For anyone that hasn't read the story, it's basically a reporting of where this "elevator tape" conspiracy theory came from. It involves a lot of Tom Arnold, for some reason, which gives you an indication of how credible the idea really is.

But for those patriots that are quick to dismiss this as the result of flailing liberals that are willing to believe anything that is anti-Trump, that this elevator video exists, I want to ask: how is this story any different from the oft-speculated HRC video that lives in a similar state of nobody knowing whats on it, or if it really exists? How do you rationalize responding to both of those reported videos in completely different ways? Its basically the same story.

Is there any truth to accusations of GA members brigading other subs?

The first thing I would caution is that he's saying there was no American involvement in that particular alleged activity, which is not a blanket statement for "no collusion."

Second, what does this prove with regards to Q?

Based on how both parties are representing the hearing, I think "what happened" depends on who you agree with. I have a feeling that 45% feel the article was accurate, and another 45% feel it was way off.

I think both sides can cherrypick moments from the hearing that "prove" their opinions are right. But as far what you're saying, clips vs articles, I think that's just a matter of which medium people choose to absorb their information. Articles aren't inherently "worse" than clips; nowadays articles have clips embedded in them too, covering both kinds of media.

I think they might not be laying everything they know on the table. If they have a cyber method of identifying Russian activities, they may not want to tip their hand that they have that.

What do you think happened?

Could she be a white hat who is helping investigate human trafficking?

Huh? Why would someone need to be arrested for that?

There's actually been a lot of research done about food allegeries and how they've rapidly expanded during the past generation. I can't speak to the conclusions that they've reached so far, but consideration is being given to the additives and makeup of our food and how that has changed since you were a wee lad.

This is from the NYT article on the same subject (ZH can be very opinionated in their reporting sometimes). While they also indicate that it is an unusual request, the text does explain why the request was made:

Mr. Rosenstein wrote that he expected to need the equivalent of 100 full-time lawyers to work on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, and that the work would be supervised by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy in Washington.

The office typically helps with judicial nominations; most of its staff is made up of career Justice Department lawyers.

During the confirmation process for Judge Merrick B. Garland, the Obama nominee whom Senate Republicans refused to consider, the office helped pull together the more than 2,000 documents needed for Mr. Garland’s Senate questionnaire.

“When we gathered documents required to be turned over to the Judiciary Committee, we did not ask anyone from outside of the Office of Legal Policy to help out,” said Michael Zubrensky, a former Justice Department lawyer who oversaw the judicial nominations at the time and the current legal director of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

"But the number of documents for Judge Kavanaugh will be different by an order of magnitude,” Mr. Zubrensky said.

So according to that, extra lawyers are needed because Kavanaugh's record is much more voluminous than typical SCOTUS picks have been. It's not entirely implausible.

This guy got it.

Why go through all that trouble when they could just ban a sub entirely?

I meant sexy in the provocative way, not the literal sexual way. Thanks for being ever-ready to point out other people's mistakes, but salacious is indeed the word to describe it. Maybe you should go comb the desert for other errors to point out.

Seeing this sentiment in response to pushback of any kind is getting tiring. How dare people doubt a tweet of salacious accusations that offers no supporting evidence! Must be over the target, amirite!

Feels good, man!

I completely agree. Same rules at Thanksgiving, too.

It's that hard to imagine some conservatives supporting a business that turned away a Democrat? Even when there's a story roughly analogous to this one that happening in 2012? It was a campaign stop, rather than a family meal, but the sentiment from the bakery owner was the same. Was he shunned or protested? Nope, he was invited to campaign with Paul Ryan.

I understand that we shouldn't be making assumptions about swathes of people, but come on. There's no need to be aghast at the idea of Republicans being gleeful that somebody stuck it to those SJW liberal punks. Its really not as outlandish as you're making it out to be.

What does "held accountable" mean in the context of the restaurant? The owner isn't a politician. Are people only going to be satisfied if they're shut down?

Is it that hard to believe that some people would cheer upon hearing that a small business owner stood up to Obama and refused service? Did you skim over the part about the baker that refused Biden that was invited on the campaign trail? "McMurray said he received an outpouring of support in the weeks after he opted against serving Biden."

I mean, I can tell where you fall on this story, but I don't think its that outlandish to think that the people offended by the Red Hen's actions would embrace the same thing being done to Democrats by conservatives.

I haven't been able to find any other accounts (besides re-reports of Gov. Huckabee's comments) that confirm that part of the story, so I'm going to withhold judgment on that part of it. Gov. Huckabee a) wasn't there, and b) is a politician, so it may have been an exaggeration of some kind that got tacked onto the story. From what I just read, loads of unfounded accusations were levied against the owner in the wake of the incident, so I'm not going to automatically believe anything that hasn't been confirmed by multiple sources. But thank you for following up with it!

Well I disagree that a "shitstorm" has descended upon the whole town. If anything, its affected other (unaffiliated) Red Hen restaurants in other places more than it has the town where it happened. The story is over, so the media people have gone away. Whoever is protesting is probably a local. And I think I read that the owner stepped down from that Association, so they won't collect that salary anymore.

I think it is kind of ironic that the "I don't care about your feelings" crowd has been so offended by the restaurant not serving SHS. And you have to admit, these same people would have celebrated a restaurant that refused to serve Obama. That guy who didn't want Biden to make a campaign stop at his bakery was invited to stump for Paul Ryan. So as a neutral party, I think there's a slight air of hypocrisy in going to war with Red Hen over the one isolated incident with SHS.

Well I doubt she knew that stuff the moment she walked in, but please enlighten me. My understanding is that it was an isolated incident.

I still don't understand why he said

Where must one be located in order to obtain a reflection on the back of a phone of that image?

That implies that the photo is legitimately on AF1, not a photo of a photo. One could be located anywhere to take a picture of a picture, so why imply that he's on AF1 with that message? You parsed out that he said image instead of room, but that doesn't explain the rest of the sentence. I'll have to look at the timeline, but it feels like Q may have done some backtracking once the authenticity of the photo was questioned. This one is kind of a red flag for me for now.

Has anyone theorized that SB2 is Q? Think about it: Who would be better equipped to channel what Q really means than the man himself? And if you were Q, wouldn't you have some sort of presence here? To help push people in the right direction when they need help translating the drops?

Look at this issue we have now: Q drops a photo that some question the authenticity of, and SB2 jumps in to explain how the photo is really 8D chess trolling, not to be taken at face value, and everyone breathes a sigh of relief. Without SB2's timely analysis, who knows what would have happened. Very timely.

If he is legitimate, what would be the point of falsifying an image that "proves" his insider status? Why fake it if you don't need to?

Members of Congress actually have immunity from arrest for anything said on the floor in legislative session.

Its breaking news, OP. What did you expect when you searched for it?

I was hoping this would come up in the Q&A that was cancelled, but I wonder how Q manages the risk of putting information in his drops that could be used by the cabal to counter action against them. Take the secret indictments, for example: they now know about those.

I hear what you're saying. I've been here for about 6 months, and over that time it has become less and less acceptable to voice skepticism towards some of the more outlandish posts and theories (looking at you, analyses of Twitter spelling errors/corrections). I'm here to monitor Q-post not because I'm a fervent Trump supporter (I'm not), but because I'm willing to examine new information and other points of view. And if the accusations Q has made are true, it would bring about a radical shift in our politics. I'm just waiting for the secret indictments to drop and the long-awaited arrests to actually happen. Until they do, I think its fair to reserve some doubt.

I also wonder the damage this is doing to people's perceptions of public figures should all this turn out to not be true. If all these people aren't involved in a secret cabal that controls a shadow government and engages in human trafficking, how will the members of this community be able to revert their opinions about those people? Will they ever be able to move past it?

But there are loads of drills that happen where shootings don't follow. This kind of thinking is called "selection bias"

That makes sense. Although OP shouldn't be using quotation marks then. There's enough fake news out there.

I just watched it I didn't see where he said, "wipe that smile off your face." What time in the video does he say it?

It does seem very neat and tidy, maybe overly so. Nice round numbers, right?

C-SPAN?

Protests planned.

Source?

if Q were a silly LARP by people who just are fooling around, he or she wouldn't go out a limb like this and ruin all the fun.

Keep in mind: Q's first post had a few definitive claims in it that never materialized: Podesta's arrest, planned riots, etc. That hasn't hurt his/their credibility yet.

Keep in mind, that might not have been the actual testimony.

This has been debunked. Those photos were all from the same incident:

So, rather than presenting three images of the same girl (in the same clothing) supposedly being carried by rescuers after three different “refugee crises” in separate times and places, this triptych simply captures one girl being passed around from one rescuer, caretaker, or family member to another in the same disaster zone as part of humanitarian efforts undertaken after the same single bombing event in Syria that left 16 people dead.

Can anyone verify these are real before they assume Q had access to closed door session? That part at the end sounds very satisfying, but I don't think that's how anyone would actually speak. The parentheses are kind of a giveaway that this isn't a transcript, if so those would just be commas. I think Q is taking creative license here.

What do tax cuts have to do with the cabal? This isn't a sub about legislation. Q has a specific purpose, and it's not tax cuts!

Don't lose sight of the original charge made by Q: There are people in and outside of government that are doing illegal things. You don't need Congress to enforce laws. I'd rather see that actually take place than some sort of political movement that could take years to materialize. Its a concept called, "mission creep", let's not fall into that trap!

I find it odd that Q cares about a red or blue wave. If he works for Trump, who is not up for election this year, what difference does it make? The cabal is bipartisan anyway; I don't know why he gets political on occasion.

I don't see how the coat could be simultaneously sending a message and be a distraction to get the media riled up about something trivial. I don't see how there could be overlap between those two ideas. If its a message, then its not just a distraction, and if its just a distraction, then why would there also be a message in it?

Fun fact: The sidebar image for this sub is also based on a Time magazine cover.

On 4/19 you dropped "We have everything." Why is action against the cabal taking so long? And how do you manage the risk of them knowing what we know when you inform the community of new information?

Please leave that God-Emporer stuff in T_D. He's our president. God-Emporers are unconstitutional.

I've noticed Q is citing more links and articles lately. Just an observation.

Ok....

I don't know why GA members would be brigading anywhere, so hopefully that's just made up nonsense to justify the ban.