>>8015827 lb
Yes, more accurate than judaic mytho-history for sure. Egyptians had records but Sumer was older. I would dearly love it if the million+ already translated cylinder seals were released, but I have the sense that they would be too disruptive at this time because they would totally upend and destroy forever the judaic stories, upon which the 3 "Abrahamic" religions are based and thus cause havoc and a huge loss of mooring for much of the world.
>No Such Agency accidentally releases IT ALL
Thank you - I searched for a while for this last night but I was using the wrong search terms (which would do it!). What I did find was Q calling out [AS] as being a clown and "Once an agent, always an agent."
Considering what Sperry reported and what Solomon stated (both very clever) it was a "professionally done" job "looking for passcodes" searched at the one place in the area with no surveillance cameras.
I love this movie!!
That shit is EVIL and so are the dentists who prescribed it for me, along with fluoride pills, extra fluoride mw, etc.
I would love to be able to get that shit out of my body without my bones suffering more. And have a functioning fully-functioning pineal gland again…
Saw and noted that actually. They all invoked their parents and humility, what MORAL values they were taught/seek to teach their children and religion. The hypocrisy was off the scale and it came off as blatant pandering and hollow, not just to me but they were clearly not comfortable with what they were saying and they have no problem lying at the drop of a hat!
>at sometime the awakening will have to show the fuckery of all the organized the religions.
True. I have wondered if that is what will have the possibility of putting 99% of people in hospital…
>7 dwarves supercomputers
>corona satellite
YES, posted about it last night but didn't get traction. There's quite a bit of info about both of those on the spreadsheet (which is searchable with CTRL+F, also can sort like any spreadsheet)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Efm2AcuMJ7whuuB6T7ouOIwrE_9S-1vDJLAXIVPZU2g
>Amy Spanberger [AS]
Could be but the surrounding posts and others that reference [AS] were about Schiff, talking about leaking and House Intel Comm.
Q !!mG7VJxZNCI ID: 4a88a1 No.4609173
Jan 5 2019 11:57:15 (EST)
>What happens when all 'insiders' know the news is FAKE?
>What happens when all 'insiders' know [AS] is the leak of false data?
>What happens when a member of the House Intel Comm purposely leaks FAKE & FALSE data to 'friendly' news sources in order to maintain & portray a FALSE NARRATIVE to the public?
>How do you build a case against a member of the House Intel Comm if they themselves have access to the intelligence?
Q !!mG7VJxZNCI ID: 1bfec6 No.4630322
Jan 6 2019 15:09:09 (EST)
>How many ex C_A contractors are currently in office?
>Hello, [AS].
>Once an agent, always an agent.
(already posted screencap of this one)
Q !!mG7VJxZNCI ID: 4662eb No.5094276 📁
Feb 9 2019 15:48:12 (EST)
>House intel launch of more 'FAKE' investigations in attempt to retain 'FALSE NARRATIVE' and claim 'POLITICAL ATTACK(S)' if investigated/prosecuted themselves?
>[AS]?
You could be absolutely right, but I took it to be Schiff due to the context.
Of course! It exists to help you, as do I.
WOW
If these people don't think of themselves as "very liberal" I hate to know what they think IS "very liberal"?? An actual Bolshevik?
Gerhardt: The Entire White House Defense Team Will Face Bar Charges
posted under: BIZARRE, CONGRESS, LAWYERING, MEDIA, POLITICS
February 2, 2020
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/02/02/gerhardt-the-entire-white-house-defense-team-will-face-bar-charges/
https://archive.fo/Pj1dh
There have been suggestions that the White House defense team could be brought up on bar charges for their arguments in the Senate. I have previously written that such statements by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others are vindictive and ill-informed. The White House team were effective advocates for their clients and we do not disbar lawyers for making arguments or defending individuals that we do not like. I was surprised and disappointed therefore that my fellow witness from the Trump impeachment hearing, North Carolina Law Professor and CNN Legal Analyst Michael Gerhardt joined this dubious argument on CNN yesterday. The call for ethics charges seems dangerously close to the view of Lawrence O’Donnell that Trump defenders are barred from his MSNBC program because they are all “liars.”
Obviously, Gerhardt and I have substantial disagreements. Gerhardt supported the articles of impeachment based on bribery and other crimes. I opposed those four articles, which were ultimately rejected by the Committee. The Committee went forward with the two articles that I said would be legitimate but remained unproven. We later disagreed when Gerhardt declared that this impeachment was the first time that the White House closely coordinated with his own party on the handling of the impeachment trial. Those however were academic differences over the history and interpretation of prior presidential impeachment cases.
This however is different. Proponents of the impeachment seem to be lashing out at counsel and suggesting that they were acting unethically in zealously advancing the President’s defenses. After disagreeing with me that the impeachment was not “rushed” prematurely, Gerhardt asked to make a different point about the defense team. He declared
“I think what we are seeing as well is that the lawyers who presented his case in the Senate basically misled or lied to the Senate. And so at one point — at some point we are going to see ethics charges brought against these lawyers for making false statements, which we now all know were false.”
CNN host Poppy Harlow followed up by asking Gerhardt “Do you think the D.C. Bar . . . is actually going to hold Pat Cipollone, for example, to account for this?” Gerhardt doubles down against everyone on the legal team: “I think what we are seeing as well is that the lawyers who presented his case in the Senate basically misled or lied to the Senate. And so at one point — at some point we are going to see ethics charges brought against these lawyers for making false statements, which we now all know were false.”
It is not clear what Gerhardt believes were statements “we now all know were false.” It is incumbent on an attorney to be specific about the false representation when he is saying that “we are going to see ethics charges brought against these lawyers for making false statements.” He is saying that the entire team will be charged with ethical violations – a very serious allegation against all of these lawyers. Indeed, such a statement itself can be viewed as a matter of per se slander for impugning professional ethics and conduct. Even clients have been held liable for unsupported claims.
Moreover, bar associations are equally concerned about the ethics of impugning the conduct of other lawyers without sufficient support. Various ethics opinions warn that threatening or declaring bar violations can be unethical, particularly when (if true) you are under an obligation to actually report such conduct. If there is a lack of a good faith basis or support, it can violate professional standards.
More at links above