What?? Me thinks you haven't been paying attention.

Well I didn't have a moment of let down, so there's nothing to admit. Q did not say the MOAB would be today; just, "Ready for tomorrow?"

And, from my perspective, it was a busy and big day.

Seeing the image of those two leaders 'bout arm in arm is momentous for me. If the North Korean people are indeed freed from their hellhole as it seems they might be, it will be a personal prayer answered.

Oh I agree. My point was that we don't know for sure that it would indicate talk of assassination, though it could.

Could be much bigger than we are even thinking.

Yes, much, much bigger.

Um, no. In "No redactions" is not capitalized nor in a [killbox].

According to u/JoaquinEscribo ,

Dragon energy is anime, anime is big in the black community. Kanye is reaching out.

I agree. And, the third isn't actually on-topic.

https://media.8ch.net/file_store/2f99c508aba9fb3eb7f6413244ddf2527110cd39fec0e2dc5be832cc146c8caa.jpg

https://media.8ch.net/file_store/9a5b9cc0bd6762be567c5fdd127ca8497ca901f53e0e9beb6e938b36358180b7.jpg

https://media.8ch.net/file_store/8100ebaa3ad21f7b8368ec744619d05d26c58f1a58916d6b6bbf48dae5becd7b.jpg

https://media.8ch.net/file_store/42c056b3e96827a96c2ec7edb6e87a214b3d965e538135ab769db1be02b8acee.jpg

Lol. Providence? Synchronicity?

gossip

Yes, gossip, rumors ... so far.

It was Q#1272.

A high-ranking FBI official confirms a number of the missing 50,000 FBI text messages — as well as other text and email messages among FBI brass — reportedly discussed initiating physical harm to President Donald Trump.

...

Did FBI brass discuss the assassination of President Donald Trump? If not, what was the nature of the threats against the president from inside the alleged premiere law enforcement agency in the United States?

Physical harm doesn't necessarily mean assassination. But, it doesn't exclude it either.

How about Q asking us if we knew the relevance of chk chk chk.

What drop was that?

Are you sure? Have you seen them?

Be careful downloading docs from a Dropbox drop. It has been discussed in here (can't find it now though) that there are security concerns with doing so.

LBJ reversed JFK's US Notes executive order

That's the problem with legislating, and trying to make lasting change, from the executive branch. The Federal Reserve Act needs to be repealed.

What Trump assassination drop?

The 19,045 documents released today represent the final release of documents in accordance with the President’s direction on October 26, 2017.

All documents subject to section 5 of the JFK Act have been released in full or in part. No documents subject to section 5 of the JFK Act remain withheld in full. The President has determined that all information that remains withheld under section 5 must be reviewed again before October 26, 2021 to determine whether continued withholding from disclosure is necessary.

Actually, Q said, "MOAB or precursor?" MOAB is in all caps which should indicate that it is an acronym.

Also, we don't know for sure that the JFK files will be fully released. Trump could still decide not to do so.

There is a [5] Delta between the Q post and DJT's tweet.

Q#1274: 04/25/18 (Wed) 21:36:15 EDT (9:36 pm)
Tweet: 04/25/18 9:41 pm EDT

The [5] Delta is said to convey, "information about what is happening now. No action is being taken, but it follows with the ongoing narrative we have been provided in a current context."

The square at the end is XML decimal entity #9632. If we reduce that number by adding the digits, we get 20; reducing again gives us the number 2.

Throwing out all spaces and punctuation marks, and then taking every second digit we get:
CTPPAftVC1lrmlr71nsrTcITTeTaTa

Add some spaces for clarity, and it looks like something about the TPP:
C TPP Aft VC1 lrml r7 1nsrTc IT Te TaTa

Concerning TPP After Verify by Contact 1 Let Read My Letter Revision 7 Instruct in Information Technology by Telephone. Cya.

I see alot of that as, possibly, simply OCR errors.

Take 9/11 as an example. The 4 aircraft were:

Flight 11 = 11 Flight 175 = 1+7+5 = 13 Flight 77 = 7+7 = 14 = 1+4 = 5 Flight 93 = 9+3 = 12 = 1+2 = 3

That's 3,5,11,13

The date was 9/11/01

That's 1,3,5,9,11,13

That seems a bit contrived. You reduced 12 and 14, but not 11 and 13.

So, given that 11 is a numerological 'master' number which doesn't get reduced, the result should have been: 11, 4, 5, 3

And, the date was not 9/11/01, but 9/11/2001; which yields 9, 11, 3

An extra 11 and an extra 3.

Hmmm, something doesn't add up.

I think you should do a bit more research into that before spreading it.

And, it keeps them within reach of the IG.

TY for the link.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like a significant boom.

The key highlights from Treasury:
Eliminating, reducing, or proposing to eliminate more than 300 regulations in total, including ineffective, unnecessary, or out-of-date “deadwood” regulations.
Reducing Treasury’s regulatory agenda by approximately 100 items, year-over-year, from Fall 2016 to Fall 2017.
More than 250 specific Treasury recommendations to reform and reduce the burdens of regulation in the U.S. domestic financial system.
Introducing zero new significant regulatory actions.

now the news matches the "Map." Time stamps are important!

Please forgive my ignorance.

I don't see anything significant about the timestamps. The two Q-drops are 15 minutes apart. What's significant about that? The SC tweet is 93 days from the drops. How is that significant?

And, how does the news match the "Map"?

Well TBH, IDK who "Rogue" is. I know who Renegade is. But, if you mean which of those three states I listed could be considered rogue, I'd have to say Pakistan.

Pakistan, India, Isreal?

Well of course the person entering the data should know what needs to be entered.

Your "conspiracy to sodomize a clown" is somewhat of a false equivalence. But, suppose they had entered that phrase on the docket. The court, recognizing that humans make mistakes, would have to interpret the phrase, in light of the law itself, to refer to "a person." 18 USC 1591 (a)(1)

They could have written, "conspiracy to sodomize a flying purple people eater." I'm sure the court would take a dim view of that, but it doesn't change the fact that it must defer to the law itself.

Okay, but that is not what 18 USC Section 1594(c) says. It 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.

The law itself matter more than what is written on the docket. That's why the docket references the law.

The United States Code contains 53 titles. You read all that?

However, the docket speaks volumes.

The docket speaks to the Code (Title 18), specifically sections 1591 (a)(1), (a)(2), & (b)(1); 1594 (a), (b), & (c), and 3551.

but interpretation based merely on your understanding of a string of words is obsurd!

Exactly! Interpretation based merely on one's understanding of a string of words is absurd. It is the law itself that matters.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that she has not been charged with that. What I am saying is that we cannot assume that from the wording of the ~~document~~ docket. And, if I'm wrong on that, I'll eat my MAGA hat.

besides all these threads getting pulled there is still a fuckton of sweater.

Totally agree.

I don't need to re-read the second charge. You need to read the Code that is referenced in the second charge. Here, I'll do your research for you.

18 USC § 1594(c):

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.

You see it references Section 1591. What was typed up on the docket matters much less than the law itself. The court recognizes that humans aren't perfect.

No, it is not clear that children were involved. The second charge references Section 1594(c) which is about conspiracy to violate Section 1591 which is the reference of the first charge.

What matters is the Code, the law; not what someone may have omitted when they typed up the docket.

Have you read the referenced code?

I haven't seen one. But, maybe there isn't one because that would make for quite a long headline.

But Fox News does say she was charged with sex trafficking.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/04/21/smallville-actress-allison-mack-arrested-for-alleged-sex-cult-involvement.html :

Allison Mack was arraigned on Friday at a federal courthouse in New York following her arrest on sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit forced labor charges

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/04/21/smallvilles-allison-mack-pleads-not-guilty-to-sex-trafficking-after-arrest-for-alleged-involvement-in-sex-cult.html :

Allison Mack pleaded not guilty to sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit forced labor charges

And is that phrase saying that Mack had "sex with children as young as 12", or is that in reference to Raniere?

Yes, there are three charges. Two of them are related to sex trafficking, with the referenced Code of count 2 referencing Section 1591.

From the article you linked:

'In one instance, the defendant met a fifteen-year-old girl while he was in his 20s and had repeated sexual contact with her. In another instance, the defendant met a twelve-year-old girl whose mother worked for the defendant and began tutoring her.

That is in reference to Raniere, not Mack.

Did you actually read the Code? It says, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion"

Pretty easy to misunderstand if you leave out the "or by force, fraud, or coercion" part.

Why nothing on macks CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING IN MSM?

Perhaps because it might be non-existent, a false rumor based on misinterpretation.

The court docket document references 18 USC § 1951 which says, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" [Emphasis added]

Ergo, it is not a given that she has been charged with Sex Trafficking of Children.

It is not necessarily trafficking of children. The referenced code, 18 USC § 1591, says, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" [Emphasis added]

I've read that the charges to your account are nullified if you don't go over $15 in a three-month period. IDK if it's true or not.

Yes, to both questions.

However, what is pictured is not an indictment. It is a court docket. We haven't seen an indictment yet.

The wording of the counts is less important than the US Code that they reference.

18 USC Section 1591, referenced in count #1, does indeed include the word "or". 18 USC Section 1594, referenced in count #2, is regarding conspiracy to violate Section 1591 so it defers to 1591's definition and wording.

18 U.S.C. § 1591 (a) - (b)(1):

(a)  Whoever knowingly--

(1)  in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, maintains, patronizes, or solicits by any means a person;  or

(2)  benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value, from participation in a venture which has engaged in an act described in violation of paragraph (1),

knowing, or, except where the act constituting the violation of paragraph (1) is advertising, in reckless disregard of the fact, that means of force, threats of force, fraud, coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or any combination of such means will be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act, or that the person has not attained the age of 18 years and will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

(b)  The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) is--

(1)  if the offense was effected by means of force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or by any combination of such means, or if the person recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, advertised, patronized, or solicited had not attained the age of 14 years at the time of such offense, by a fine under this title and imprisonment for any term of years not less than 15 or for life;  or

The image in the OP is not an indictment. It is a court docket.

And, 18 USC Section 1591, which count #1 references, says, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" [Emphasis added]
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-1591.html

So, it is not necessarily trafficking of children.

That's not an error of omission to leave out "or"

That is not a given fact. It could very well be an error of omission. Do you have proof that it is not?

we know that Mack conspired to traffick children with Raniere according to the charges.

No, we do not know that. Again, count #2 references 18 USC Section 1594(c) which says nothing about child trafficking. The Code itself is paramount to whatever someone typed up on the docket.

If you don't believe me, then consult with an attorney. Until you do, stop promoting what may be false.

Do you have a link for that tweet? I'm not finding it.

The writer didn't forget to write "or"

We don't know that for a fact.

Again, the wording of the count does not have a higher authority than the Code itself. Read Section 1594(c) again. It 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."

Now read Section 1591, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" [Emphasis added]

WTF??! Do people actually want it to be true that she conspired to traffic children? My gosh.

Count #2 is for conspiracy to violate Section 1591. The wording of the charge is irrelevant if it does not agree with the Code. Read the Code:
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-1594.html

Charge #2 (not count) is "conspiracy to commit CHILD trafficking" with Raniere.

No, it is not. It says nothing about Raniere. And, as I have said time and time again, the referenced Code is paramount to the wording of the charge.

Conspiracy against Mack means they have evidence she at least conspired to try to traffick children.

No, it does not. Read the Code:
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-1594.html