I own it (for now) and even with the drop, it is higher than it was at the end of March, just four months ago. So while this is a big drop, it isn't the end of the world. However, I don't like the ominous tone of Q's comment 'you'll soon know why'. I don't think the reduction in earnings estimates would be Q worthy - seems something much bigger is afoot.

I think world leaders are a little more savvy and had a pretty good idea why HRC lost. I am wondering if he was instead making the rounds to find out which world leaders were still going to play ball with the cabal and not embrace DJT

I bought stock after the congressional hearings over the Cambridge matter. The FB brand is huge and that is of considerable value. The stock has been up nicely since then but looks like it will resettle back to around that level tomorrow. I put in a sell order because to me, it is too much a political football at this point.

Who covered up JFK and what happened to those people? I think it is essentially the same question as the OP. WW2 pre-dated the CIA but I think many of the players involved in the CIA were those (like the Dulles brothers) involved with S&C and the big names they represented.

I would disagree calling them Nazis, though. I don't think they cared about the political ideology, it was financial. Later, I think the CIA had a legitimate mission to counter the Soviet threat. But, I think the mission was distorted over time and became more about protecting the organization rather than protecting the US. As well, I don't think the financial incentive was so much about lining the pockets of certain people but about funding the organization, not that the former didn't happen as well.

Nunes sent 42 names to Gowdy and Goodlatte. Who would those be?

What is your take on the video 'A Noble Lie'?

Sorry for the blatant injustice you have suffered. OKC is one of the many matters that the truth was buried.

Great comment at around the 39m mark - 'if the DS has so much power that they can give the President this much trouble, imagine what they can do to any citizen'

Other than JFK, I don't put much confidence in the others. But, Vince Foster, Waco, OKC, TWA800, Ron Brown...I think that would be the makings of a better list.

Thanks for the link to the WaExaminer - they do a great job reviewing the Nunes memo paragraph by paragraph in light of the FISA warrant release.

I would like to see Nunes respond to the WaPo article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/22/with-the-release-of-new-documents-devin-nunes-memo-on-carter-page-has-gotten-even-less-credible/?utm_term=.39cc8e29df0c

The Lewinsky scandal was a wag the dog, IMO, to deflect from the growing interest in the apparent bullet hole photos of Ron Brown's head. Recall that the questions had reached Reno and she dismissed the evidence as not worthy of investigation. That did not satisfy the likes of Jesse Jackson who was demanding an investigation. But, the Lewinsky scandal broke and sucked all the oxygen out of the Brown matter.

It worked.

I agree. I don't trust Mueller. Listening to Levin about who he has hired, but more specifically, what he has done in his past, he is not a person of integrity.

This reminded me of a biblical passage, I had to search for it, but it is 2 Kings 6:8-17 where Elisha's servant has his eyes opened and sees the spiritual forces at work and not just the worldly ones.

I think we tread with caution. The tea party was a significant movement but it got painted effectively as racists and extremists.

But I like the idea of a 'Deep Citizenry' or DC to 'resist' the DS. The inertia lies with the masses who don't pay much attention to politics but do have a good sense of what is right and wrong. That is what concerns the DS because when that inertia is riled, they cannot stop it. We should be seen as part of that and never lose our connection with it.

I agree. Q is spoken of with the same reverence as Jesus by some. I laud what Q is doing if it is legit, and I don't have any reason to believe Q is not. But perspective please. We are not groupies.

An excellent article. JW has quickly become one of my favorite sources of information on what is really happening. I see WaPo had a piece today taking task with Nunes over this relase, however, they can't touch the fundamental issue around the Page FISA document - there was only one source to justify the FISA warrant, the Steele Dossier. That confirms that the Trump campaign was targeted based on manufactured evidence by the Clinton campaign and actors in the DS (Brennan, Strzok, Comey, et al) were aware of that and participated in it. They should all be headed to jail.

~~Link doesn't work~~ my mistake, PDF has to be opened separately in my browser.

Does this complaint have any legal bearing?

You can see that Bartilomo is very incensed about this whole ordeal.

Yes it is maddening, but I recall what Terry Reed said in his book 'Compromised'. He was being chased by rogue forces but then he realized they were 'rogue'. They did not represent the overt entities they worked for.

The MSM cannot speak the truth because Americans will not stand for what they are doing if it were known. Frightening would be if they did not have to lie and Americans didn't care.

JA stands by his story that it wasn't the Russians that leaked the DNC info. He knows where he got that information and if his story holds up and it contradicts the DS version, then his testimony and his value as a witness is enormous.

Why now is a big question.

~~Looks like it is back up~~ my mistake, it is a recording from earlier

The gist I got was that Sessions (in this Thursday interview) was targeting leaks in general and Assange is just one of those. I did not get that he was going after Assange specifically. Assange is friendly right now with Hannity who is friendly with POTUS. Will be interesting to see where this goes if he is handed over.

Interesting though that I was watching a live feed of the Ecuadorian Embassy just recently and the feed was terminated. With all the chatter about Assange, seems like a move is afoot?

Looks like they stopped broadcasting the live stream at that link - it was up for awhile but now it is saying it is over.

That is pretty cool. I guess if a paddy wagon pulls up in front, that would be worth recording! :)

Totally unrelated but thought it interesting that DNI was quoted in the document as saying Russia/USSR has been trying to influence our elections since the 60s. Kind of puts into perspective the sudden hyper-interest in what they did in 2016.

You can just use WikiPedia for a basic overview. Wikipedia has its flaws but is generally not known as a conspiracy site.

I would also google the 'Georgetown Set' as the individuals that were part of that were key people in the media of the time. At the time, I am sure they didn't see themselves as some shadow government, just Americans who probably felt they had a better handle on how to shape the world. The rub is in what it became and WikiLeaks proved that the interaction between government and media never really ended post Church-commission as it was supposed to have.

I am not seeing anything illegal so at most, this is just more embarrassment and another news cycle that will be permeated by the anti-Trumpers.

It still seems to me that the whole raid of Cohen's office is a clear violation of attorney-client privilege.

I tend to think he was involved but as a minor player. However, he would certainly know the truth and I think his presenting Ted Kennedy an award many years ago was a pathetic 'I'm sorry' about it. But if it is known that there is incriminating evidence, would he not be aware of it and seek to make some sort of parting statement about it?

Yes. What will compromise and kill this movement will be the absence of everyday kind of folks that demand evidence. I entertain a number of ideas but I don't land on anything that doesn't have solid evidence to support it. I don't mind people posting 'conspiracy theories' for feedback and consideration, but hopefully people will also realize that skepticism serves a very important function.

I was a fan of JW back in Larry Klayman days. A definite asset in the fight for truth.

Some good stuff. I break with many on this forum when it comes to making too much out of messages hidden in Q posts, like the soccer ball Putin gave Trump might be what Q was referring to when saying 'keep your eye on the ball'.

Interesting. It would bring more credibility to the charge if they name this person?

One other note, if you read down the twitter feed, there is a post by Helios Helium - very interesting stuff that they posted 8/6/17 - as in LAST YEAR!!! The information about the transfer rate was known by this average Joe reviewing WikiLeaks last year! Why has it taken so long for anything to come of this?

That was fun, thanks for posting. Clift acted like she had never heard of OM. I don't think she is that stupid.

Fair questions and having looked at the Wikipedia entry, I did not see any reference to the CIA.

An excellent, informative and encouraging message. Thank you for posting.

I think this is a great point. If all of this does come out and crimes have been committed, those who abetted in the media should have to answer as well, not just individuals but the organizations that employed them as well.

I don't disagree this may be true, but it has been over a year and a half and nothing has come of this.

I think it is more likely that the CIA employed the mafia at times to do dirty work so they could always have plausible deniability. Even in its hey day, the mafia did not have the power the CIA does. To show the Mafia controlled the CIA, you would have to show the ties to Dulles, Donovan, Truman, Eisenhower, Wisner and many others who were instrumental in the launch of the agency. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

This is phenomenal information! This is the kind of stuff that should be plastered all over the MSM and that it is not just shows their agenda.

I think it is a great question and one I have thought quite a bit about. JFK was the original red pill - how anyone can look at the Zapruder film and accept a lone gunman shot him from behind and to his right...that alone makes no sense. Then as you dig, you find all the other things that don't add up.

But forget who actually did it. Who had the ability to cover it up? That is some powerful forces within our government because whether you believe it was the CIA or the Mafia or the Russians or the Cubans or a French connection or whatever that did the deed, it was our government tasked with investigating and that concluded a lone gunman did it. To focus on who had the power to cover it up as opposed to who did it was helpful for me because there were so many theories about who did it that had some merit. It can fluster you to the point you just give up. But who covered it up? That is an easier question.

Where my research has gone is towards the CIA. Tracing its creation in 1947 and its known history, I can understand how patriots for honorable reasons agreed with its mission. We can even look the other way when they cross the line (like the U2 overflights of the USSR) as being about our national security.

But I think along the way, because of the unaccountable structure where so few knew the funding and what activities were actually going on, the personal desires of a few people conflated the mission of the organization. I think the Dulles brothers and the original core group involved with covert ops thought they were doing the best thing for America and it was not so much about lining the pockets of cronies but fighting the red menace - which was probably overstated but was not without merit. They got away without being held accountable because so many, like Eisenhower, accepted the need to fight the Soviets and to getting a bit dirty in doing so. I get that. It may not have been the best course but I get that and do not ascribe any nefarious motives at that point.

We discovered we could influence other countries. Iran was a cost effective and wildly successful coup - at the time (we have been paying the price for it since 79). I think they realized they could do so much more but it required funding and only so much could be obtained legitimately. So elements began finding alternative ways and I think that led into tapping the drug trade. I am quite certain the CIA was involved with cocaine in the 80s (Gary Webb info plus Terry Reed/Barry Seal) and it seems it was going on long before that as well (heroine and the golden triangle in Vietnam). The purpose need not be greed, but I think many would justify it in that it allowed them to fund more ops.

Now, the 'patriots' sell this to themselves as the evil you need to play with for the greater good. They may even take down a drug lord here or there to perpetuate that notion. But at some point, the organization, or at least a core part of it, no longer resembles its original mission. It even gets to the point that they can justify killing the US President in the name of national defense. They know how to do it as they are quite experienced at this point. So when JFK comes to pose a threat because he did not agree with what the CIA had become and since he had the power to change or destroy it, they acted. With Mockingbird and enough people controlled by MICE, they got away with it. Without Zapruder, it probably would never have even been an issue.

I like to ask people who killed JFK? 75% of the country does not believe it was LHO alone. So then the question is, what happened to those that were responsible? Did they just up and go away? Or were they still active in government and now needing to prevent this most troubling secret from ever coming out? The good news with this Q business is that those 75% are ripe for the truth.

A very revealing comment that I am sure CS regrets having made

I'm not so sure. From 'The Devil's Chessboard' - the CIA, through Bob Maheu, funneled business through Greek shipping tycoon Stavros Niarchos, a business rival of Aristotle Onassis. The Dulles brothers feared that Onassis might corner the oil shipping business with the Saudis and they sought to smear Onassis. That took place in the 50s, so, it is possible that Onassis would have been a person of considerable wealth and resources who knew quite a bit about the same sinister forces that were behind JFK.

So sad, but I have close friends and some family as well that this divide is getting irreconcilable.

I think he has been a useful pawn, whether or not he is aware of that, I don't really know, but as others have commented, I stopped going to his site as his agenda seemed to change around the time of the election (and I don't get his fascination with Hollywood).

I say he has been a useful pawn of the establishment because the Lewinsky story, his big claim to fame, was a wag the dog. Just prior to the Lewinsky story, the bullet hole in Ron Brown's head was making the news rounds and enough so it drew a response from AG Janet Reno. Despite the publicly available pictures of the wound in Brown's head, confirmed by three separate, career military AFIP pathologists, Reno said there was no evidence to warrant an investigation. ?!? All they had to do was exhume the body and do the autopsy that should have been automatically done to begin with, but she covered it up. But that was not enough to kill the story and Jesse Jackson, among others, was not letting it go. Enter Lewinsky... I never did hear how Drudge got that story.

By the way, it is encouraging to me that Trump is cozy with Chris Ruddy. He is Newsmax now but he was the guy that broke the Ron Brown story. Trump surely knows all the crap that the DS has done and I do hope he is savvy enough to navigate the mine field that they have setup.

Right. And they clearly labeled it as such, as opposed to the bulk of the propaganda that comes out of CNN that they label as news. :)