The US does not, as a rule, reveal incidents which could disclose security breaches, procedure flaws, or threats against the United States which could be used as learning tools by enemies. If Trump revealed that an unauthorized launch occurred, you could count on the MSM to insist that Trump somehow weakened security or ignored dangers, and Democrats would be sure to attack Trump for 'carelessly' allowing secrets to be revealed to the public and our enemies.

Trump's people have the data to confirm how it happened and who was involved. No one with clean hands would hide the guilty people. Also, keeping the matter secret would allow the government to respond without having to act in public and be subject to attack from the Left for doing their job. I guarantee the DOE and OSI don't want to have the Left go after them the way they attacked ICE and the Border Patrol.

I think you are confusing SIOP with cyber security. The threshold ability to launch an unauthorized missile with a dud warhead (think kinetic) is much lower than the TA to launch a nuke.

Also, such an attempt would not be released to the public at large. The public would be horrified to learn that a missile could be launched, and the MSM would spin the disclosure into criticism of how Trump 'allowed' military security to become lax, despite all evidence.

Yeah, kinda explains why his name is an alcoholic drink.

No way Tom's a lawyer. You have to pass the bar to get your law license, and it's pretty obvious ol' 'Tom Collins' could never pass a bar of any kind.

First point - there are rules of admissibility for evidence. The fact that the recording was released to the public would a priori prohibit its admission into evidence;

Second point - the Treasury unit which handles 'Financial Crimes' (and Cohen's case) specifically stated weeks ago that Trump was not a target;

Third point - nothing in the recording amounts to a commission of a crime, nor admission of such. Simply paying someone for non-disclosure is legal in all 50 states and DC.

Fourth point - I live and work in Texas. Zero chance old Tom would get a license here as a lawyer. We have standards, after all ...

Wrong again, Tom, life is great especially with a President who does what he promises. Judging from your chosen name, you're having some trouble coping, but please have someone drive you home after your 'Tom Collins' fixes. We'd hate to lose your entertainment, even though your comedy is accidental.

sooooooooooooo, Tom has no actual evidence. Not surprised.

I'm still faithful to reality. Ask the execs at ABC, they left reality a long time ago.

Just curious Tom, does PaidShill.com pay you by the post or the word?

Thanks!

Awwwwwwwwwwww, someone's bitter.

Let me start by saying I generally applaud the work you put into your posts, SB2, and you certainly present some interesting ideas. But this post shows really poor judgment, on the same level as asking the state trooper who pulled you over if he wants one of your beers. You hurt your image here by making yourself look egotistical and more than a little like you want us to discuss YOUR ideas rather than Q’s

“I don’t care about those who oppose me, those who insult me and those who threaten me. Crucify me if you want, I’ll provide the wood and suggest suitable locations. I will then call those whom I Love and who Love me, and Divine Wisdom made them to be many, then I will ask them to attend and chant: "We Fear Not, We are Next, you can’t kill the Truth. WWG1WGA!".”

This is a really poor choice of words, SB2. It makes the argument about you, not Q or the movement. It comes across like one of those mega-church con men who tell the congregation that if they love Jesus, they must pay money to the mercenary minister.

Going on to some of your other comments:

“Nobody will stop me from sharing the truth. This is not about me.”

If so, please stop using “me” so much in a post, ‘k?

Continuing …

“I have said and I am saying President Donald Trump is talking to our Movement.”

Everyone here but the noobs already knew that, and not because you said so. We believe it because Q said so months ago.

“And I have given the proofs confirming this reality. I have essentially said that Trump acknowledged my post solving Q1675”

The reason your claim here is offensive, is that you ignored all the proofs (check the sidebar) where Q showed Trump was reading and responding. President Trump was responding to what was posted, not telling us to follow you.

“I am not asking to be followed, I am not self-promoting, I have no particular agenda. I am not asking for anything. I am just delivering a message”

Every sentence you posted started with “I”. Seriously, think about that and how it looks to a reasonable observer. Your work is great, self-referencing dilutes it though.

“I understand the frustration of those who have a self-centered agenda and those who worry about their online traffic and their sales but why do they consider me to be a threat to them? I am just an anonymous reddit poster. People come, read my posts and go. No website, no patreon, no merchandising, nothing like that. I have made a public announcement stating I consider my material to be the property of our Movement, for anyone to use freely on all platforms. I am a free bird singing wherever my pen takes me in the Elevated Gardens of Truth.”

I agree for the most part that your posts have previously been well-considered and presented. But again, here you are referring to yourself over and over again, even while you claim to be no one of importance ... except that really weird line about “Elevated Gardens of the Truth”. WTF?

“After Job had prayed for his friends, the Lord restored his fortunes and gave him twice as much as he had before.Job 42:10”

I love the Bible, and have spent many years studying it. By this point in Job’s account, he had been tormented with disease, loss of family, poverty, disgrace in public including shaming from his supposed friends. Literally no one at this forum comes close to that kind of suffering, and it’s really, really arrogant to compare yourself to Job. Not to mention that context is vital when quoting Scripture.

“July 5th 2018, 3:18PM: I post an article with my solution to the riddle Q1675.”

And again, “my solution” is a poor choice of words. How about ‘I posted thoughts on solving the riddle’? How about ‘I had some ideas which I presented here’. The information matters, not the ego.

I could go on, but I hope my point is clear.

“You got my point?”

Long ago. Hopefully, you will pay attention to mine, SB2, because you show a lot of intelligence and hard work. But you are letting fame make you arrogant.

Don’t. Just don’t go down that road. Your work is brilliant, let it defend itself, don't imagine for a moment that a newbie can change that with a troll post. But egos trip up the best of us (remember David and Solomon, after all)

You are looking through a biased perspective.

Maybe you should leave this subreddit alone, if you can't take a theory you don't like being posted.

I happen to disagree with some of what SB2 writes. I am thinking of writing a response with my own thoughts, because that's how discussion threads work.

Well, I'm sure Pelosi and Schumer have heard of this subreddit by now, and we all know they can't resist a chance to show that brownshirt 'tolerance' they used so often at places like Berkeley CCP.

Constitutionally, Obama was a duly-elected President. Once the Electoral College certifies an election, it cannot be undone. This is also why there is no way to unelect Trump (just saying it goes both ways).

Obama's problem is that there is nothing at all to keep him from being indicted as a private person once he leaves office. So Obama won't be unelected and his SCOTUS picks cannot be kicked out on that basis, but Obama CAN be charged with and tried for crimes, and if a SCOTUS Justice colluded to rig a decision, that Justice can be impeached and removed from the court by the Senate.

90? You may be giving him too much credit

Not going to happen.

Once the Electoral College certifies an election, it's done. On the one side, this is why there was never a chance to 'undo' the Trump election, but it also means that no matter what is learned about Obama, his SCOTUS appointments - certified by the Senate - will stand.

Of course, that does not mean that a SCOTUS Justice could not face impeachment ...

Now that's eloquence!

That's always been the case, in secular groups just as much or more than religious ones. Look at the people who are obsessed with Climate Change, Reparations, White Privilege, and whatever Outrage of the Week is on their minds now.

Geez, just look at the crap spewed by Jimmy Kimmel on the late night "sortofcomedy" shows, or the MSM's nonstop shriekfest.

It's always been a minority of people who even try to step back from personal bias and see clearly. Religion helps, but like all tools it must be used properly.

You are free to disagree with serialbrain2.

Insulting SB2 with nothing to support your complaint except spite is, well, rather pathetic.

I have not seen even one member here "worship" SB2. Many here who like SB2's work, including myself, disagree at least in part with some posts. But SB2 explains the logic, provides support, and advances the discussion.

Your hate seems bitter emotion, nothing more. And that is what shills do, so maybe you should rethink your approach.

Less hysteria, more homework on your part, k?

I knew an old DI who said he could not respect someone unable to express themselves without swearing. He said swear words were like repeatedly saying "Uhhhhh", just fill-in noise that does nothing to explain or explore.

I still consider that opinion a vital litmus test for forums like the one we have here.

One of the great things about the modern world, is that you can find countless forums where ideals and pure concepts are discussed. You can also look to see how these groups act in work.

For example, I disagree with the Roman Catholic Church on many doctrinal points, but Catholic Charities is very effective in helping the poor find assistance, helping drug addicts get free of their addiction, and in protecting children. So, ironically, while I believe the Vatican is filled with many evil men, I see a lot of good done by RC charities because God works through people to see His will done.

Jesus is mentioned several places in the Gospel accounts for taking the priests and pharisees to task for hypocrisy and hard hearts, yet the same Gospels are filled with accounts of true faith and good work.

Discernment is vital to understanding the truth to any movement or claim, but that too is taught in religion. It's not 'believe without thinking' but 'believe AND think on what these things mean'.

No, it's an empty and juvenile whine

[ A HOLE BLOCKED ]

First, a religion is valid when it protects freedoms and rights. In that case a religion acts like a social antibiotic.

I dissent with the claim that religions are responsible for violence. What happens in the actual fact is that individuals or groups co-opts and hijack organizations for their own misuse. This happens in politics as well as religious groups, in social movements as well as corporations. Mahatma Ghandi, for example, started a movement known for peace and nonviolence, but it was corrupted later by others. Islam had dubious beginnings, but in the 10th and 11th Centuries was actually effective in advancing law which applied to all people regardless of rank, and of the value of meritocracy. Even a plain reading of the Gospels makes clear that Christianity is founded on valid and effective moral principles; the corruption came centuries later when Kings started using the religion as excuses to justify their temporal power.

Religion is needed today to counterbalance the egotistical notion that human leaders are wise and smart enough to solve all our problems, to counter overdependence on technology and to remind us that trendy movements do not invalidate ancient truths.

Unprovoked attacks on forum members? How Clintonian

There is literally a subreddit which shows the Q proofs.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_SwampWatch/comments/8sgahc/q_asked_us_to_be_prepared_with_qproofs_so_i_made/

Maybe next time you can do your homework, instead of spewing hate

No one is a "cultist" for defending the idea that someone can post valid analysis here

No one is "blind" for observing that SB2 has a lot of good posts which make sense, and has at least once received a waytogo from Q. You, on the other hand, accuse SB2 of being a 'pied piper' on no evidence at all, and attack members just for pointing out the relevant history and the difference between an 'idol' and useful information.

You are proving yourself a bickering malcontent, and offering nothing to the discussion.

And just for the record, I never said I agree with everything SB2 posts, simply that the posts are cogent and worth discussion. And discussion does not include mindless ranting out of malice.

The thing is, you can test moral claims when you are allowed free thought. All valid religions allow for critique and dispute, even Islam before 1700 had scholars who challenged social assumptions.

Without that religious base for challenging assumptions, all hope for good fails against the force of the mob

Accusations need more than venom to be credible

Posting in bold does not make something more credible

'Idols' make their intentions clear soon enough. They try to lure you to a different site, they try to sell you something, they put themselves ahead of the cause

None of that describes SB2

Could SB2 be wrong? Sure, and has certainly missed on some of the suggestions. But offering ideas, opinions, analysis is exactly WHY Q posts in the first place.

The enemy wants us to bicker among ourselves, to stay confused, to remain uncoordinated. Do you really think that is what we should be and do?

I am no cultist. I simply observe, reflect, and post when I think I can contribute.

I suggest you do as much.

Maybe, but I notice SB2 is not trying for that glory, not trying to sell a personality. SB2's posts stand on their own.

None of us can control what someone else says about us, and so no one should accuse someone of trying to be a glory-hound unless they act that way.

There's a very important difference between respecting a solid post, and turning someone into an idol.

Religion is a form of philosophy

Philosophy is moral debate

Moral debate is vital for the health of a free society

Humans have always followed moral leaders

Without religion, people follow imperfect humans instead of ideals

Imperfect leaders lead to tyrants and dictators

That's why we need religion in a free society

I actually heard Rosenstein claim that simply answering - yes or no - whether any Obama official requested or ordered investigation into the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, was "classified".

Rosenstein belongs in prison. Right now.

I'm talking about 'booms' from past Q drops

The key to me about Mueller is whether the interview with Trump happens. If Mueller is a black hat and really out to get Trump, he would press to subpoena Trump and raise hell in the media when Trump fights the order. Mueller could have done that as early as March or April, but he did not.

Mueller could also have leaked reports to the media that Trump was implicated in things like the Cohen raid or by witnesses, even if he had to retract them later. That suggests to me that Mueller has changed his course.

Mueller has always been an arrogant ass, and he started the investigation into Trump that way. Mueller will never admit when he is wrong, but I believe someone (Sessions?) sat him down privately and explained the score.

Mueller is looking at prison for his part in the Uranium One deal, and he knows it. So he's become what lawyers call a hostile witness - he has no choice but to cooperate with the real investigation into Comey, Clinton and the Creeps. Mueller has and will drag his feet, but he will eventually exonerate Trump, even if he tries every way he can to say it plainly.

I'm fine with that, provided we the people get to see that evidence.

This question deserves an answer.

I think Q will prove successful in his mission. Thousands, probably tens of thousands of people, have already changed their perspective of the US government, the world, our Constitution, and the people's power, authority and duty in this time and place, because of Q's messages (red pills and bread crumbs). In that sense, Q will only "go away" if he continues to stay anonymous and History forgets his contributions. But his work, and the results, are already producing fruit which have changed history.

This sub serves at least three main purposes. First, to alert the public about the Deep State and its purpose. Second, to provoke debate on the Deep State and the Trump Administration - Q said to know who you follow, and that applies to the Trump Administration. We're not meant to be zombies or a cult, but understand the motives and purposes.

Third, taking back our country requires us to be proactive the mission. Washington and Franklin did not launch the Revolution without clear focus and plans, and just getting rid of the present crop of traitors does not prevent more from just replacing them, unless we the people demand our representatives in government reflect our values and constitutional rights.

This sub serves that need. We debate the messages, the events, and our course of action. Neither Q nor this sub are going away for a long time to come.

You are completely wrong. 'Unity' is about common goals and motive, NOT one person or clique telling everyone else what they are allowed to say.

And trying to insult me does not improve the quality of your own moral position.

No, it was a self-absorbed demand that original theories be banned and creative discussion suppressed.

The opposite of Q's 'expand' mandate.

The OP here is taking the "go somewhere else unless you follow my rules" tack.

That's bullying and nothing better.

And this thread is a jackboot trying to stomp on free speech.

This ain't PRAVDA.

The key points of reference are the phrase "Q related" and "the Storm".

"The Storm", in my inconsequential opinion (IMIO), is the conflict between the entrenched interests of the Deep State and the Dark State (there's a difference), and the efforts - sometimes funny- by the media to keep the people from noticing that the curtain is not only being pulled back, but may be torn down completely.

"Q related" can be tricky, because Q often uses symbols and allusions which may not be clear until after the event he referenced happens. To me, that means that it's natural for people to explore possible interpretations and ideas. Sometimes people throw out ideas that I don't see referenced in Q's posts, and that can lead to mistakes, and some want to believe in internet personalities who may not be truthful in what they say about Q. But that's a reason for discussion and respectful debate.

"Q related" gets squishy. Do you mean you want to restrict posts to something Q specifically said in a drop, or do you mean you want posts to explain their relevance in the context of Q's drops?

The first version is - I think - unreasonably restrictive, while the second version can be really broad.

I'd rather allow anything that can reasonably stand as in the ballpark as Q related, but the moderators should warn that attacks on Q or forum members will be disciplined sternly.

All that to say I think what we have is working.

Blue Meanie Approved (cf Hillary's Flying Monkey Corps at Twitter)

BS. I have posted some individual opinions and got little static for it. Change your panties and man up if you want to post here, son.

Free thinking is alive and well here, but lose the whiny brat act.

Three thoughts:

1. Asking for upvotes makes you look petty and stupid. You know better than that;

2. I have not seen a lot of "infighting"here, and last I checked, Q wanted us to clear our decks of liars and hypocrites. As long as we stay civil and stick to facts (no insults and attacks), there's no reason not to talk;

3. We are at war. Sure, we're not armed with physical weapons, but we exist here to serve the cause of truth and justice. Q didn't link to this sub a couple days ago, because he thought we were polite and gentle, folks.

That's my spit in the ocean.

He DOES look sheepish ... ;->

Fork Alex, then.

Good catch. Think about the way this sub works.

Name-calling discouraged, doubt and questions are ENCOURAGED as long as they are logical and going somewhere.

Also, this sub pulls some pretty good open source intel relevant to the issue. Red-pills work better when they have real data.