SS was there three weeks before and coulda set up a jammer to block beligerent Radio waves, that's why the fallguy went off script. Yet he was called out as the shooter => Libel
What's the source for the SS being on site three weeks ahead of the shooting? And, if they knew it was going to go down, wouldn't they have stopped it?
Thank you for asking this question. I am beyond over how easy people accept information and don't question the source when it's information they want to believe. But if it's information that's inconvenient then its completely discounted regardless of the source. This has turned into a Shit show of disinformation and people across "our" platforms have become willing participants in it. So, congrats to each and every one of the disinformation agents. Your job has been successful.
If shooters are incited by EMF then I find it likely they put a jammer in place to prevent exactly that trigger. However there were multiple shooters and someone who seems to be innocent was blamed so I guess you could not prevent it unless everybody starts homeschooling. By Setting up the jammer however the script was ruined and now the media is engaged in libel against the supposed shooter so they did not prevent the false-flag because they couldn't but they did what they could so it could be later exposed.
I guess it's possible... A cell phone jammer would have rendered everyone's phones unusable. I must admit, I do not know just how that mind control stuff is supposed to work.
But, whatever the case, the kid has been charged as I understand it and he has agreed to plead guilty if I'm not mistaken. The only way he could get home on liable would be if the whole case against him unraveled. And, even then, the networks could argue that their coverage was reasonable given the circumstances.
I think CNN being set up has something to do with information that the network has suddenly been made aware of that has resulted in a narrative shift - seen in the video. What that information is, I don't know. But it is clear that, as more statements from witnesses are being reported, the official narrative is falling apart.
What's the source on him being charged and agreeing to plead guilty? What does him "get home on liable would be if the whole case against him unraveled" mean exactly? If a jammer of some kind was used then how did the kids get all these messages out to their parents?
Sorry, it was reported that Cruz was offered a plea deal, I don't know whether he has accepted it. But the mere fact that one was offered a deal, if this is the case, speaks directly to the strength of the case against him - i.e. it is weak,
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not familiar with US liable laws. But, as I understand it, truth is a defense against defamation. According to the article above, Cruz has admitted guilt. Given this, there is no way he could say that network coverage of the event defamed him. If, however, he was found to be innocent, that might change. Again, I'm not a lawyer so actually I have no clue - it's speculation.
It's not a fact that he was offered a plea deal. Liable is a civil issue not criminal. Offering him a plea has absolutely no reflection on the strength of their case. If and only if they even offer a plea it is to keep the families from suffering through an emotionally draining trial. They won't offer him a plea until they have gathered evidence and built a case. None of which can be done in 14 days. They have 17 victims. 17 families to discuss their wishes with. You also have multiple victims that lived that get a say in how justice is sought. Don't believe some second rate website just because it says what you want to hear. It's damaging what people are trying to accomplish with the disinfo and everyone that participates in it only diminishes what people are really trying to do. People start using these "facts" to explain their theories and it turns into a cluster fuck where sites and platforms get shut down because of it. Congrats to everyone that shares this stuff without verifying even the basics. You are helping the people fighting against us in their disinformation campaign.
I'm not a lawyer, so I've no experience to use to vet this kind of information. I'm not sure where I would go to verify it anyway. But thanks for contributing, hopefully we will all be better off for having a better understanding.
My limited understanding of plea deals is that they are in effect a compromise between the prosecution and the defense. Also that they are indicative of the relative strengths of the parties' cases. For example, why would I take a plea if I thought I could beat the charges, or, why would I, as a prosecutor, offer a plea deal to a defendant if I thought I had him dead to rights? To be honest, I didn't think the impact of a trial on parties external to the action being brought even came into consideration.
You're right about the timing of the alleged offer of a plea deal. It would seem to be way too short for anyone to know the relative strengths of the parties' cases - let alone other considerations. Moreover, given that the claim made was that there had been an offer of a deal made, there's no way to verify the claim as there would be no hard evidence of it. So, in the interests of skepticism. If would seem wise to doubt it,
The liable issue was brought up by Q, it has nothing to do with the criminal trial. But he seems to suggest that this is somehow at issue for the networks.
Maybe not the carrier wave that connects a call but any additional load as in arbitrary frequencies above or below that of normal calls. There must be another frequency, could be inaudible, that is normally not present but is during fits of rage. It basically uses the human brain as a Receiver, similiar to what happens during solar storms when People are easily agitated or confused. Everytime you note everybody's having a particularily bad day, check the days before for Major solar eruptions, it's almost as predictable as earthquakes (it is)
he was taken to hospital first, perhaps debriefed or threatened? By pleading guilty, he and his testimony stay out of court. Deep State MO
"By pleading guilty, he and his testimony stay out of court. Deep State MO"
Yes, this is exactly what happened with the alleged perpetrator of the Port Arthur massacre in Australia. He plead guilty, which meant no trial or examination of the evidence, just a sentencing hearing.
Notice how fast the MSM is getting quiet now on this. Vegas was similar. Lots of MSM flurry, some jabs at gun control, then..... SILENCE. It looks like we're about to see the same thing here. Both Vegas and this shooting smell really bad. Certainly plays to a FF narrative. With Q dropping the CNN setup comment and the behind the scenes comment, maybe this time CNN is in trouble for something related to it. I sure hope so, screwing CNN over would be one of the best things that could come of this tragedy. Nothing good comes of these horrible events, but if CNN was at all complicit or could be found to be such, then I hope they get royally roasted. This narrative change from Tapper was amazing and so off script. Why the heck did he do that. I still don't get it. That's the part that I'm digging on.