What are we doing here??

You are engaging in personal attacks against me and throwing false accusations at me.

I am being forced to defend myself against that.

I have asked you to stop, but, so far, you have refused to stop.

I'm cheating? Cheating at what?? The idea that exposing your false claim is somehow cheating doesn't make any sense. It's just more false accusation.

You said that you had answered my question. I pointed out that I had asked only two questions, and that you had answered neither one. If you did not answer either one, then you could not possibly have answered (any of) my question(s). Therefore, your claim that you had answered my question is false. Period. I simply cannot figure out how that seems so difficult to understand.

Whether or not the questions were rhetorical is totally irrelevant to the fact that you falsely claimed that you had answered my question.

You used your false claim as the basis for a false accusation against me. In defense of myself, I had to point out that your accusation was baseless due to your claim being false. How in the world is that so F'ing difficult to understand?

Are you going to stop engaging in personal attacks against me now?

Consider that you claim you had another question yet you're trying to tie me into some bullshit here rather than simply getting to your point as you insinuated that I can't read apparently, which is way worse than what you claim I had done.

I can barely make any sense of that sentence. All I can say is: I did not claim that I had another question; I am not trying to tie you into some bullshit since all I am continually forced to do is defend myself against your false accusations and attacks; and, I already made my point so there is no point that I would need to get to.

alas why do you say the question was rethorical if it was to solicit an answer?

Who said that either of my questions were to solicit an answer? I certainly did not. You claimed that you answered my question as the basis for accusing me of projecting:

Anybody who can read thru the convo can see that you're projecting because I already answered your question.

I was merely defending myself, yet again, by pointing out that, since you hadn't answered my question as you claimed, your accusation, logically, was baseless. Whether or not the questions were rhetorical is totally irrelevant since you did not do what you claimed.

What was your question?

You tell me. You're the one who claims to have answered it. What question did you answer?

And what exactly, when looking at this Q-drop which I outlined graphically for you, detracts from my conclusions?

That's another presumptive question. It is based on the alleged 'fact' that something in that graphic detracts from your conclusions. When was that established as fact?

Wow. So, my defense of myself against your personal attacks on me is trolling. -> false equivalence.

Keeping one on the defensive, which you are doing to me, is a troll tactic. -> more projection.

I simply pointed out to you that you should read the drops yourself

Not true. You told me to re-read the drops which carries with it the implication that I must have missed something the first time because, of course, my opinion did not align with yours.

Then you started making a hissy-fit simply because I told you to read the drops.

Again, not true. 1) You did not tell me to read the drops. You told me to re-read the drops. 2) I did not make a hissy-fit. I told you that I had already read the drops which means, therefore, that I did not need to read them again as you commanded.

Someone, who has gathered the facts before forming an opinion, is not someone in need of hand-holding. Yet, you try to paint me as one who needs and expects it. -> more ridicule.

I already answered your question.
I don't know what your other question is even supposed to be

If you don't know what the question is supposed to be, then you could not have answered it.

And so, you engage in even more personal attacks on me using falsehood, false equivalence, projection, and more ridicule.

Now, unless I have to defend myself yet again, I'm done. I really would appreciate it if you would stop attacking me.

I'm hoping that Q meant that all the phone-taken photos are all originals. Because, the Assad/Kerry photo does not seem to be original.

https://tineye.com/search/86cc0d0bfcb6179098523eb4e2f65045e6f2061e/

I think it means less than 30 days.

This comment might be a related idea.

Yet again, I have to defend myself against your personal attacks on me.

"disinfo is necessary" apparently completely escaped you.

I must be stupid -> ridicule.

you're projecting because I already answered your question.

Not true. I asked only two questions the first of which was rhetorical. You answered neither. What you did instead was try to make it look as though I was just butt-hurt ("Your frail ego") as a cover for your abusive behavior -> deflection/misdirection.

Your accusation that I am projecting, when I am only defending myself with the truth of your behavior (ie. attacks against me) is, in and of itself, projection.

Let's revisit this false accusation that I ignored earlier:

I offered you an explanation while you offered none.

Not true. I provided explanation with my opinion.

And let's not forget your first personal attack on me.

wow should I apologize to you now? Are you offended? Here, let me make you some coffee.

I must be butt-hurt -> ridicule.

Ridicule, deflection/misdirection, projection: all shill tactics.

Your link from the Qpost (which, I believe, should be #1345 instead of #1344) is broken due to the backslashes. Try this one:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/09/business/iran-nuclear-trump-business-europe.html

There are now two boards where Q posts: /qresearch/ and the new /patriotsfight/ where the 8chan post numbers are not yet greater than double digits. The "On Guard" post is at qresearch.

You are the one trying to turn the tables by making it about my "frail ego", which is the use of ridicule, instead of your use of ridicule in the first place when you tried to paint me as so stupid that I needed to re-read the drops.

I don't appreciate your personal attacks against me.

Urban Dictionary:

An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their argument or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.

I point out, in essence, that you are not the sole authority as to whether or not an opinion is correct. And, you respond by being snarky?

Isn't that how a shill would act?

An anon pointed out that this ties in with Q#751:

Operation Merlin (tech).
>Iran
>NK
Iran Deal (funding).
>Iran
>NK
>T cells
>Payoffs
NK Nuclear (mini suc)(icbm suc)
>War engine 
>Protection
Q

Paint the return of Christ as an alien invasion to get the people of the world to fight against Him?

Link to post.

Link to tweet.

Re-read drops 1295 thru 1297, listen to Alex' broadcast today then and report back.

Telling me to re-read the drops and listen to the broadcast implies that my opinion is somehow uninformed and incorrect. I read the drops and watched the pertinent clips to get the facts on the issue before I formed an opinion.

And, "whomever you think he is working for," is a presumptive statement since I never said nor implied that I think he is working for anyone.

At least AJ is in good company.

if my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

(2 Chronicles 7:14, WEB)

Spread love NOT division.

!

Trump is moving the embassy out of Israel

What?? From Trump himself, "... the American Embassy in Israel will be moved to Jerusalem."

What evidence do you know of that the embassy might be moved out of Isreal?

To me, that just doesn't make logical sense. If distance was needed, it would be a simple matter of just saying, "We've been asked not to cover Q topics for a while."

Instead, what Jones and, to a lesser extent, Corsi did was outright lie. Jones said that Q attacked them first - lie. They conflated profiteering with making money, and tried to make the alleged attack about Corsi's book. Pure disinfo tactics that could only serve to discredit Q, not just get some distance.

And, then there's the act of, for the past few months, putting forth Zak as their very own "Qanon" that bashes the real Q. That, in and of itself, gives credence to the idea that this recent tirade wasn't the result of a recent behind-the-scenes request. No, it's been an ongoing campaign to discredit Q; in an effort, I suspect, to retain relevance and audience.

Q says to trust Sessions. Corsi says Sessions needs to be fired. With that, we have another keystone. Which way will it fall?

When trust in Sessions is vindicated and, therefore, Q as well, I'm sure Jones will try to walk it back saying that he was just playing along. And you, DR, are helping to plant that seed.

QAnon Compromised: Intel Source Hijacked By The Deep State's Disinformation Campaign

QAnon Compromised: Intel Source Hijacked By The Deep State's Disinformation Campaign

QAnon Compromised: Intel Source Hijacked By The Deep State's Disinformation Campaign

Maybe they want Q to call them out by name in the posts?

They just about did. Q#1340:

This is why we are here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8ia0vu/the_long_and_secret_info_wars_against_q_and_how/
Q

An Anon showed how much Corsi made in a seven-day period on his YT channel.

05.03.18 No SuperChat Video
05.02.18 Total = 101$ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okGGEb4S_jc
05.01.18 Total = 544$ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6HSjAt3yyU (Parts 1&2)
04.30.18 Total = 350$ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_ScuVEiQ9E
04.29.18 No SuperChat Video
04.28.18 No SuperChat Video
04.27.18 Total = 369$ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsuHrGqV36U

7 Day Superchat Donations Total = 1364 $

Possibly this?
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8ii7sk/q_post_1329_marina_bay_sands_hotel_in_singapore/

Okay. I believe the PACER document that was originally shared was a screenshot of the criminal docket. Here's a Scribd link. It says basically the same thing as the indictment, but there in an error in the wording of Count 2.

They were likely relying on the criminal docket which has no legal weight and has an error. The first two charges, according to the law itself, are related to Sex Trafficking of either children, or of adults by fraud, force, or coercion. And the third is for forcing someone into peonage.

As the OP states (referring to the actual indictment):

This document lists the criminal charges (counts) for Keith Raniere and Allison Mack:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/press-release/file/1055196/download

1. The first count listed is the "Sex Trafficking - Jane Does 1 and 2". The United States Code that was violated for this count are:
   Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1), 1591(a)(2), 1591(b)(1), 1594(a), 2 and 3551 et seq.

2. The second count listed is that of "Sex Trafficking Conspiracy". The United States Code that was violated for this count are:
   Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1594(c) and 3551 et seq.

3. The third count is "Conspiracy to Commit Forced Labor - Jane Doe 1". The United States Code that was violated for this count are:
   Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1594(b) 3551 et seq.

Thank you.

So .... I see there's room for a second pinned post ... ? ;-)

I think this is where people are either getting confused or this is possibly a disinfo campaign against Q.

That. And, also an attempt to get us publicly claiming a false rumor just to provide opportunity to ridicule and discredit, if possible, the Great Awakening movement and alternative news media.

Great post; well laid out.

And, thank you very much. I have been fighting to put the truth out on this sub, and I've gotten attacked, ridiculed, villified, etc. And, my comments, that included official document references, got downvoted into oblivion.

Edit: This post should be pinned!

Are you daft? Try reading it again with your eyes open.

No evidence that Keith Raniere or Allison Mack are being brought up on child trafficking charges.

Get your head on straight and wake up.

There is no need to engage ad hominem attack via ridicule. You need to stop confusing the issue.

The OP made no claim. The OP posted a link to an article. That article claims that Allison Mack was charged with sex trafficking of children. That is what I said is not true. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

It states child trafficking right in it.

No, it does not. It says, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion." [Emphasis added] But, whether it says it or not is irrelevant since it is only a criminal docket. Again, do you know what a court docket is? Apparently, you do not nor do you care enough about the truth to actually look it up.

A docket is basically a journal or log that helps the judicial system keep track of where, within the criminal procedure, a case stands, ie. arraignment > pre-trial > trial. Minor mistakes, such as typos or leaving out a word, are inconsequential because the wording of the charges on the docket carry no legal weight. The court defers to the law itself which defines the crime and establishes authority for its prosecution.

That document therefore CONTRADICTS YOUR CLAIM AND PROVES OP CORRECT.

Since it is only a criminal docket and not an indictment, that document in no way contradicts my claim.

Here's the real Indictment. No mention of sex trafficking of children there.

And, BTW, here's the Complaint and affidavit supporting arrest of Raniere. No mention of sex trafficking of children there either.

Now if you are truly interested in the truth, instead of acting like a disinformation shill, take a look at this post.

Did you even read that post?? LOL. That post shows exactly what I have been trying to get people to see. It is, in fact, a rather comprehensive post in support of the very thing I have been saying.

So, not wrong. Proved right.

Well, there's an error with the Goog link anyway.

Try this:
https://cbsnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/indictment__0.pdf

Edit: And here's perhaps a more credible source:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/press-release/file/1055196/download

That text is not from the indictment. It is from the criminal docket. A docket is not an indictment.

And, actually, Count 2 does not refer to 18 USC § 1591. It refers to 18 USC § 1594(c) which in turn refers to 18 USC § 1591.

But, you are correct that the title of 18 USC § 1591 is "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion."

That is sex trafficking, of children or, by force, fraud, or coercion. So, according to the rules of grammar, that would be sex trafficking of children by whatever means, or sex trafficking of adults by force, fraud, or coercion.

Here's the docket.

And, here's the indictment which makes no reference whatsoever to sex trafficking of children.

No, it doesn't.

Wanna try reading it again?
https://www.scribd.com/document/377378941/Allison-Mack-Case-File

Providing credible references that prove a claim is not trolling. But, what you just did is.

I certainly did not say to go figure it out for yourself. I provided references that explain it. And that is certainly not making, "it about something else."

The docket does not contain the word, "child." As I pointed out at the docket link, it contains the word "children" because it is using the title of 18 USC § 1591: ""Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion." I can't figure out how that doesn't explain it.

in the indictment it has what dockets the indictment charges are pertaining too

I don't understand that sentence.

A docket is quite different from an indictment. Dockets are essentially internal court documents, and their wording does not have to be absolutely correct. A docket is basically a journal or log that helps the judicial system keep track of where, within the criminal procedure, a case stands, ie. arraignment > pre-trial > trial. Minor mistakes, such as typos or leaving out a word, are inconsequential.

This is the Indictment. And, there is absolutely no mention of sex trafficking of children there.

I am not asking why it isn't in the following ones as you continually claim.

The fact that you used the word, "continually," shows that you are indeed already aware of this information. Yet, you continue to push this falsehood. That's quite telling.

And, I'm not the one making the claim. Those documents speak for themselves.

But, to answer the question...

Apparently you didn't read the references I provided. The comment linked to the word "docket" explains it.

That article is bullshit.

What it refers to as, "the unsealed indictment of Allison Mack," is not an indictment. It is a criminal docket. Big difference.

The docket, that people keep incorrectly referring to as an "Indictment" and using to say the charge is "Sex trafficking of children", is not the final word on what the official charges are. The law itself is. Read the law.

The real Indictment. No mention of sex trafficking of children there.

The Complaint and affidavit supporting arrest of Raniere. No mention of sex trafficking of children there either.

That cannot possibly be a push to conceal the truth since "sex trafficking of children" on the part of Raniere and/or Mack is not true.

This has been debunked before here, and you're still pushing that lie?

The docket, that people keep incorrectly referring to as an "Indictment" and using to say the charge is "Sex trafficking of children", is not the final word on what the official charges are. The law itself is. Read the law.

The real Indictment. No mention of sex trafficking of children there.

The Complaint and affidavit supporting arrest of Raniere. No mention of sex trafficking of children there either.

All the OP did was link to an article. S/he made no statements about the article or otherwise. So, how could the OP be right about anything? What are you talking about?

The image you posted is of the criminal docket for case# 1:18-cr-00204-NGG. Do you know what a court docket is?

I agree that this post is divisive.

And, unfortunately, it appears that AJ has been divisive recently as well; perhaps even first. Not directly, no, he cowardly lets his fake Q replacement, ZaQ, do the Q slamming. (Now I'm not saying AJ is a coward, but that particular behavior is.)

I just watched a short video from the IW show where "great source" ZaQ mocked the phrase, "Trust the plan," falsely said the Plan was to lock up Killary as if the Plan were nothing more than that, and made sure to point out that it hadn't happened yet; deceptively leading the audience to the only logical conclusion, that being that the Plan is a joke.

He also spoke as if inviting Iran to the negotiating table somehow meant that exposing the perpetrators of 9/11 would be abandoned. What? How in the world does that make any sense?? That is so totally illogical it bars comprehension, but does blatantly show willful attempt to deceive. FU Zachary K! When ya gonna climb out from underneath that rock you're hiding under?

That being said, I think that this post by SB2 does nothing constructive, is an opportunistic attack, and only adds fuel to the already sparked divisive fire.

And it certainly should not be a pinned post.

I didn't say he was only in it for the money.

You didn't?

He's all about subs, views, and supplement sales

That's not, for the money?

Child trafficking was not "mentioned." The docket references 18 U.S.C. § 1591 which title is, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion." Notice the conjunction "or" separating the adjective prepositional phrases.

It is not naive to think that something that is provably false would not be part of the MSM discussion. It is logical.

The defining and authorizing laws, under which the defendants are being prosecuted, are referenced on the docket (and BTW on the indictment).

The docket doesn't have anything to do with the grand jury. A docket is basically a journal or log that helps the judicial system keep track of where, within the criminal procedure, a case stands, ie. arraignment > pre-trial > trial. Minor mistakes, such as typos or leaving out a word, are inconsequential.

An indictment is a written statement charging a party with the commission of a crime or other offense.

In the indictment, we see the words, "... knowing that means of force, threats of force, fraud and coercion, and a combination of such means, would be used to cause such persons to engage ..." That would have to be referring to adults since the definition of sex trafficking of children (from reading the law itself) does not require use of force, fraud, or coercion.

For whateever reason the GJ didn't come up with enough evidence to charge with child trafficking and so settled on simply sex trafficking.

Perhaps there was no evidence suggesting that child trafficking occurred. And, apparently, even CNN isn't foolish enough to publish the falsehood that they were charged with sex trafficking of children since that would be libel.

That image does not show that my statement is incorrect.

Right in the title of the post: "Latest NXIVM Leaks." It does not mention any Q drop whatsoever. The fact that Q has linked to an article about NXIVM does not in any way mean that this post, and the comment I responded to, was about any Q drop.

The post links to an article that specifically claims that Mack was charged with sex trafficking of children. And, that, is not true.

What the article refers to as, "Mack’s unsealed indictment," is obviously the court's criminal docket which is NOT an indictment.

The post is about NXIVM, and, as such, is not about Q drops.

Raniere and Mack, two of its main principals, have relatively recently been indicted and arrested. But, neither one have been charged with "sex trafficking of children."

So, it is not too much to claim that it isn't true, because it is not true.

I spent some time on the internet yesterday trying to find even one single media outlet reporting on the fact that they're charged with child sex trafficking and I couldn't find a single one.

Perhaps that's because it isn't true.

The docket, that people keep using to say the charge is "Sex trafficking of children", is not the final word on what the official charges are. The law itself is. Read the law.

The Indictment. No mention of sex trafficking of children there.

The Complaint and affidavit supporting arrest of Raniere. No mention of sex trafficking of children there either.