ANON THEORY OF DROP #2647 (WATCH, PEN, BINDER IMAGE)

Watch:

Portugieser Chronograph Classic

MODEL - IW390302.

3+9+0+3+0+2= 17- POTUS (re: Potus #17images)

Hands on 3:15:00

RBG B-day 3/15

Men's

Clock Hands Available in multiple colors

Leather Binder/Leatherback Book:

BLACK

Black strap(under Pen)

8.5 x 11 inches(Standard Notebook paper size)

Specs of SOE, RESIGNATION, EO, OTHER???

If Book/Notebook - contents re: owner?

PEN:

Q attached an image of this Pen on drop #481.

POTUS used Pen at Camp David weekend of 1/06.

Did POTUS keep or give away?

IF POTUS DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY NOW - POTUS declares S.O.E., DEMS sue (They already said they will) and bring case to 9th, 11th, etc… Circuit Court and corrupt judges will side w/ DEMS and overturn/suspend S.O.E. Appeal goes to Supreme Court. If ROBERTS (who can't be trusted) votes No, Circuit Court decision will be upheld 5-4(THIS IS WHY RBG HASN'T RETIRED, we know she will uphold CC decision).

RBG VACATES…..THEN, POTUS DECLARES S.O.E. DEMS TAKE CASE TO CIRCUIT COURT(DEMS ALREADY SAID THEY WILL). CC SIDE WITH DEMS, THE APPEAL GOES TO SC. ROBERTS VOTES NO, DEADLOCK AT 4-4 AND LOWER COURT DECISION WILL BE UPHELD (WITHOUT CREATING PRECEDENT).

THEORY:

POTUS only has 1 option. WAIT for RBG to vacate, He knows it's going to happen. Nominate MAGA Judge and now that LYNDSEY GRAHAM is head of Confirmation committee (12 Rep seats to 10 Dem seats) and Republicans have complete MAGA Republican presence, DEMS wil not be able to obstruct (Think Kavanaugh) and SCOTUS confirmation will be fast tracked (THIS IS ASHIT THE SENATE WAS SO IMPORTANT). Then, the Show begins:

*POTUS ACTIVATES ARMY C.O.E. TO START CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL, USING FUNDS FROM OMNIBUS SPENDING BILL (3/18).

ALSO,

*DECLAS_GEN (PUBLIC ACCESS TO INTEL)?

Fucking Notable —–PAUL MANAFORTS Lawyers screwed up big time and released a document where the text that is redacted and be copied and pasted into something else to read.

Sauce - https://news.yahoo.com/paul-manaforts-lawyers-tried-redact-192806748.html

>>4735387

>>4735387

(See, e.g., Doc. 460 at 5 (After being shown documents, Mr. Manafort

“conceded” that he discussed or may have discussed a Ukraine peace plan with Mr. Kilimnik on

more than one occasion); id. at 6 (After being told that Mr. Kilimnik had traveled to Madrid on the

same day that Mr. Manafort was in Madrid, Mr. Manafort “acknowledged” that he and Mr.

Kilimnik met while they were both in Madrid)).

In fact, during a proffer meeting held

with the Special Counsel on September 11, 2018, Mr. Manafort explained to the Government

attorneys and investigators that he would have given the Ukrainian peace plan more thought, had

the issue not been raised during the period he was engaged with work related to the presidential

Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 471 Filed 01/08/19 Page 5 of 10

6

campaign. Issues and communications related to Ukrainian political events simply were not at the

forefront of Mr. Manafort’s mind during the period at issue and it is not surprising at all that Mr.

Manafort was unable to recall specific details prior to having his recollection refreshed. The same

is true with regard to the Government’s allegation that Mr. Manafort lied about sharing polling

data with Mr. Kilimnik related to the 2016 presidential campaign. (See Doc. 460 at 6).

The

Government has indicated that Mr. Manafort’s statements about this payment are inconsistent with

those of others, but the defense has not received any witness statements to support this contention.

The first alleged misstatement identified in the Special Counsel’s submission

(regarding a text exchange on May 26, 2018) related to a text message from a third-party asking

permission to use Mr. Manafort’s name as an introduction in the event the third-party met the

President. This does not constitute outreach by Mr. Manafort to the President. The second

example identified by the Special Counsel is hearsay purportedly offered by an undisclosed third

party and the defense has not been provided with the statement (or any witness statements that

form the basis for alleging intentional falsehoods).

>>4735389

>>4735387

Please let me know if notable.