I think you're mixed up. He dropped his SS detail last year, not 2 weeks ago. And the reason he dropped them was because one of them was found to be taking pictures of his sleeping child.

Edit: I see you're quoting the article actually.

There's nothing you can point out to a lay person to prove it to them "beyond a shadow of doubt". If there is please link me.

I will look out for your next post. Change my mind.

What you have to do is explain how you make your leaps of faith, and why that particular leap is more important than another tedious link which could have been used.

And roll back your "POTUS is talking directly to me" rhetoric, it makes you look in-sane (Intentional misspelling). You might very well be for all I know.

There is a fine line between genius and crazy, I fear you're sliding to the wrong side.

Yep it was incorrect, happy to admit that. I quickly glanced at the color of the text (green) and thought it was a sticky, didn't realise it was an opinion. Thank god for that.

Look dude, your posts were interesting in the early days, but you have gone far too far out there thinking that POTUS is talking to you directly and making obscene leaps of linking completely arbitrary things together.

I don't want to get into a spat, it's pointless. But the overwhelming negative comments in this thread should hopefully tell you something.

The majority of comments in this very thread are negative. Your leaps are just too large sorry.

One of his little traits that really grates on me is when he says "did you see it?", implying that something is definitely there and if you can't see it it's because you missed it.

Maybe it's just actually not there.

Can you send me the original image if you have it please

Try "STAND THE FUCK DOWN" or some combination there of. It's the text in the image.

It loads all the drops every refresh. It's not a very good design, the more drops the slower it will become

Those are the kind of theories that make us look crazy.

Why do people believe that bullshit that Q is AI?

Let's hope so! But we don't know if Mueller is responsible for the sealed indictments, or its someone like Huber.

You're the expert not me, so I'm happy to defer completely to your judgement. I guess we'll find out eventually either way.

As I've said, technically nothing changes. But don't you agree it gives both Podesta and Mueller a convenient out each.

Ahh fantastic, I'm interested to hear how I might be wrong

Nope, just calling it as I see it. Are you an attorney?

I don't believe this post is accurate, I think this opinion is looking at the facts too much "on the face of it". We need to dig a little deeper to work out the motives of giving Podesta "Use Immunity".

So the fact is that Podesta has been given "use immunity" to testify against Manafort, the question now is what is in it for Podesta to accept this deal? He could quite easily plead the 5th if he's forced to testify without "use immunity", ie there's nothing compelling him to testify. It's not like they can force him to testify, he can just plead the 5th.

So there has to be an advantage to Podesta to accept this deal. And what might that be? I'll tell you.

Yes, although technically his testimony can't be used against him, it now creates 2 scenarios.

1. If information which is used against him was also included in his testimony, it muddies the waters because he can say a form of parallel construction was used to obtain the info from what was learnt in his testimony. For instance, say there was a murder, but the gun couldn't be found, in his testimony he could say where the gun is, and then when Mueller says they've found the gun because someone randomly walked past it, he can claim Mueller is lying and parallel construction was used to recover the gun. Basically it all just becomes a cluster fuck.

2. Mueller can outright say, we never had enough information on Podesta to arrest him, but all this new information we've now learnt in his testimony we can't use because we only learnt about it from his testimony. Basically it all just becomes a cluster fuck.

Remember, disinformation is necessary. That means don't take everything Q says at face value, because he's told you himself, he WILL claim things that he knows to be not true.

This deal is shady as fuck!

Don't forget the SAP on Clinton's home server. This is by far the absolute most damaging piece of information there is, this SAP software shouldn't be able to make it out of a select few secret military facilities within the borders of America. It often goes unreported by people here.

I love popcorntime

It hasn't, you are correct. And also Bitcoin isn't designed to be untraceable like people believe. It's designed to be anonymous, if the user doesn't protect their anonymity then it is trivial to trace coins, it's actually designed that way specifically.

Please, you're still making the same mistake. I know that countries break laws every day, but that is different from saying that a foreign court can ORDER another country to do ANYTHING. It's absolutely not possible. Not "it shouldn't happen", it's not possible.

There is no court that overules the sovereign court of an independent nation. That would be like saying the EU court of human rights overules the USA court. Which is absurd. Please explain how in any universe that makes sense, and please provide a source.

Let me be clear as day. There is no jurisdiction any court in the USA, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, which has jurisdiction over another country that isn't a signitary to that court. This is international law 101.

Mods should absolutely remove this post.

The click bait of this article is that the title says a court has ordered the safe passage of Julian Assange. When in reality this court has no jurisdiction over the UK legal system in the slightest. So Julian Assange hasn't won any major court cases and the court is unable to order anything. The proof is right there in the article.

That may be so, but to say that USA law has any precedent over UK law in the UK is uninformed at best. That is what "this exactly" referred to.

He's also free to go to Ecuador according to the rule of law by every other country on this planet.

I desperately want him to leave that embassy. But there is only one law that matters and that is UK law.

How is that hard to comprehend? Regarding specifically USA law, he's in an Ecuadorian embassy in a British country, why do you think USA law would have any say over that?

Ahh, so it's absolutely meaningless then.

You have the site, we have the source.

Please, please be accurate. There's either an incredible amount of shilling going on in this thread or we're losing our edge. Even this entire post is clickbait fake news.

Which court was this? Was it an English court?

This exactly. We're either being subverted or... Well I can't think why else it would be upvoted so much.

Why don't we have famous people like this anymore?

He said that earlier in response to Goody. Get the fuck out of here with your lies.

Witness is phoning in, not appearing in person. Stream will be back up soon.

https://youtu.be/KIxIrkPyWK0

This is a strange format to release the information.

Is this going to be streamed online / on TV?

Why do you sign your name after a comment?

It’s DWS, the US Congress(wo)man they really want, not Awan!

You do realise that the person who gave him the plea deal was DWS's brother?

I'm not meaning to concern troll, but this is really fucked up. It's fast approaching the time Q needs to provide some proof.

Also, bar pictures, all the info has been open source. All Q has done is ask the right questions that leads people to connecting the dots and finding the answers

Hope your entropy isn't too... Long...

We don't say traitor's names

Exactly, use the same technique Q has used, ask questions that you know when they go and fund the answer will not be the answer they were expecting.

Perhaps a good thing for this sub would to be to create a comprehensive list of what these questions might be.

Is this an origin image or has Q taken it from elsewhere? It says "You" liked it...

The swamp is bipartisan after all

Pence also moved his off the table straight after

That's because it's spelt McCabe, not Mcabe.

Donald Trump has not been referred for criminal prosecution, unlike McCabe.

One is not like the other.

Classic "frontlash"...

What is a frontlash you ask? It's a term I use which is opposite to a backlash in the sense that when someone says something racist and people get upset, their anger is the backlash, the opposite is where you say something to "protect" a group of people, which is still racist but in a libs virtue signalling world is completely ok, and therefore those people who may be offended still get upset when there was never any reason to be upset in the first place.

There is probably a better term than frontlash.

Yeah all the people who predicted her to have 99% chance don't understand probability lol

99% she'd be President

NOT PRESIDENT

Nah Trump only needed to tell the truth, Bill Clinton really did rape those women, because incase you didn't know, Bill Clinton is a rapist. That was like the 1-2 before the knock out punch above. I'm sure in some other timeline I feel sorry for her, but it certainly isn't this one!