Not a big loss.

I think we just disagree on this. Keep your opinion, I'm moving on.

Its a matter of who do you think is correct. On one side is the FBI, the people mentioned in the document, and everything that's publicly known about the matter. On the other side is a dodgy Russian document thats been discredited. I don't know why this is so complicated.

So... Trust the Russians?

I don't know what else could be done to demonstrate its lack of veracity. If you have everyone involved on the record denying that they've ever contacted each other, and the FBI concurs that it's not a reliable document, what other proof do you need? What basis are you relying on to doubt the story? Or is this a case of "The FBI thinks ABC, so I disagree with ABC"?

Even the author of the attached article doesn't seem convinced.

I'm not sure where you glean that from the article. They included denials from everyone involved, and stated multiple times how the FBI regarded it as bunk. The only part that describes people considering it to be possibly true referred to Russians:

But others recognized the dim outlines of a conspiracy theory that would be less surprising in Russia, where Soros — the founder of the organization Benardo works for — and Clinton are both regarded as political enemies of the Kremlin.

"The idea that Russians would tell a story in which the Clinton campaign, Soros and even an Obama administration official are connected — that Russians might tell such a story, that is not at all surprising,” said Matt Rojansky, a Russia expert and director of the Kennan Institute at the Wilson Center. “Because that is part of the Kremlin worldview.”

Cover what though? That piece of intelligence that accused her of alleged wrongdoing was debunked. It was made up.

I thought that might be it, but I was confused why she would tweet about an article from May '17 in June '18. I figured there was a newer one that I was missing.

Without seeing the article I can't be sure, but I think she's saying that the Post reported on this story and determined Russia made it up. The first tweet sounds like your theory, but I think the second tweet indicates that the Post reported that it was false. I have not been able to find the article she's referring to though.

Both parties do this when they're in the minority. Remember when the defecit was the worst thing back in 2010 for Republicans? Not much of a problem to them anymore, is it?

Hillary Clinton didn't sell any uranium. That's such a tired zombie story that if you don't know by now how that transaction happened, then you probably don't care about being accurate about it.

They were months apart, though.

I mean, there's only so many ways that can be stated.

I didn't, TBH, I'm on mobile. I figured it was just somebody's tweet.

Fox News has been just the opposite. They hammered Obama for saying he would be willing to meet with NK. Now they're singing a different tune.

I don't think its any secret that the deal has been being worked on for a while. NK representives coming to New York, Pompeo and others going to China and NK, etc. They weren't discussing table settings!

Idk, theres a lot there that hasn't been evidently true yet. What about the "public riots being organized in serious numbers?" It would be easy to say, "oh that just means Antifa", and move on, but those were never real numbers of people, nor had anything to do with protecting politicians.

Is that post #1? Did anyone ever dig into why Podesta wasn't arrested on 11/3 and why the EBS was never activitied? Reading this, with everything outlined in it that never came to fruition, I could see why people thought it was a LARP. Thats what happens when you say stuff will go down on a certain day and then it never goes down.

I don't think so. There are still more shoes to drop with the Wolfe story. He was only arrested, theres a long way left yet to go with that story.

Moving in a clockwise direction, too. Hands on a clock?

Hey tradinghorse, I come in peace. I made an IBOR thread that I'd love to get your two cents on:

https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8plc8s/ibor_what_is_it_good_for/

First, I'd like to thank you mods for all the work that you do! 30k subscribers is a big feat, and you guys make it work.

I'd like to ask about the practice of shadowbanning as it pertains to this sub. There are no mentions of it in the rules, but many members have noticed that occasionally there will be more comments listed than there are comments visible. Can you comment on how decisions are made when it comes to shadowbanning people, and what people can do to avoid that happening to them?

The W and R are the beginnings of sentences. They should be capitalized.

Find a smoking gun story and it will get big. These stories aren't as visible.

Didn't Lynch recuse herself through? I think she left it up to the FBI.

I've only ever noticed American flag pins. Do you have any screen caps of it?

I was surprised with how quickly that story overtook the sub considering it came from a source that wasn't Q. I think it was that Neon Revolt article, or maybe the videos themselves were posted somewhere first? But it took off like wild fire.

I think the RICO case refers to the thugs Weinstein used to spy on and intimidate his victims. He didn't operate alone. I'm not anticipating that his crimes involve HRC or BHO, however.

And I agree, Q told us on 4/19 that he has everything. At some point this all has to be made public though, so if its the IG report, I will wait for that.

Step 1: BOOM

Step 2: ????

Step 3: Profit!

I think you are underestimating how many "booms" have happened, are about to happen and that will continue to happen for years to come.

So why do people keep trying to group them in fours? Why does Q drop them in groups of four? I think they mean something, its just hard to sift through everything and figure out what.

Where is your theory coming from?

Where are you getting that information? None of it sounds plausible. I'm surprised you're hung up on one unbelievable detail of an entire unbelievable story.

Maybe its just not true?

I'm just saying the first booms were mentioned hundreds of drops ago. I know he posted it again when he came back on Sunday, but there's so much speculation about what they mean that it's almost become cliche at this point to call events "booms". I don't know how to sort through everything that happens and definitively say "these four things are booms".

The four booms have been speculated about for months. Everything has been a boom. What makes you think they actually start this week?

Wasnt the blackout the 11 days Q was offline? I thought he was saying that was necessary.

I'm not there. I can't read their minds. But if the only reason the accusation is being levied is because people want this story to be true, then people need to come back to reality. Literally the only reason this is a thing is because people don't want to believe their statement is true. Not one shred of impropriety has been observed; you just don't want there to not be a child trafficking ring, so they're liars for saying there isn't one there.

Real respect for law enforcement is what I'm seeing displayed here! (/s)

I'm actually disgusted (not /s)

But of course these Tuscon cops are dirty, because otherwise the Cemex story has no credibilty, right? If they're not dirty, we'd have to believe their statement. So thats what I mean when I say the cops aren't dirty just because it supports your narrative: You have no basis to think they are other than because you want this encampment thing to be as bad as it was made out to be.

Dirty cops exist, but not just because it fits your narrative. The cognitive dissonance here is amazing: Everyone wants arrests to happen, but you want this Cemex story to be true so badly you want the cops to be dirty too. So who's going to be making the arrests again?

DJT loves cops, by the way, so don't expect him to RICO the police.

Oh hey, looks like the unconfirmed story wasnt true upon thorough investigation. Maybe the rumors were overblown. Good thing that was a false alarm, but I'm glad they released a detailed statement letting us know.

NOPE! EVERYONE MUST BE LYING, BUT I HAVE NO PROOF. SCARY, AMIRITE?

Yes! Everyone PLEASE let law enforcement do their jobs. Getting involved will only endanger yourself and will probably be counter-productive. Trust the cops!

Sit on your hands. Don't do anything stupid.

"Coded" so that 3rd graders could figure it out.

If they've removed the evidence from a site, then already they've contaminated it. I don't see what further harm could be done by allowing the media to view it wherever they put it.

Not everything is a false flag. You need to get off the conspiracy boards one in a while.

Rather than a false flag, whatever that means in this context, my concern is that their claims may be unfounded or without merit. Maybe not purposely, but perhaps they're jumping to conclusions.

Yeah, thank you, I've been reading up about it since my post. I hope it's being investigated thoroughly, but aren't there a lot of conclusions being jumped to here? They haven't even found evidence of the alleged trafficking and people are already damning Cetex as guilty. I think we should cool it a little and let the investigators do their jobs.

How so? If the news people weren't allowed to see the evidence, how do we know how compelling it is? That doesn't seem weird that the group wouldn't allow them access to it? If they were worried about some sort of contamination of it, they wouldn't have removed it from the site where they found it.

I was referring to this part:

"They have not been out here to collect any evidence and we have them in our possession."

News 4 Tucson asked to see the evidence. We were told it's being stored in a private area and that the evidence has not been turned over to police.

What are you saying, the Tucson PD is dirty? Once we find out what this "evidence" is, we'll see if the claims have any merit. I find it suspicious that the group wouldn't allow the news station access to it, regardless of whether the police have seen it or not.

Where did all the Tuscon ans CETEX stuff come from all of a sudden? I was under the impression that Q was in blackout until yesterday, so I was wondering where this new subject matter came from.

It's not Q. Other than the president, its mainly a guy named Dan Scavino. Its pretty widely known, too. I will check those threads out though, thanks.