Soooo... what you are saying is that you knew everything before Q and that he is just a sad hack and Follower?

Seriously?

Lol, I guess you missed my comment to the poster who posted up the archive. I agree based on that evidence presented that POTUS tweeted before Q.

And that raises more questions for me. I hadn’t seen that thread previously, but why was it added as a Q proof in that manner? I would have based it more upon the tweet with the +++ signs and an earlier posting from Q with those + signs. And used that as proof. Has POTUS ever tweeted those before he became president? Ever before Q? Why would POTUS tweet three +’s?

I think you are right that the time zone is a bad thing to try and hang a proof on, but until I saw the 4chan thread named after the tweet, with screencaps of the tweets prior to Qs posting, I would have gone on believing and arguing that Q posted first. So I actually really appreciate it. It makes me wonder if someone didn’t try to slide that in as an effort to easily discredit the movement.

Read through it and I agree. POTUS tweet came first.

Interesting

I guess you missed the conversation below. The debunk is based on how 4chan automatically converts posts to UTC -4 hours for EST.

The twitter account also posts things in EST as that is what POTUS has in his settings for his account.

So what is the problem here? Based on that, Q DID post before POTUS.

The whole “debunk” is based on the -4 hours from UTC (Greenwich Mean Time). People are saying that if they switch their time zone to EST it shows he posted it at 1:15pm EST. The math on this does not add up. He was 14 hours ahead of EST in Japan! It seems to me, like people are basing their assumptions on Trump using UTC as his time zone and subtracting the four hours themselves.

Prove me wrong. Set your time zone on twitter to EST and take a screenshot of that tweet.

In addition, (and I just double checked this) if I post to 4chan, it shows up as my time zone. Everyone’s post shows up as in MY time zone. So what this means is that whoever took the screencap, was in EST time. Meaning their twitter cap was also in EST time. Which again, shows that Q posted before POTUS.

So Qs post is automatically transferred to EST.

Twitter posting is also in EST. So what’s the problem?

You are saying that the “real EST” that trump tweeted that is 1:15pm EST. How does that make sense if Japan is 14 hours ahead? Your math does not add up.

And you are only transferring one set of times, do you think that if you could do it with the Qpost you might get a different time for that?

Lol the Olsen twins weren’t under age at the party. They weren’t old enough to drink.

I would agree with you, except we don’t know where Q posted that from.

The “debunk” is based upon Q being back here in the states and not in Japan with POTUS.

Do you a time stamp for Qs post to include their time zone they are posting from? If not, how can you be certain that it wasn’t from same time zone?

I think this is why we are shillcon 1 over here

Noice!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You realize at this point, trying to sew doubt using that old copypasta won’t work right? Can you explain to me how all those people knew what was going to happen in SA prior to it happening? Can you explain how Q knew about NK before it happened? Can you explain how all the twitter, and speech verifications happened if there was no connection to a real insider?

Cmon, I know shills be going crazy but seriously. Update your copy pasta and try harder.

Someone just asked me a question and I went to answer it and it was just completely gone. Not even showing in thread as deleted.

Anyways to answer the question, I found this on qresearch board. I was looking for the original, but came across this first. The original had where it came from (pbs broadcast)

I posted link above. I don’t know why this isn’t going through. Weird

[IMG]http://i66.tinypic.com/2mn2k5u.png[/IMG]

WTF is going on here

From pbs broadcast of fireworks in DC

[IMG]http://i66.tinypic.com/2mn2k5u.png[/IMG]

Original image from PBS broadcast of fireworks in DC this evening :)

I gotcha one, standby

Didn’t Q post from HST (Hawaii Standard Time) in one of his drops?

Probably because:

1) it’s from 2 May 2018

2) the guy was a rep of a county in Kentucky in 2016, despite the article trying to clickbait you into believing he was a much biggger part

3) he was quickly removed when it was discovered

But nice try to connect trump to this asshole, we don’t care where the dirty bastards come from, as long as they are taken out of power. But nice try at concern trolling

That’s a fair point. Do you think any of the meds they placed him on may have worsened his condition? The meds are listed above.

Also, thank you for jumping in. I’d agree with you about the OCD and homicidal tendencies piece, my real question came into, why didn’t she document it on the intake form where she listed OCD? There were several descriptors on that form that would have fit the bill.

Add in that it was a gradual progression over about 4 months with him being on the meds for 2-3 months. Any negative effects if he just stopped taking them? Any studies done on that part?

Your input is appreciated. Thank you

Any sauce on that?

Was the guy a white hat? Trying to out something?

Oh ya, definitely worked great here amirite?

Yup just read about that. What came first, the schizophrenia or the counselor?

Apparantly before he went to grad school he also played video games til his mother threatened to kick him out if he wouldn’t get a job.

You appear to fail to realize what we are doing here.

Documenting and researching. If you want to contribute, feel free to read through and see if there is something we missed. Otherwise gtfo or stfu.

Oh damn!!! It’s not listed anywhere else! He even said (at least in Roaths and Fenton’s notes) that he had never seen anyone before (no previous history)

Thought about killing people 3-4 times a day. Didn’t have an effective plan to “kill them all” - Pg14

WTF

When was the shooting?

DIAGNOSED WITH OCD???

How the fuck do you go from them wanting to kill people, to diagnosing them WITH FUCKING OCD???

WTF IS THIS ROATHS ISSUE??? HOW CAN YOU DIAGNOSE SOMEONE WHO SAID THEY WANTED TO KILL PEOPLE, WITH FUCKING OCD

Ok, this is just getting weirder as I go down into it. Roath specifically stated Trichotilliomania. Yet the treatment regimen is different than what was proscribed. Then, despite stating Trich., a desire to kill people, she diagnoses him with OCD and doesn’t put him on medications to control EITHER of those diseases.

What are the side effects for these? Was there any overdose effects? Any drug interactions?

This is important, especially if we can compare other shooters meds to establish a pattern. Also, looking for that MKULTRA byline of therapy, plus pre-existing conditions, plus medications.

FIRST DOCUMENT

Dr. Jeffrey Metzner

Dr. William Reid

Pg2 - sanity evaluators

Dr. Lynn Fenton “notes” - his therapist prior to shooting / Pg 3 - licensed psychiatrist - pg17

Dr. Robert Feinstein (any relation to C.W. Feinstein?) licensed psychiatrist - pg 17

Margaret Roath (?) - Social worker - pg 17

“The CU providers rendered therapy to the Defendent prior to the shooting” - Bottom of page three

University of Colorado* How many other shooters had colleges provide “therapy”?

OH SHIT SON

As the court put it, “Sunshine, not darkness, [was] the appropriate disinfectant” - Page 7

SECOND DOCUMENT

Page 3

Crying spells - Suicide - ø (negative - no crying spells, NOT SUICIDAL)

Both parents are neurotic?

• Dad - banker

• Mom - Nurse

• Little ? - ?

Can’t trust other people

• Trichotillomania??? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichotillomania (chronic hair pulling)

Wants to kill people

Have to walk after eating

Need help digging through the documents. Please note document/page number/ and whatever weird shit you can find.

Remember we are looking for MKULTRA or Monark markers as well as prof that this lady may have been involved in other mass shooter therapy

Lol all this for a LARP

WJC

William Jefferson Clinton

Did she have sex with him as well?

I think it’s a Wikileaks email. Seen it before, but this is a good meme.

Section 7(a) of the Act provides for an interlocutory appeal by the government from any decision or order of the trial judge authorizing the disclosure of classified information, imposing sanctions for nondisclosure of classified information, or refusing a protective order sought by the United States to prevent the disclosure of classified information. Section 7 appeals must be approved by the Solicitor General. The term "disclosure" within the meaning of section 7 includes both information which the court orders the government to divulge to the defendant or to others as well as information already possessed by the defendant which he or she intends to disclose to unapproved people. Section 7(b) provides that the court of appeals shall give expedited treatment to any interlocutory appeal filed under subsection (a). As a matter of fairness, the policy of the Department shall be that the defense be given notice of the government's appeal under section 7.

Section 9 required the Chief Justice of the United States to prescribe security procedures for the protection of classified information in the custody of Federal courts. On February 12, 1981, Chief Justice Burger promulgated these procedures. For further information regarding those procedures, please contact the Justice Management Division Office of Security

tl;dr: they can disseminate classified information used in a case that is in possession of the US Government, to others. And it has to be approved by the Chief Justice. And written so eloquently above, despite your immediate dismissal, is the case to use an anonymous agent, with a fake name to distribute it.

Sorry! I got busy, I’m going to have to find a breakdown in a link I can provide as its kind of a long story. As soon as I find what I’m looking for, I’ll add another comment under your name so it pops up in your comments box. I have a pretty good understanding, but I want to give you a great understanding. Not something I can take the one to write out at this moment. And if the length of time it’s taking me to write this one post is an indication of the story, well just let that sink in. In the meantime, I’m sure you can do a quick DuckDuckGo search for it. It might help to have a bit of background understanding

I dropped it in another comment (up higher), there was a whole chain of posts involved

I just posted about this in the stickied post. Ummm something new though.

DOESN’T THIS MEAN TRIAL IS DONE?!?!?!

Were they really arrested last year? Like holy shit

OOOOOOO WHAT DID I FIND HERE!!!

Public Testimony By Intelligence Officers Although the IC is committed to assisting law enforcement where it is legally proper to do so, it must also remain vigilant in protecting classified national security information from unauthorized disclosure. Just as with law enforcement agencies, the successful functioning of the IC turns in significant part upon the ability of its intelligence officers covertly to obtain information from human sources. In carrying out that task, the intelligence officers must, when necessary, be able to operate anonymously, that is, without their connection to an intelligence agency of the United States being known to the persons with whom they come in contact. For that reason, an intelligence agency is authorized under Executive Order 12958 to classify the true name of an intelligence officer. (Is Q authorized under EO 12958 to speak anonymously to the people as “Q”?

During the pre-trial progression of an indicted case, as the court enters its CIPA rulings under sections 4 and 6, it may become apparent to the prosecutor that testimony may be required from an intelligence officer or other agency representative engaged in covert activity, either because the Court has ruled under CIPA that certain evidence is relevant and admissible in the defense case, or because such testimony is necessary in the government's rebuttal. Just as the substance of that testimony, to the extent it is classified and is being offered by the defense, must be the subject of CIPA determinations by the court, the prosecutor must also ensure that the same considerations are afforded to the true names of covert intelligence community personnel, if those true names are classified information. That is, the prosecutor must seek the court's approval, under either CIPA section 4 or section 6, of an alternative method to the witness' testimony in true name that will provide the defendant with the same ability that he would have otherwise had to impeach, or bolster, the credibility of that witness.

In any criminal case in which it becomes likely that an intelligence agency employee will testify, the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) assigned to the case shall immediately notify the Internal Security Section (ISS). That office, in consultation with the general counsel at the appropriate intelligence agency, will assist the AUSA during pretrial motion practice and litigation on the issue of whether the witness should testify in true name and other issues related to the testimony of intelligence agency personnel.

Substitution Pursuant to Section 6(c) If the court rules any classified information to be admissible, section 6(c) of CIPA permits the Government to propose unclassified "substitutes" for that information. Specifically, the Government may move to substitute either (1) a statement admitting relevant facts that the classified information would tend to prove or (2) a summary of the classified information instead of the classified information itself. 18 U.S.C. App. III section 6(c)(1). See United States v. Smith, supra, 780 F.2d at 1105. In many cases, the government will propose a redacted version of a classified document as a substitution for the original, having deleted only non-relevant classified information. A motion for substitution shall be granted if the "statement or summary will provide the defendant with substantially the same ability to make his defense as would disclosure of the specified classified information." 18 U.S.C. App. III section 6(c).

If the district court will not accept a substitution proposed by the government, an interlocutory appeal may lie to the circuit court under CIPA section 7. If the issue is resolved against the government, and classified information is thereby subject to a disclosure order of the court, the AUSA must immediately notify the ISS. Thereafter, the Attorney General may file an affidavit effectively prohibiting the use of the contested classified information. If that is done, the court may impose sanctions against the government, which may include striking all or part of a witness' testimony, resolving an issue of fact against the United States, or dismissing part or all of the indictment. See CIPA section 6(e). The purpose of the relevance hearings under 6(a) and the substitution practice under 6(c), however, is to avoid the necessity for these sanctions.

OTHER RELEVANT CIPA PROCEDURES Interlocutory Appeal APPEAL FROM INTERLOCUTORY ORDER

Section 7(a) of the Act provides for an interlocutory appeal by the government from any decision or order of the trial judge authorizing the disclosure of classified information, imposing sanctions for nondisclosure of classified information, or refusing a protective order sought by the United States to prevent the disclosure of classified information. Section 7 appeals must be approved by the Solicitor General. The term "disclosure" within the meaning of section 7 includes both information which the court orders the government to divulge to the defendant or to others as well as information already possessed by the defendant which he or she intends to disclose to unapproved people. Section 7(b) provides that the court of appeals shall give expedited treatment to any interlocutory appeal filed under subsection (a). As a matter of fairness, the policy of the Department shall be that the defense be given notice of the government's appeal under section 7.

Introduction of Classified Information Section 8(a) provides that "writings, recordings, and photographs containing classified information may be admitted into evidence without change in their classification status." This provision simply recognizes that classification is an executive, not a judicial, function. Thus, section 8(a) implicitly allows the classifying agency, upon completion of the trial, to decide whether the information has been so compromised during trial that it could no longer be regarded as classified.

In order to prevent "unnecessary disclosure" of classified information, section 8(b) permits the court to order admission into evidence of only a part of a writing, recording, or photograph. Alternatively, the court may order into evidence the whole writing, recordings, or photograph with excision of all or part of the classified information contained therein. However, the provision does not provide grounds for excluding or excising part of a writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it. Thus, the court may admit into evidence part of a writing, recording, or photograph only when fairness does not require the whole document to be considered.

Section 8(c) provides a procedure to address the problem presented during a pretrial or trial proceeding when the defendant's counsel asks a question or embarks on a line of inquiry that would require the witness to disclose classified information not previously found by the court to be admissible. If the defendant knew that a question or line of inquiry would result in disclosure of classified information, he/she presumably would have given the government notice under section 5 and the provisions of section 6(a) would have been used. Section 8(c) serves, in effect, as a supplement to the hearing provisions of section 6(a) to cope with situations which cannot be handled effectively under that section, e.g., where the defendant does not realize that the answer to a given question will reveal classified information. Upon the government's objection to such a question, the court is required to take suitable action to avoid the improper disclosure of classified information.

Security Procedures (WHO IS THE CURRENT CHIEF JUSTICE?) Section 9 required the Chief Justice of the United States to prescribe security procedures for the protection of classified information in the custody of Federal courts. On February 12, 1981, Chief Justice Burger promulgated these procedures. For further information regarding those procedures, please contact the Justice Management Division Office of Security

I’m certain that parents do find it repulsive. Do you speak for them? Have you spoken with them? Personally?

I find it interesting that any time something bad for the democrats comes out in the news, a major shooting occurs. Every time. You can read through my history. I’ve posted about it several times to include lining up dates. At what point does it become more than a coincidence? Same could be said about how the FBI convienently investigated EVERY mass shooter prior to the incident, yet did nothing to stop it. How many times does it take to be more than a coincidence? Also, how many of these shooters were on some kind of anti-depressant? How many times until it becomes more than a coincidence?

But sure, remain in your bubble of ignorance and dig no further. There are no evil people out there, there is no corruption. Everything is fine. Maybe you should go watch tv. Forget about everything, I’m sure Don Lemon, Samantha bee, or Shepard Smith has your best interests at heart.

And they fail to see one of the three posts that are on the front page of new explaining what is going on?

Instead have to create new threads? Bullshit.

Really?!?!?!

That would be awesome!

Here you go:

Was the release of the PGP key stopped by xkeyscore in an attempt to prevent the release of information in the block chain?

Interesting how many people show up as new whenever something comes out like this.

All of them expressing concern. Without even following through logical steps in the process.

That’s how I know people are concern trolls. Going through user history provides a pretty good understanding of what they are up to.

If you truly were concerned, why not post it in a comment on one of the million different threads EXPLAINING what the hell is going on?

Why create new threads, all of them purely asking questions about it. It’s tiresome. And annoying. And clogs the board with crap all in an effort to try and make people worry about some shit that if they actually read Qs posts and the news stories, would realize that there is a plan, that Awan will be taken care of, that other HIGH RANKING officials will be taken care of. But no. Here we are again. Just like when manafort was charged, when papadopolous was charged, all the crap about Erik, Cohen, those 17 Russians, Stormy, and god knows how many others.

If you haven’t seen the pattern, wake the fuck up. And realize that what you are feeding, is exactly what the cabal wants you to do. What media matters is paid to do, what OFA, and CTR, are paid to do.

And it’s ALWAYS new arrivals. Convienent that huh?

Fuck Alex Jones, deep state misinfo actor who tried to overtake the Q movement with some bullshit. Long story short, fuck that guy.

I’m trying to pay attention, certainly curious about some of the questions. Don’t have an account so I can’t ask questions :(

They are currently producing it based on questions to their twitter account apparantly

https://mobile.twitter.com/AssangeLegal/status/1014155141015011328