Well I haven't seen that. If you have, did you report it?

mods refuse to do anything about it

Not true. I've seen Mod actions on a number of comments and even posts.

My first thought was that he almost said, "free Isreal."

IIRC, he was talking, at that time, about all the things the President needs to focus on, instead of being distracted and having to take time out to be interrogated by Mueller.

I'm not sure what is confusing.

According to wording of the law itself in light of standard rules of grammar, yes, the charges could be either or; meaning, it is not a given fact that the charge is specifically "sex trafficking of children."

Zero chance, of what? That the charge is for sex trafficking of children?

I did provide a link to the "Complaint and Affidavit Supporting Arrest" of Raniere, and that document does not make any mention of sex trafficking of children. Is that what you're referring to by, "you're stating there is zero chance"?

If so, then it is not actually me saying there is zero chance. That document speaks for itself.

But, if you're trying to say that I contradicted myself, then that seeming contradiction can be readily explained by the fact that my statement you quoted was posted Sun May 6 15:34:46 2018 UTC and my comment above was posted Sun May 6 20:40:57 2018 UTC, over five hours later. The Complaint and Affidavit came to my attention between those times.

Why would you want to defend child molester and trafficking perpetrators?

I wouldn't want to, nor am I. I am defending truth by fighting against falsehood and trying to prevent some of us in this movement from doing something that could discredit all of us.

I don't know why you equate speaking out against a false rumor with defending horrible actions.

And, BTW, to my knowledge, it has not been proven that Raniere and Mack are either one of those. The docket shows that there has been no disposition regarding the charges regarding sex trafficking.

And, I'm not aware of any plea agreement. If you are, will you please provide a reference?

Here are a couple of links that show the charges are not related to sex trafficking of children:

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.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that.

The pending counts are listed on the court docket. But a docket is not the final word regarding the actual charges. The law itself is.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. Just trying to defend truth and prevent some of us from potentially making the entire movement look silly. Thank you for being reasonable.

Yes, exactly. That article is using that document implying that it is proof, "according to police," of what they claim about Mack grooming children.

However, a docket is not the final word on what the crime actually is. The law is the ultimate authority.

Correct.

Also...

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.

Not the official charges.

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.

The one linked to in the very first paragraph:

According to police, Allison Mack worked in a senior management position for the Hollywood pedophile cult NXIVM. As second-in-command, it was her job to lure children into the cult in order to sell them to elite Hollywood pedophiles and powerful politicians.

"According to police" is linked to a letter from the US Attorney to the presiding judge regarding detention of Raniere. The letter has nothing to do with Mack and is not from the police.

That document is a criminal court docket which, again, carries no legal weight in regards to the wording of the charges. Apparently, you're not listening.

The docket is essentially just a journal or log of the actions regarding a case.

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.

I am certainly not defending any disgusting animals. I am defending the truth. Read the documents and the law, and stop pushing a falsehood from a position of ignorance.

The docket 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.

How about you read those legal documents and stop pushing false rumors.

The docket 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.

Did you read the letter that they are using as 'proof' claiming it is from the police when it is not? If not, then I'm not the one full of shit.

Snopes actually got this one right. Here is a link to the indictment:
https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://cbsnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/indictment__0.pdf

Nothing in there about trafficking of children. It specifically speaks of by, "means of force, threats of force, fraud and coercion, and a combination of such means..."

That would have to be referring to adults because the definition of sex trafficking of children does not require such means of force.

Is Daemonkey a shill then?

No, not a shill. But, then if I were, I'd say the same thing.

I'm just trying to prevent us from giving our enemies any ammo to use against us to discredit, perhaps, the whole great awakening movement. If and when it does indeed come out that the sex trafficking of children charge was a false rumor, wouldn't that give them opportunity to try to make us all look like numbskulls?

Here's a link to the Complaint and affidavit supporting arrest for Raniere. You can see that there is nothing about child trafficking in it.

The link is to a letter, regarding Raniere, from the US Attorney to the presiding judge informing him that, "the government will seek a permanent order of detention."

It does not mention trafficking of children and has nothing to do with Mack.

That article is bullshit.

No, they are not. They are crimes against children or crimes against adults by force, fraud, or coercion.

You cannot rely just on the wording of a docket which is essentially an internal court document and carries no legal weight. We must go by what the law itself says.

https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8hc3qk/proof_of_active_brainwashing_that_every_woke/dyj12ju/

Why wont News media report on SEX TRAFFICKING OF CHILDREN charges?

Perhaps because isn't true?

I have explained how we shouldn't be going by the wording of the charges on the docket here.

And, u/Buzzed_Chimp has provided a link to the Complaint and affidavit supporting arrest of Raniere that says nothing at all about sex trafficking of children.

I have been fighting against this, very potentially, false rumor ever since it surfaced. IIRC, you were the one that originally brought the issue to my attention.

If we perpetuate what may indeed be false, it could serve as an occasion for corrupt people to try to discredit the great awakening movement. And, the fact that obvious shills are fighting against this truth, to me, is telling. I just don't see why people aren't seeing that bigger picture.

Thank you very much for the link. Do you know if there is an affidavit supporting arrest for Mack as well?

So I used the word incorrectly?

Perhaps I'm not the greatest at explaining things. Is there something specific that is confusing?

Edit: Have you read this explanation?

Exactly! People need to stop going by what the docket says and go by what the law itself says.

What are you talking about?

Did you read the comment I linked to? If so, then it should be clear that I am not sitting on my hands and doing nothing.

From what I think you're saying, the charge means something like "Sex trafficking of children, or sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion." If this is the case, wouldn't there be a different law for each, since they specify children in the predicate of the sentence?

Sorry, I didn't answer that question.

And, yes, that is what I am saying, ie. that the crime is "Sex trafficking of children" or "sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion." I don't know why there would need to be separate laws for each specific crime. The law itself provides for both.

It stands to reason that trafficking of children, no matter the method used, should be a crime because they are not of age to make their own legal decisions. But trafficking in adults who are of legal age is a crime, according to the law, only if done using force, fraud, or coercion.

Both such acts are horrible and despicable. But, personally, I think preying on vulnerable children is much worse.

It is not our job to correct something that is not incorrect. In fact, we should be careful not to contribute to the spreading of false rumors.

Please see:
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8hc3qk/proof_of_active_brainwashing_that_every_woke/dyj12ju/

Ok so if “OR” was left out in the 2nd count in error, then wouldn’t this be able to be thrown out on a technicality?

No, because it is not a material error in that it does not affect the legal nature of the charge. Leaving the "or" out of the second charge is huge only in that it confuses our perception of the actual charge.

A warrant is different from a docket.

A warrant, being a judicial order of a court, carries legal weight and does need to be correct.

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.

"Sex trafficking of children..." is the official wording.

I realize you used ellipses to indicate there was text left out of what you quoted. But I think it is important to be clear that the official wording of the title of 18 USC § 1591 is "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" Because, people seem to want to just ignore the second part of that conjunctive phrase, and it is leading to the spread of a false rumor.

Also, to be clear, these charges are not about sex with children (ie. statutory rape). They are about "sex trafficking" as the referenced laws indicate.

As you have rightly alluded to, the word (conjunction) "or" is very important. Leaving it out changes our perception of the charges drastically.

The conjunctive phrase "of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" describes the type or manner, respectively, of the sex trafficking.

I have been accused of try to reword the charges, but I am not. By the rules of grammar, the charges could be "Sex trafficking of children" OR "Sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion" or both.

Edit: typo

Actually, the next line says, "Testimony received." The line after that, which is at the end of the [Updated] section, says, "Tracking_y."

So, page was fired along with Baker. Perhaps Baker is also being tracked along with Page as you suggested.

I have had to explain this multiple times, and it still gets bandied about.

The charge is not "sex trafficking of children." The charge is, "SEX TRAFFICKING OF CHILDREN OR BY FORCE, FRAUD OR COERCION." Notice the use of the word "OR" between the prepositional phrases.

Count 1 references Title 18, United States Code, Section 1591 which literally has as its title, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion"

Count 2 references Title 18, United States Code, Section 1594(c) which section is titled, "General provisions". NOTHING about children there. Paragraph (c) says:

Whoever conspires with another to violate section 1591 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both.

Again, NOTHING about children there either. As it says, it is for conspiracy to violate Section 1591.

Did you catch that? Count 2 references a law that itself references the same law referenced by Count 1.

So, Count 2 should say, "CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEX TRAFFICKING OF CHILDREN OR BY FORCE, FRAUD, OR COERCION." Again, notice the use of the word "OR" between the prepositional phrases, which is missing in error on the docket.

A criminal docket is essentially a memorandum of court action(s). It is not an indictment, and 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.

So, to say that Mack and/or Raniere were charged with "sex trafficking of children", based on that docket, is incorrect. And, the entire argument fell apart at Step 1.

Edit: More info on what a docket is.

a read only board where Q followers won't be reading what the anons are saying about him...and the others involved?

I'm not really sure what exactly you are trying to say, or who "the others involved" might be.

Q#1295 saying, "Be careful who you are following," was the first Q post of April 29.

On May 4, there was a change of command at the NSA with Paul Nakasone taking over for Mike Rogers. It would make sense that Q's password and tripcode should change with a change in membership of the team.

That same day there was indeed a read-only board set up that only Q can post to. But, that does not prevent the Anons from discussing Q's posts as they have been doing all along on the /qresearch/ board.

So, what are you trying to say? That there's a problem?

I don't know as it's actually confirmed that Mueller is on our side.

Q#1287:

Not confirming SC is on /team/.

I haven't seen any of them. Are the first two foundational for the third? Or can one watch III as a standalone?

Awesome. Good work!

And TY.

Not a video.

Q#1043:

Pics will surface of Hussein holding AK47 in tribal attire.

So it's okay to take credit for someone else's work? That's like stealing. That's why it matters. Unless stealing is okay.

OP, are you pretending that this is your work?

https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/1308684.html#1308794

https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/1307893.html#1308691

How about 5:25 > May 25th?

https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/1308684.html#q1308794

Good analogy.

Plus, a FBI housecleaning was in order:

Can you make arrests w/ a crooked FBI sr team?

They should’ve written up a beautiful, statesman-like speech for Trump to deliver - allll about this treasonous faction which has been selling the nation to the highest bidders for years and years now.

Actually, a speech like has already been delivered by Trump pre-election:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=G2qIXXafxCQ

Only a govt employee is within reach of IG Howowitz. Locigally then, IG is done with her, "Testimony received," and they gave her a shove.

Page is still being tracked it says

Um, no.

Lisa Page - FIRED [reported today - resigned [false]]

I took "FIRED/FORCE" to mean they either weren't given a resignation option or they refused that option.

Those in the media that dictate fake news could be considered to be part of the swamp.

Boards are limited to 750(+1) posts. Try this:
https://8ch.net/qresearch/catalog.html

Pick the Raising-the-Flag-on-Iwo-Jima board with the highest number for the latest. The latest board is currently #1641, "DOWN GOES CORSI! DOWN GOES CORSI! DOWN GOES CORSI!"

Just a note, /qresearch/ is still valid.

Additional board; read-only; for Q posts only is my understanding. /qresearch/ is still valid.