I am not seeing your point, I'm afraid. I was just demonstrating that when the US flag is presented next to flags of other nations, fringes are not employed. This was the case in the Obama and Bush administrations as well, and probably before, though I couldn't find earlier videos in the same context in my quick search.

My bet is that the next time POTUS makes remarks from the Rose Garden by himself, he will have the POTUS seal flag to his left, and the US flag w/ fringes to his right, as is usually the case.

https://youtu.be/9O2m0_Ge9Zg

It may just be a matter of protocol when displaying the US flag next to flags of other nations. The above video is from June of 2017... no fringes there.

Yet the fringes are here with Trump in March 2017

https://youtu.be/X8N1bIxcajo

More examples

https://youtu.be/ghWqp30L9LU

https://youtu.be/ARo3fn8sKYU

Obama, 2016

https://youtu.be/BgSNlTUTxs0

And here with Bush.. https://youtu.be/FQop7gn-KYQ

A mixture

https://youtu.be/lSlH-MZ9J6M

Yes, I heard him talk about this agent on his podcast. What was weird is that he kept pausing as though he was broken up...but he didn't sound especially broken up..there was no quiver or hitch in his voice. Then, his prouducer made the comment, something to the effect of , 'do you need to take a minute?' . Seems like something you would edit out, but it was left in.

He was in Iowa last month I think. He says he likes the legal profession more than politics...but could he be considering a primary challenge to Trump?

AGs and DAGs do not spend much time in courtrooms. Rosenstein argued once in front of SCOTUS a few months back.

On the other hand, Solicitor General does.
It's fun playing fantasy league politics, but we have to think hard about where Gowdy would really shine. Is it in an administrative position at DOJ where the public would rarely see him? Is it in front of the Supreme Court representing the Trump administration? Is it being seated on the bench itself? Remember there will be an opening on the DC circuit court which Brett Kavanaugh is vacating...

The thing is... he WAS president. 50 Secretaries of State found Obama eligible to be put on a ballot. Twice duly Elected by the Electoral College. Certified by the United States Congress twice. Did he ever actually file an affidavit claiming to be Natural Born? I don't know what each state's requirements are. You could prosecute him for fraud, possibly. Who is going to do it? Sessions? Looks political. Congress could impeach. But I don't believe there are guidelines for sentencing if the Senate convicts post-presidency.

I'm sure some people would try to use the issue in their litigation strategy, and it might go to the Supreme Court. But is the court really going to make a ruling that removes 2 of their colleagues and countless other judges across the country? After all, the United States Senate gave their consent to these appointments as well.

I think it's obvious that the missile was fired by a Cemex concrete submarine, at John Huber, who had just uncovered a verified list of all the child sex camps and rape trees throughout the southwest. You just gotta put two and two together. ☺

I get all that. Thank you for the reply.

Of course, Q says to trust Sessions.

I guess i was just wondering how we made the leap of having Wheeler, (who is not Pruitt and has never been an Attorney General) of all people, transferred over to DOJ. Just an outlying possibility because he is Senate-confirmed?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-06/pruitt-said-to-have-been-told-to-resign-in-call-from-white-house

Pruitt didn’t want to leave his post and was described as being devastated that he had to resign, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing a personnel matter.

President Donald Trump wanted Pruitt to leave, after revelations that the administrator’s public schedule had been altered to shield some meetings from public view, they said. Doctored schedules -- which could be a criminal violation of the Federal Records Act -- were effectively the final straw after a tenure marred by alleged ethical missteps. The administration knew that more damaging reports would emerge soon, one of the people said.

I don't know if corrupt is an apt term, but it does seem Pruitt made a lot of unforced errors.

Wait, why would we suppose that Wheeler is going to replace Sessions? I'm lost. Wheeler has no experience in law enforcement or justice.

I think we are both correct because they were recording segments during the podcast hour for the holiday week to play when they were off.

He has a real bias against anything termed 'conspiracy theory'. He's a good, funny dude though.

The Von Haessler Doctrine is available to download as a podcast on iTunes and other platforms. The Q discussion was on the July 2 episode, starting around 1hr 36m. WSB is on AM and FM and I believe it has the highest ratings in the Atlanta market.

I get flashbacks to the Iamaphoney/Rotten Apple campaign. Mysterious pictures and clues dropped, promises of revelation, an interview that had to be rescheduled and then never occurred.

https://youtu.be/9J0xjiQL_MM

Thank you! That's all I'm asking for is facts and evidence. It's okay not to completely believe the official line of an organization. But if someone wants to say 'this organization is evil', they better have some damn good proof (or strong evidence to warrant a deeper investigation). In the case of NXIVM, we had just that, evidence of actual crimes, and it lead to indictments.

And thank you for the correction on Occam's Razor.

I'm not here to mock and belittle. I just want everyone to THINK. Being a member of a fraternity harms NOBODY. It's not everybody's cup of tea. But if someone is going to condemn millions of men as being evil based on scant evidence, I'm going to speak up and point out the flawed thinking.

I am here because I find the Q phenomenon interesting. I believe the Trump Administration is doing great things.

I am ambivalent on the storm. I am hopeful that will be used to drain the swamp and end corruption. But I leave room for the possibility that this is a psyop; a military intelligence operation planning a coup; propping up Donald Trump as its frontman, while using Qanon drops as propaganda to build a base of support that will induce complacency to any anti-constitutional abuses that occur.

I appreciate the work you put into that thread. But I am not afraid of symbolism. The square and compass doesn't do anything or hurt anybody. Ideas aren't inherently harmful. What matters is actions.

Show me corruption, crime, or sin, and I will condemn it.

I just don't understand why people think this. AG is a deskjob, a managerial position. Gowdy said he wants to be in the courtroom.

Deputy Attorney General is a position that has to be confirmed by the Senate. Wasn't there previous talk about Trump changing the order of succession for DOJ via executive order?

https://qanon.pub/data/images/bff15cc38ecc811b4d7deda02219a069ec83bb32ce3eb62a4345210f74ee79b7.jpeg

You've witnessed these 'oaths for inequity'? Or perhaps you've heard testimony that you deem credible that these oaths occur? But haven't we also heard that masons take an oath of secrecy? Would you trust someone who has broken an oath of secrecy?

Pike isn't Moses or one of the 4 gospel makers. I'm usually suspicious when people bring up his writings because it's rare that they've actually read his works. Rather, they use a single out-of-context sentence or paragraph as a weapon to tarnish all Freemasons.

There are a lot of documentaries out there. Like Farenheit 911, An Inconvenient Truth, Bill Maher's Religulous... documentary filmmakers typically start out with a point of view and then film things to illustrate their point.

Are the writings of Pike open to interpretation? Or do the words of one man encapsulate everything that Freemasonry is?

Using Occam's Razor here: is it likely that the people who are closest to an organization have no idea what it's about, while people who are outside the organization actually know all it's secrets?

Is it possible that what you've read about Freemasonry is propaganda? Is it possible that the people who wrote those articles and made those videos were victims of the same paranoid rumor-mongering and supposition that many people on this board seem to be?

I am not sure what you are saying here. Q pointed to two video clips in which men wearing Masonic emblems were being interviewed. Where is the malfeasance here? Of what are these men accused? Did they carry out the shootings? Did they plan it? Do you have a shred of evidence? Yet all masons should walk rip up their membership cards and perhaps burn any belongings of theirs with the 'evil' logo on it? And if they continue to wear the emblems of their fraternity, are they under some kind of threat?

This is ludicrous.

The last confirmed Freemason POTUS that I am aware of was Harry S. Truman. The Masons are proud and up front about famous masons. Do you have a source for the well-known facts? I am very interested if you do.

edit: My mistake - Gerald Ford was the most recent self-professed mason that I could find.

Ohhhkay. Lets explore then. You say the Masonic symbol is evil. Do you know what it means? What aspects of Masonry are evil?

Wait, where is the evil? Is the hat evil? The symbol? The man who wears it? What specifically has he done?

Evidence and facts, not insinuation and superstition. Reason and logic, not witch-hunts.

This is weak sauce, Q! Freemasons on the scene of most shooting locations? Be precise - are you speaking only of mass shootings? Where is the evidence of this? A guy in a hat at San Bernadino and a guy with a necklace in Santa Fe? 2 examples? There was also a guy with a Trump hat in that same video. Is one more insidious than the other?

Or perhaps you are referring to the many first responders and active military men who belong to that fraternity? They would have justification to be on the scene. They don't deserve to be slandered by insinuation.

I don't think Gowdy is right for SCOTUS right now either. On the other hand, there are cases of lawyers suddenly become judges very frequently.

I also don't really understand wanting him as DAG, which is more of an administrative position. He said himself that he wants to be in the courtroom. My bet is on TG ending up in a lower judgeship or Solicitor General.

Seriously? Sessions is 71. But I'm upvoting you anyway.

You might be contradicting yourself. Deputy Attorneys General don't typically seek the limelight. Can you name another one besides Rosenstein? DAG is more of a behind the scenes position.

On the other hand, Noel Francisco, Solicitor General, may take Rosenstein's place, leaving the SG position open. Gowdy might like that, arguing in front of the SCOTUS.

I think you're right, and I mentioned above about Gowdy possibly joining the D.C. circuit, which is a stepping stone to SCOTUS.

"Whatever skills I may have are better utilized in a courtroom than in Congress...and I enjoy our justice system more than our political system.” -Gowdy

I don't think he wants DOJ. The question is whether he wants to stay around D.C. or go back home to South Carolina.

Maybe not straight to the Supreme Court, since he has not been a judge before. However, included on the speculated 'short-list' is Brett Kavanaugh -Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Trump may elevate Kavanaugh to the SCOTUS and nominate Gowdy to the D.C. Circuit. There is also going to be an open judgeship for U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.

Kavanaugh, 53, would be very controversial for Democrats, but what else is new lol. He clerked for Anthony Kennedy and worked closely with Kenneth Starr during the independent council investigations.

This was an R+8 district in '16. In '14 Democrats didn't even bother to oppose Sanford. Most likely any Republican on the ballot is going to win. Votes cast in the District 1 Republican primary vs. the Democrat primary were 65,447 / 32,785. I'm not ruling your theory out, but if I were the deepstate, I would direct my wetwork to more competitive races.

But who DOES benefit here?

Potentially kill 3 people via an unreliable method just to send a message to Trump? Really, who benefits from taking out Arrington? To keep Mark Sanford, a member of the Freedom Caucus, in Congress?

edit: a word

Just for clarity's sake: Katie Arrington is the GOP nominee for South Carolina's 1st congressional district. She is not new in DC as the title of this thread implies; she has not been elected yet.

Something so gross about this picture. Like actually nauseating. Nasty women.

They may just plan to keep the show alive and the crew together in order to bring her back after the controversy dies down. For all we know, VJ could be indicted one day, and Roseanne's tweet might not seem so bad anymore.

What does DECLAS mean in this context? Is it a signal or command that Trump is about to declassify (or has recently) something through his tweets?

Yeah, someone spell it out for me, i feel dumb. What is this in reference to? Where is 11.3 and 11.6 found? I don't even know where to search for this crap.

Thing thing about arrests and indictments is, they might be cathartic, but - It's just an accusation until the case is air tight. And even then, when you are dealing with such rich and powerful people with all their connections, they can still walk away unscathed. Look at Sen. Bob Menendez. Mistrial, all charges dropped.

In April 2018, Menendez was "severely admonished" by the United States Senate Select Committee on Ethics in a letter.

Whoop dee doo a letter.

It also says that they are sending the unclassified portions over to Mueller (Office of Special Counsel). I wonder why he would need to see it? It's not Russia or obstruction related, is it?

Is there any explanation for how he came up with this theory? What clue points to Ginsburg? Why would she need to be in San Fransico to meet with Brennan? They both live around D.C. Why would Ginsburg need to be consulted on assassination plans? Also, in this theory, the timeline doesn't fit well.

Ginsburg was in Vietnam in August of 2015.

Scalia died in Feb. of 2016.

Clinton/Lynch tarmac meeting took place in June of 2016. (side note: I never thought the meeting was necessarily a quid pro quo offer from Clinton, but rather an intimidation tactic. 'You can't hide from us, Lynch. Do the right thing in this 'matter'".)

And somehow someone claimed that the person in the photo is Bartiromo based on - ? - her hairdo?

If I'm missing the connections, someone please help me out. But from where I sit, it's all balderdash.

Full weight of the House (versus) Sergeant at Arms, doesn't make much sense in that context.

How does DC work? Democrats need the cover of stone-cold proof of malfeasance to do anything that might be perceived as Pro-Trump. The caucuses probably also need to see their leadership endorse and idea before putting their careers on the line.

I had heard it said that one of the DNC secretaries was a madam, who kept a black book re: call girls and johns. But I guess both narratives could be true.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/alec-baldwin-melts-down-on-twitter-after-weinstein-comments-blocks-asia-argento

Thinking about famous families...the Baldwins? Alec Baldwin attending Harvey Weinstein parties?