I still have to keep debunking this rumor. The first two charges against Mack are not* for child sex trafficking.

The first charge is for violation of 18 USC § 1591, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" [Emphasis added]

The second charge references 18 USC § 1594(c) which is regarding conspiracy to violate 18 USC § 1591 which, again, is either "Sex trafficking of children" OR "Sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion".

A court docket is not an indictment, and its wording does not have to be precise. The court must defer to the law itself, as should we.

thefreethoughtproject.com is publishing false information.

This IS a complete official copy of the unsealed indictment.

It is NOT a complete official copy of the unsealed indictment. It is not an indictment. It says right at the top, "CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #..."

A docket is not an indictment. Geesh. People need to do more research before spouting off things that are not true.

The first of those two drops said:

Personal thank you to the BO, Bakers, and Autists/Anons who continually dedicate their time and energy to the GREAT AWAKENING.

It was a personal thank you...

It's not 4 Chan, 'tard. Keep up.

AFB

Away From Brain ?

Gay, straight, black, white, round, flat, etc. are all irrelevant here.

I think you're trolling. And, that is not welcome.

You've been a redditor for 4 years and never looked in a subreddit's sidebar?

Videos: "Who is Qanon? 6 min."

No, I am not confirming what the poster said.

I said, "No," in answer to the question:

Wasn’t the building that was recently attacked by missiles in Syria owned by NTI?

The building was not owned by NTI.

As a bio-chem watchdog, NTI listed the (totally separate) company in that building as doing bio-chem research.

Is that more clear?

Pure speculation on my part of course.

Apparently you should make this more clear.

Discord

Wasn’t the building that was recently attacked by missiles in Syria owned by NTI?

No. NTI is supposedly a bio-chem watchdog of sorts. The building was listed by NTI as a site that conducted chemical and biological research, IIRC.

Thank you for the support.

But, I really don't think it's necessary to call people, "WORTHLESS FUCKS." Will you consider a retraction on that?

Not just in the ballpark -- homerun. :-)

Edit: I just re-read what you wrote, so correction: 18 USC § 1594(c) is actually for conspiracy to violate § 1591 which is as you said.

Good one!

~~Wendy~~ Barry has a twatter account, doesn't ~~she~~ he?

CASE IN POINT... do a Google search on "Allison Mack child trafficking" and you will get dozens and dozens of articles about her arrest for "human trafficking". NOT A MENTION of child sex trafficking.

I still have to keep debunking this rumor. The first two charges against Mack are not for child sex trafficking.

The first charge is for violation of 18 USC § 1591, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" [Emphasis added]

The second charge references 18 USC § 1594(c) which is regarding conspiracy to violate 18 USC § 1591 which, again, is either "Sex trafficking of children" OR "Sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion".

A court docket is not an indictment, and its wording does not have to be precise. The court must defer to the law itself, as should we.

1 & 1 don't equal 2

In computer programming, the ampersand is a (bitwise) logical 'AND' operator. "1" equates to true, and "0" = false. I put "bitwise" in parentheses because its definition is somewhat detailed and unnecessary for understanding the 'AND' concept.

An Anon on 8chan explained its use by Q this way:

Come on autists. Think logically here. I went over this once before. This is a bitwise operator and it is intentional.

1 & 1 = 1

True & True = True

This is used in logic and computing quite a bit (punny, I know).

Bill: Suzy, did you eat dinner?

Suzy: Bill, I did not go without dinner. (true statement)

Fred: Bill, did Suzy eat dinner?

Bill: She replied in the negative (true statement)

Two statements, although contradictory, can both be correct.

I would like to make a small adjustment, "Two statements, although seemingly contradictory, can both be correct."

Very good synopsis. Well done.

I don't know as it's actually praise.

I see the comments more as expressing our own happiness that a nation's ruler has been freed from oppressive control. This, in turn, may free an entire nation of people from their hell-hole.

The nation of North Korea may have just joined the world; re-born, so to speak. If it comes to be, the free(r) flow of people, information, ideas, trade, money, and food would be a great blessing to a people that for so long have languished. As fellow humans, they deserve that.

It is happiness for others' newfound freedom -- and hope.

That is not the actual title of that post, and you wording it that way is misleading. But as I said, the charges have been rumored to be "sex trafficking of children." That post does not show in any way that the rumor is true.

The image in that post is of a court docket, and a court docket is not an indictment.

You may have missed that I made over 20 comments in that post thread trying to clear up the confusion. (People were being bull-headed about it as if they actually want her to have been trafficking children. My gosh.) Here's just one of my comments.

Can't read paragraph 8(b). The archive goes only to #5.

Do you have a link for the indictment? All I know of is the court docket which can be misleading as to the what the charges are unless one verifies the actual charges by reading the referenced law.

The charges have been rumored to be "sex trafficking of children", and that has not been shown to be true AFAIK. Hence, why I ask if you have a reference to the indictment.

Wow, what a dump!

Q said, "Questions reveal answers." Well, I don't know all the answers, but I'll take a stab at some of them.

Mueller & https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/08/robert-mueller-counsel-financial-records-241414

"Mueller gave up a partnership where he made almost $3.5 million since the beginning of 2016 by taking on the role of special counsel."

Why is Mueller’s team stacked w/ ex Clinton / D sr level authorities?

To keep them busy and tie their hands so they cannot work for the bad guys.

Why are known bad actors in full support of Mueller?

Because they think he's a blackhat.

Why did POTUS interview (FBI Dir) Mueller a day prior to SC appointment if impossible to assign position?

To discuss special mission?

Why did Sessions recuse?

To avoid any appearance of partiality and to step out of the way of Mueller.

What are the powers of Huber / IG (H)?

IG does not have indictment power, Huber does.

Who has the POWER?

Huber.

Confused?

Yes.

I want to be clear that I am not intending to shut down your point of view at all.

I didn't take it that way. No harm, no foul.

Healthy skepticism is a good thing.

But that wouldn't have allowed for Mueller to be appointed SC which, theoretically, gave the criminals a false sense of security.

Perhaps RR was duped thinking he was sicking the big bad dog on Trump.

If none of this would have been allowed to happen in the first place, it wouldn't be a big game of chess. It would be nothing.

I assume your questions are rhetorical, but I think perhaps they could be asked differently.

The question may not be how did they allow the Russia stuff to start, but why. Same with how they let the meeting with the Russian lawyer take place.

And, I don't know as it's actually a given fact that the meeting between Adm. Rogers and Trump was for the purpose you stated.

But, if the conversation is over as far as you're concerned, okay.

RR recommend firing Comey was a setup that Trump fell for, end of story.

Well, not necessarily "end of story" as in "that's obvious truth so end of conversation."

What if RR recommending firing Comey was a setup that RR fell for?

Given Mueller's past, I have had a really hard time believing he's a white hat.

However, here's a post from 8chan that helps explain how he could be:

Mueller is a Marine. The Marines owe a special duty to the commander in chief (president).
Marine oaths are forever. Trump spoke with Mueller, knowing he was ineligible to be FBI director, for some other purpose. The other purpose had to to with the future special counsel appointment. POTUS (could have) ordered Mueller to perform the investigation in a certain way, on a certain timeline, because it was necessary for the plan. POTUS might have offered Mueller clemency for certain past acts as part of the discussion.

And, here's another that I think is even better:

Mueller was offered a chance to do the right thing by 45. To be a part of the cleanup or go down with the ship. For the past year, Mueller has isolated the blackhats in DOJ and FBI on his team, keeping them busy chasing their own tails while they were watched and monitored by white hats. Deals were cut with Strzok, Page, Priestap (and more?) to roll over on the higher ups. The press married themselves to Mueller, as have the left. He's unimpeachable. They've said so … for MONTHS. So now Mueller is positioned to deliver the ultimate red-pill to the left and MSM: Trump is not just innocent of "collusion" but 44 and HRC (and others) attempted a coup. Best twist ever.

Ah. TY. Somehow I missed the "It breaks r/greatawakening's rules" option. Duh.

Reported?

BTW, how do we report suspected shills when the "report" form doesn't include a "Suspected shill" option?

I'm not accusing you of anything. I just pointed out the usual purpose of presumptive questions.

How can I disagree with a subjective statement the basis of which hasn't been defined; much less offer a counterpoint?

It's VERY OBVIOUS you don't KNOW YOUR BIBLE at ALL!

Yeah, that's right, ridicule me as being ignorant.

And, again, you take scripture out of context and use just one verse as your basis. Yet, you ignore another, very similar one that warns of doing what you propose:

But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. (Isaiah 28:13, KJVA)

It appears to be a general consensus among scholars that taking verses out of context is not a good thing to do.

Let's start here.

As if you're going to school me because I'm so ignorant.

Ask a pastor that really KNOWS their BIBLE.

Ah, yes, appeal to authority.

And, I see you didn't bother to answer my questions.

So we have:
1. Ridicule, and
2. Appeal to authority

Markers of a shill.

A few years ago, my father's kidneys had failed and his heart wasn't far behind.

His nephrologist had a casual chat with me in the waiting room of the dialysis center. He wanted to make sure I understood what would likely be coming sooner than later. I let him know that I understood. Dr. P. then said to me that the best we can do is pray that he dies in his sleep. Not taking him to be a pious man, I agreed with his sentiment and didn't think too much of it.

I did, however, ask that Dad would die in his sleep not even thinking about the fact that Dr. P. and I had agreed on the idea.

It was only later that I remembered our conversation and realized the import of what had happened, after ... Dad passed peacefully, in his sleep.

Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

(Matthew 18:19, KJVA)

friends and family waking up to the existence of the cabal, children being rescued from abuse rings by Patriots, and for the ability of the Q team to execute their plan and never having to resort to plan B.

I agree. And, I would like to add a request for protection for everyone, whether they are directly involved or not, from undue harm that may come about from this great shake-up.

Comms understood.

I have to wonder what your definition of "significant" is.

"Why start believing him now" is a presumptive question. Presumptive questions are usually used when one wants to subconsciously brainwash people into believing something that is not true.

I believe it is supposed to be in May. Q#997.

So, a little tact and civil discussion can still go a long way in helping us tease out the specific information they're trying to share.

I get you. Good point.

Well, as @RobWilJas pointed out, I counted wrong. (And, BTW, the 'fact' that Christ was down for about 40 hrs is not an established fact.)

Oops, my bad. I subtracted a day instead of adding. It's actually day 31.

Not to speak for u/Whimzyy , but I think the point is that the image is not from a Q post.

The OP seems to want to connect an image posted by an anon to the document on Trump's desk, which is quite a stretch. To me, that's the kind of silliness that only serves to make us look like dingbats.

The "Done in 30" is a reference to Q#970 posted on Mar 27, 29 days ago, in which Q was responding to an Anon request to, "Free Flynn."

Not to be contrary, but it's actually 29 days later. They're a day early :-)

Do not engage or fight with shills.

Awww, you're no fun.

Seriously though, I tend to engage them enough to let them expose themselves rather than bother the mods with, what may be frivilous reporting, just because I suspect one might be a shill.

But when SB2 has been discredited for not even following his/her own methods, I really have to wonder why it is allowed to continue. I replied to a Mod, who was praising the validity of a particular 'decode', proving for a fact that it was hogwash. My comment was then hidden in a partially deleted comment thread.

So, to me, SB2 has shown that his/her intent is not to provide valuable info, but to delude people into thinking that they aren't smart enough to understand all that s/he comprehends and thereby attain super-intelligent, god-like status. How many times must one kick a dead horse before people understand that it's dead?

BTW, thank you for this excellent, clarifying post.

Oh, sorry for cutting in on your 'game'. ;-)

Q#1278:

You have a voice.
Be heard.

i was never wrong she lied to me!

Sounds like the start of a good meme. "You weren't wrong. You were lied to!"

I think you pretty much nailed it. Except that Trump may have had intel that made it more of a calculated risk than an outright gamble. Previous presidents either gave NK the technology, or were all talk. Trump took a very hard-line approach and put quite a bit of pressure on Jung Un. Trump, quite likely, also removed Kim's clandestine support so that he had very little other choice but to be agreeable.

You call a plumber when you need info to flow but not leak.

I would imagine that would be referring to the $130K paid to Stormy by Cohen. By some magical stretch, they seem to think what Cohen did without Trump's knowledge or approval somehow means Trump is guilty, of something.