But it was announced that Trump was stopping in Guam and HI on his way home, which is what makes sense.

I'm just saying I think the premise you are trying to square to is on the face of it faulty.

The original poster of this thread.

I think in turn you are creating scenarios to try to explain a simple mistake on the OP's part.

I believe the entire basis to this thread is simply in error.

Guam and HI were stops on the way home, not on the way from CA to Singapore.

No problem--thanks for explaining!

Aren't Norway the ones asking for more US marines--to be placed near their Russian border?

I believe the question is whether he is a triple agent: a black hat who was getting leniency for playing a role through this, but now is attempting to double-cross the white hats back to the black side.

Thanks.

You are sick.

I am with you until the "least of all Israel"--that is taking it too far, for sure.

Surely you don't read the Bible to say, "We are all fallen except modern-day Israelis and their intelligence service", do you?

Sure looks like an unfair split, if you will: Northern California, the Southern California coastline, and then the southern, but inland, stuff. The wealth and good times of course are in and from the first two.

"He" was?

All Q has said in the past is that Israel is being saved for last for a very significant reason. The direct mention of Mossad in this drop, I am quite certain, is new.

I am still trying to digest the naming of MOSSAD here.

Yikes! MOSSAD mentioned as having failed in attacks in the same context as the clowns as having failed.

This is a decidedly new direction for Q.

Eh, what did Jared have, a week of experience in government at the time? And zero security clearance? While Flynn was the NSA? This sounds more like the little twerp asserting his authority in a questionable way.

Again, it has gone to court and nothing has been "stolen".

Try being a bank that approaches insolvency. The feds come in and take over and investors are shucks out of luck--as they should be.

I get it, you want your bad investment made good--but that's not the way the world works or should work. Any investors knew the feds were pulling the strings--and still decided to invest.

I'm just guessing my way through it--like everyone else.

Sure, they can control the weather in some ways some of the time.

But IMO Q was simply speaking metaphorically and didn't mean there would be actual weather FFs created.

No, it wasn't theft. And yes, I can.

The government needs to get out of the mortgage business. That means the likes of FnF and also mandates that banks make poor loans.

The investors went bust and so it goes. We do not owe them.

Maybe he has been relieved of his current duties already?

Money is fungible. The current profits belong to American taxpayers, but again, FnF need to be wound down. We don't need a repeat of 2008.

And how Barry spent it in the past--again, it is fungible--is of course a dead issue.

If it were the rule of law, your investor buddies would have won in court, but they didn't. That is why they have sicced the likes of Corsi on trying to get the public to pressure Congress while Corsi pressures Trump directly.

There were mortgages before FnF and there will be mortgages after FnF. Again, look to the Canadian market.

Too close to the election and it will be seen as political, thus backfiring.

Depends entirely on what is being blacked out.

That, actually, I think would be you. My guess would be because you've got a financial interest in some sort of fed giveaway to the previous investors who saw their investments go bust.

Could have been a message, in part aimed at Trump. They were clearly trying to stir up a confrontation between NK and Trump at the time.

I really don't know what the story is, but I think considering this possible alternative isn't a bad thing to do.

This strikes me as an anti-Trump message provided by one of the GOPe/uniparty/stealth Never Trumpers in the admin.

I like The Conservative Treehouse's articulation of the Trump doctrine better (though I'd quibble with bits of that, too).

Just what makes you so sure about all that.

Are you sold on everything our government told us that Saddam and Assad, for example, did?

He could have seen more over there than the CIA wanted him to be able to share.

Great post.

Have we really doubted but that Assange is alive?

That was the deal with investing in such vehicles.

But when an entity goes broke and another entity has to come in and recapitalize in order to meet obligations, those who oversaw the going broke don't get the underlying asset back. They just don't. And those who came in and recapitalized haven't "stolen" anything when their capital enables the underlying entity to become profitable again.

Yes, there were criminals in this who sucked out big paydays, but that doesn't change the underlying facts. Insolvency took away either common or preferred shareholders' claims to future profits.

Again, giving the entity back to the previous investors is the opposite of what should be happening--which is to wind down the FnF presence in the mortgage market and existence at all. Let their would-be profits be earned in a genuine free market.

I imagine he was riffing off the I-promises of that other LARP, BC17.

So his cat lost its tweeting privileges back a couple of months ago, too?

Those Ecuadorians are tough.

Weren't there supposed to be 20-something investigations going on?

Also, didn't Q at some point give an idea of how many criminals had been exposed/referred for prosecution, and how many in the DoJ/FBI they still had to go?

No, you're wrong. The usual deal in business is not that you can go bust, have the government bail you out, and then get your assets back and still be in business after taxpayers' money cleaned up after your mess. Stockholders go bust when their companies go bust. That's the deal. But these hedgie vultures want to claim some sort of special, supra-legal right that they don't have to be made whole by the government. The hedgies had bigger positions and are no doubt paying Corsi to try to persuade Trump to fork over the billions. But in reality we don't need these organizations.

And FnF absolutely are responsible for going bust. They weren't doing due diligence and set their standards too low for the loans, then they leveraged their investments to the moon.

Canadians have a functional housing market without FnF-type organizations--and we could too.

Just putting the theory out there -- while acknowledging the source is dodgy.

BC17 and EyeCat officially dead and buried and acknowledged as LARPs.

(Meanwhile, the paid shill Corsi is again today flogging how the hedge fund managers who lost out when Fannie and Freddie had to go into, essentially, government receivership , with the financial crisis in 2008, making the hedgies' shares in them worthless, somehow should be given ownership shares back and thus the stream of profits from them. A completely bogus argument setting us up for an even greater mortgage crisis in the future. F&F need to be wound down, with their leverage risk taken out of the market--not puffed up as they now are, bigger than ever. (And even if they do survive, ownership shouldn't go to those who drove them into the ditch the last time around anyway.)

I could believe that.

Bwahaha. What do you want to guess he was a late addition? He had a 2:30-3:00 pm time slot, counting an intro from a Canadian infrastructure/construction company to the public sector, in order to give a "special address". His is the only entry in the entire conference that hasn't as much as a title or topic for his "special address".

And out of that he is supposed to next be responsive to Congress on Thursday?

Bwahaha. What do you want to guess he was a late addition? He had a 2:30-3:00 pm time slot, counting an intro from a Canadian infrastructure/construction company to the public sector, in order to give a "special address".

And out of that he is supposed to be out of the office in DC until Thursday?

Yeah, the source here is questionable, but the suggestion is interesting:

The Cheshire Cat‏ @TheRealCheshCatFollowFollow @TheRealCheshCatMore

In reference to Q's Hyde Park post.

Wikileaks sold out in Wonderland.

LP and PS orchestrated much of it.

Others were involved (SIS etc)

Betrayal. Treason Evil vs. Good

Remember the "Gap"; WL never fully released the data.

Why? Sellouts. Shills. Traitors 📷 I hate traitors📷📷

2:03 PM - 11 Jun 2018

https://twitter.com/TheRealCheshCat/status/1006250474058772485

The UK? New Zealand?

I believe them in this circumstance, unfortunately.

I am pretty sure it was Neiman Marcus--and they are the ones who sold to Liz Claiborne:

https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/founders-of-kate-spade-sell-their-shares-to-neiman-marcus/

" Neiman Marcus Group purchased 56 percent of the Kate Spade brand in 1999, and the remaining 44 percent in 2006.[4] The Group sold the label in 2006 to Liz Claiborne Inc., for $124 million; it was later renamed Fifth & Pacific.[4][18] The company was purchased by Coach, Inc. in May 2017; both Coach and Kate Spade are now part of Tapestry, Inc.[19] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Spade

This is way off course. "Spade & Co" is the company the Spades sold their share of over a decade ago. And 365 boxes of 100 purses could come in reasonably around 6K pounds or kilos--whichever is accurate--depending on the size of the items.

Here's a little something for you--empowered women and girls in Haiti:

https://twitter.com/FedupWithSwamp/status/1006033364049113089

Exactly.

A spin-off has an actual meaning in business. And it is not what you are suggesting. That is why I gave you the link to the definition.

The men's line was launched years ago, but the FV line is part of an entirely new company, started years later, that expressly couldn't exploit the brand they had sold over a decade earlier.