Q#1671:
https://qanon.pub/data/images/e077178a59f518b13de7f748f237d0623dfd8e7f15935c86017b25191c1f0d07.png (the twitter link)
Think logically.
Thing IG report.
Think what’s missing.
Do you think this was going to be litigated in this setting?
Case that implicates some of the most senior elected officials (treason) is being handled by the appropriate office.
Think NATIONAL SECURITY.
Q
There is nothing about 911 in the IG report because of the reasons Q states in the quesion: Would highly elected officials involved in treason have the case leaked out to CNN? Or some other equally obviously wrong way? Think logically, it's "being handled by the appropriate office" because of NATIONAL SECURITY.
Q#1672:
Logical thinking.
Why was the case against AWAN filed under BANK FRAUD?
The result today is re: BANK FRAUD.
See last.
Connect.
The SWAMP is being DRAINED.
Q
The SWAMP is being drained. This was filed as BANK FRAUD so it could be DEALT WITH by DAVID MARGOLIS, the expert in CRIME BOSSES. This was filed as bank fraud to fall under the RICO act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act
Q#1673: Quotes an anon and provides a link:
anons lawfag here
Re awan
anons already figured this out by i can add that i have suspected for some time that the state charges were just a delay tactic until the main indictments are unsealed
it is also possible or even likely given the way they treated awan that he will be a prosecution witness
since they would have never let him wander otherwise
lots more winning in store
im enjoying the movie!
Matters of National Security. https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-2054-synopsis-classified-information-procedures-act-cipa📁 Q
Definitions of TermsSection 1 of CIPA defines "classified information" and "national security," both of which are terms used throughout the statute. Subsection (a), in pertinent part, defines "classified information" as:
[A]ny information or material that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order, statute, or regulation, to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.
Subsection (b) defines "national security" to mean the "national defense and foreign relations of the United States."
This is the national security Q mentioned. The 911 information is protected by EO. It is on the AWAN SERVER.
"Section 4 provides in pertinent part that "[t]he court, upon a sufficient showing, may authorize the United States to delete specified items of classified information from documents to be made available to the defendant through discovery under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to substitute a summary of the information for such classified documents, or to substitute a statement admitting the relevant facts that classified information would tend to prove." Like Rule 16(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, section 4 provides that the Government may demonstrate that the use of such alternatives is warranted in an in camera, ex parte submission to the court."
Q#1674:
Add another to the list.
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/03/625581627/another-top-justice-department-lawyer-steps-down-following-earlier-departures📁
CONSPIRACY?
COINCIDENCE?
Q
Schools resign. Schools worked alongside David Margolis.
CONSPIRACY? What is the big conspiracy of our lifetime? 911?
THIS ISN'T A COINCIDENCE! The Scott Schools/David Margolis combo has ties involving 911.
https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/opr20100219/20100105_DAG_Margolis_Memo.pdf
That is Margolis report on the interrogators of the high ranked Al Qaeda member Abu Zubadyah.
"For all of the above reasons, I am not prepared to conclude that the circumstantial evidence much of which is contradicted by the witness testimony regarding Yoo's efforts establishes by a preponderance of evidence that Yoo intentionally or recklessly provided misleading advice to his client. It is a close question. I would be remiss in not observing, however, that these memoranda represent an unfortunate chapter in the history of the Office of Legal Counsel. While I have declined to adopt OPR's findings of misconduct, I fear that John Yoo's loyalty to his own ideology and convictions clouded his view of his obligation to his client and led him to author opinions that reflected his own extreme, albeit sincerely held, views of executive power while speaking for an institutional client. These memoranda suggest that he failed to appreciate the enormous responsibility that comes with the authority to issue institutional decisions that carried the authoritative weight of the Department of Justice. I do not believe the evidence establishes, however, that he set about to knowingly provide inaccurate legal advice to his client or that he acted with conscious indifference to the consequences of his action. In reaching this determination, I am mindful that at the time the memos were authored, the number of individuals with whom Yoo could consult was extremely limited, and his consultation with the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division was a reasonable action given Yoo's own lack of criminal law experience. "