly the details on the dc security firm too), but the anonymous name/references feel out of place.

Yes, I saw the threads on the 08/12 remodel as well - definitely very interesting. Her getting the date wrong doesn't even vaguely support her case - who the hell would "accidentally" be off by 4 years in the date of a remodel? And that's even before making it a critical bit of her testimony. I'm honestly a little stunned they made such an elementary error - I'm genuinely considering the "it's all a movie" theory somewhat, just because I find it hard to believe someone who isn't trying to get found out would make such a ridiculous error.

I 100% agree r.e money though - she just has too much. Way, way too much. She has not just a little bit of undeclared (at least publicly) income - she has a good $4 mil or so I'd say that doesn't seem obviously sourced from her basic job. It definitely can't be hidden from modern forensic financial analysis tools though (especially if they have the NSA on side), so again its fascinating that they'd go so public with something that could so easily blow back in their faces.

I'm actually quite disappointing Q et al haven't punished some of them for this - if they're going to be getting so ballsy/desperate, punish their overexposure of vulnerable people by absolutely shitcanning them in the most public way possible. I guess perhaps the deep state has called their bluff? They can't counteract their agents as long as they play the victim card hard enough, because going after them would post hoc rationalise the victim + ebil drumpft narratives. Either way, it's insanely annoying, they could at least just leak her entire records.

The gofundme I suspect is being used because current sources of money are somewhat drying up (cabal is no longer united, everyone for themselves), and it represents a slightly harder way to track illicit sources of money people receive for their actions, whilst also providing yet more cover against any crackdown from the government, because "its just a gofundme".

I'm afraid I can't find anything on the curriculum she's been teaching - even her basic stanford profile appears to be locked unless you're a student there. I'm inclined to agree it probably relates to the clowns, but I suspect it may not be so much the courses she's teaching as the work she's doing. They seem to imply most of her work there is biostatistics w/in epidemiology. That kind of stuff could be very useful for an organisation like the cia (either mkultra or population control come to mind), but its not immediately obvious she could "do damage" as it were by teaching courses on it - to be honest, I don't actually imagine the cia has done most of their main training as out in the open as something like stanford for a while - there's no need to risk the extra exposure, and they have more than ample resources to run their own small buildings/complexes for those purposes. I definitely suspect the uni still has grubby fingers in many pies, but they're probably going to keep most of the really brutal stuff out of the public eye. Things like allowing placements of cia agents as "professors", who then largely work on their own projects uninterrupted feels a lot more plausible than using them as an active trainer for recruits.

>>3233152

This article is definitely interesting too - it provides useful citations for the video (doesn't really support it bcus circular citations are an issue here, but the citations in the article are handy for the bigger question of "is what the video said correct". I have no way of knowing if the sources citing the internal kremlin documents are correct (that seems to be the most major area of potential lies), but the rest appears solid.

>>3238299

>cont

I'm tempted to say on balance I'm becoming almost certain ford is cia, but this still doesn't seem to explain her / her handlers willingness to throw her under the bus like this - desperation is one thing, but if you've got 500,000 + dollars in liquid capital to throw around on a whim, you CAN buy someone willing to claim to be a witness. You can probably even buy a very credible someone - its not like false rape allegations tend to result in even so much as a slap on the wrist. So if she is important (assets at the "professor" level almost guaranteably have a reasonably high level of value), why on earth would they open her up like this rather than using someone else? It's just fucking weird, and I don't understand it, at all. I feel like either 1.) she's not as important as we might be speculating, or 2.) "this is a movie" style theories - she's being forced to make bad moves by whitehats behind the scenes. I'm not sure I like either of the theories right now to be honest. Just plain weird.

>>3239731

4 years definitely seems just an implausible length of time. In 4 years you could take down the house, rebuild it from scratch, take it down and then rebuild it again. Maybe as much as a year or two delay is plausiable, but it still wouldn't take more than ~ a year tops to do any kind of renovation, espec w/ her kind of money.

I definitely assume there would be some kind of exit solution in place, I'm just mystified why they aren't pouncing on it. I feel like they must have some kind of leverage over the Q team (not blackmail, i.e plausiable threats Q team would not want carried out) (or at least, knowledge of how much they can do without being stopped). I just find their actions perplexing. Ditto the deep states. I feel like I'm almost certainly missing something required to understand their motivations - for example, why does the deep state not include the threat of full disclosure of their activities, by themselves? If Qteam wants to retain a large% hidden (fucking annoying, but smart), the threat of info release would surely be a useful threat for them to make - I don't understand why they wouldn't.

r.e secretive uses of mkultra style techniques on students that one does seem somewhat possible - at the very least, a professor might be well placed to observe the results of testing carried out on students.

It is definitely possible as well that as you say she will be found out by the FBI investigation, and that's why trump called for it, but again - weird fucking move. If (as seems likely), nothing comes of it, why bother? Why risk delaying the plan yet further? Why even bother pandering to the liberals, especially if you don't intend to publicly lambast ford + her lawyers for their lies? They held off any mention of an investigation successfully all hearing, and then suddenly announced "ah fuck it, we'll do one anyway". WEIRD. I presume some of this will make sense retrospectively once significantly more information is released, but I'm still not convinced they're playing it out as well as they could. If I could give one single piece of advice to Q, it would be "the perfect is the enemy of the good". I feel like they're aiming too hard for perfection, and in doing so running a great many risks.

ty for the neon link too - I was planning on catching up on his site tonight anyway now the kavanaugh drop sequence seems to have finished - I definitely think he does some good analysis. r.e legal + forwarding I don't think you have to worry, at all. No laws broken for sure, and 8chan isn't exactly big on rules outside of no CP. From what I know of neon too, I'm near certain he won't mind his articles being shared - the only thing he might object to would be stripping the text from within the article and posting it without referencing him. Quotes or w/e would be fine though.

I think he's probably right in that to some kind of degree she's a controlled asset though (whether that means explicity mkultra, or other possibilities I don't know), but it might go some way towards explaining why she'd be so willing to put herself in the spotlight and run the risk of possible jail time. It may also explain why Q isn't going after her as much as he could if she is genuinely a victim?