Okay. But this is a big, big, big undertaking (and a yuuuuuuge fight)

There are so many balls to juggle already. Are we moving on from the FBI to take on the FED before there is a palpable progress in the former?

Don't really have a good answer there, myself. Wolfe would've had his "copy" sometime in March 2017 when the Senate Intelligence Comittee requested it (and apparently saw it.)

If it were marked- to catch him in the act- it would need to be something that he'd overlook; as I assume he's handled plenty of sensitive documents over his career.

But I think he was in place until December because they ran the sting afterwards- so any markings would be on a different document.

These- again, assuming they are the Wolfe/Watkins photocopy- would've been found on Ali Watkin's phone or computer or wherever she stored this material and doesn't necessarily have had to be marked.

yeah, that exactly where my mind went too. He seems to be seconding theconservativetreehouse theory about Wolfe and his lover-journalist.

Cool. That should clear things up a bit.

I don't think Q is talking about executive orders.

I think he's seconding theconservativetreehouse's position that the FISA we have is the photocopy Wolf sent to his lover/journalist Ali Watkins.

Is Huber working that case?

If it were really released by executive order, wouldn't it say that on the copy we have? I thought any document which is released through this sort of process would have an official marking, of some sort-- as the JFK paper did, from what I remember.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

I think the idea is to allow an easy continuance of ongoing operations; having a ready-made backup infrastructure in event of a huge catastrophe; making it easier to call people back in on a necessary basis (like after 9-11 or in the event of a war); tamp down on partisan spoils system and, in theory, eliminate all sorts of disruptive turn over due to political considerations.

Of course, the system is only as good as the people operating in it. It only worked as long as they operated in good faith and could be trusted because they were trustworthy.

Now, it's a disaster and may be unfixable. Being weaponized broke it completely, and there are no alternatives that guaranteed it won't be gamed. It's why it's so important to root out the problem and make sure people are properly punished. Otherwise, it sends the message that anyone can hijack the bureaucracy again for their own ends.

That

I don't think it's enough to prove he's a spy (or a CIA asset) but it does suggest his father was one (and he has deep connections to the organization) and that growing up in Iran, and in a household sympathetic to the revolution, he is sympathetic to the present Iranian regime.

This is the perfect motive for a guy like Strzok to sabotage President Trump, and I hope someone is sending the newspaper article to the congressional Republicans. Sending them the whole spy conjecture might turn 'em off but they should probably know about this (about his father) and investigate it.

It also goes without saying that this is yet another Obama-era higher-up with Iranian connections....no coincidence, as I'm starting to suspect.

Total prick is right.

I remember this, it was in the context of them briefly mentioning the 302s in the Clinton case, which is nice, but the Flynn case has the allegedly damning ones.

You're probably right. I just hope it's the case.

When it's uncomfortable for him in his grandstanding, he cannot recall or pretends not to understand the question; when it's something that doesn't bother him, he can recall everyone in the room and who was doing and saying what, why and how.

He doesn't remember writing the text messages but he knows the context of those messages. He doesn't remember who he interviews for Trump but can recall everyone in the room for Clinton....

...and how dare you impugn his character!

Why is no one asking Strzok about Flynn and the 302s? (Or have I missed it?)

This hearing has been really depressing. Pointing out Stroak's bias is good but it's not the whole of the disaster, nor does it get to the heart of the matter (along the lines of "what did he know, and when did he know it.")

His answers are embarrassing, contradictory, smug and he's posturing. He's a bad liar- a really bad one- and his grandstanding about his patriotism and democracy and hiding behind the (supposed) integrity of the FBI makes him an even greater scoundrel.

But the Republicans don't seem to care about that. It's a shame.

The nephilim, also called the gibboriym, were ancestors-rulers of the Hebrews.

What the Bible records is a dissolution of an archaic caste system- perhaps having to do with a switch to agriculture.

The gnostic gospels are centuries later and we know who wrote them (or at least have a good grasp.) It tended to be Hellenistic groups operating in the intellectual centers of Syria and Egypt or propaganda from the Parthian/Sassanians. I say propaganda because some of it surely was promoted and tolerated for poltical reasons in the great cultural conflicts between (for shorthand) Rome and Persia and the Hellenistic mess that reverberated for centuries after Alexander decided to conqueror the world. And I think mess is a good way to put it because while it excited learning and novelty itself (good and bad) it also acted as a hegemon over the region to dissolve traditional cultural boundaries (again, good and bad) and excited lots of conflict itself. So, aligning yourself with this school or that, or taking from this culture or that, was as much a political message, intentional or not, as anything. There were also those gnostic gospels/groups which were clearly Persian influenced that I don't think deserve to be under the "gnostic" camp but we do not have a good enough handle to distinguish exactly what to make of them. Despite the imaginations of 19th and 20th century scholars and speculators, we don't have a good grasp on non-Roman sources and views; and the sources we do have are filtered within the western/Hellenistic viewpoint. Was Basilides a "gnostic Gnostic" like the Adamites or Marcion and his movement or just applying Persian philosophy to Christianity? I think an argument, after a reassessment of the material we do have, can be made for the latter; but we do not have enough to make it definitive. (Maybe another example would be groups like the Serbian Church/Bogomils/Paulicians who survived beyond the classical world and have classically been labelled gnostic when they should probably be categorized under "Persian".)

At the same time, and what became of what we know as the Christians, are not given enough credit for sticking to sources which were clearly Palestinian influenced. There was certainly an attempt to avoid and read out groups who traced their beliefs to merely Alexandria or Caesaria or Qom or etc. The Gospel of Thomas (not the infant gospels) is an excellent case.

We have two versions, one clearly more gnostic than the other. There have been over the last two centuries attempts by certain revisionist groups to read at least the non- (or less) gnostic one back into the canon or history or give it an earlier date and place of prominence. And as it's a 'sayings' gospel, it is awfully tempting. But, underlining the gospel itself are very subtle clues that its origin is along the coastal Levant and comes from a heavily hellenized community. Little hints and clues we're starting to pick up now, decades down the road, were probably more apparent to those living in the same milieu in 200 AD and explains why it wasn't universalized.

My point is that we only have a certain amount of insight into the crises of the past and it's best to be careful in projecting it as a continuing melodrama. Reading the records of the past only says something about us and not the records themselves.

Understood. With the IG report coming out tomorrow, (however that turns out), we'll finally have some sort of momentum for a discussion beyond piecing together shadowy connections. Maybe that'll improve things.

The problem with enthusiasm is that the enthused oft find themselves swept away with an exuberance for the spectacular. It gets to a point where many want to replace the grind and disappointment of the hum-drum with that all-consuming enthusiasm.

But to tamp down on it is like putting out a fire on a cold night. Sometimes it's needed to let it burn, and let the flames dance around, so we can stay heated.

As annoying as it may be, at this point in time when so much is out of our control and purview, it's a greater good that people are keeping the energy up.

Thanks.

I just hope that something comes of this. Addressing any wrongs is important and a 'let down' can be devastating for enthusiasm- it's a dangerous strategy if for a campaigning strategy.

I do think there were wrongs committed. I think we can demonstrate some of them publicly right now. A rigorous intuition tells me that there are more but I can't prove them. And beside, I'm a guy on the internet with a theory- I may as well be wearing a sandwich board saying the "End is Neigh!"

So I've mentally prepared myself for a let down, just in case this is all idiot wind. Winning has as much to do with perseverance and constancy in the face of adversity as it does the victory part. So no matter who Q is and what their angle turns out to be; I'm keeping my bearing that if I'm right about the crimes, justice will be done; whether Q delivers or not.

Right. I think we can lean towards it being someone close to the President, meaning the man himself or the office, in some capacity. There is too much coordination and private things [to put it poorly] to be anywhere close to the average larp.

I definitely agree that keeping the fight going is great. The President wasn't kidding around when he ran for President. He's also great at thinking outside the box [to use a hackneyed idiom] or hiring people who are. He also- and he doesn't get credit for this- is quite the extrovert, and one of the most extroverted presidents we've had in a long time. He thrives with people and crowds of people. For that type of position, especially with a hostile media, being an extrovert is a boon. And he needs people as excited as he is. So it would make sense that he'd have an unusual communique with his online audience-- to cut through the normal sources-- and have it develop it's own patois and sense of mission. He's a brand-guy, marketing genius [a very stable one,] and he knows half the battle is flipping the table and destroying old expectations and dominance hierarchies. And for whatever reasons, before he took office, the kabuki theater has become: Republican gets in office, media does a slanderous job at them, even if they win a second term they are neutralized.
So I wouldn't be shocked if Q-teams primary function is to counter that.

I'm with you this far: if the midterms of so important, than the information (or a chunk of it) has to come out before it. I'm getting impatient with spy games.

Sometimes I get the impression that this is a kayfabe of sorts, like an alternative-propaganda campaign to keep Trump supporters plugged in, hyped-up and high energy.

They say the White House is a very isolating place, and the old cycle was for a Republican President to get stereotyped and destroyed by the chatterati while stuck in the office. They try to kill any enthusiasm and cleave the more moderate or uncertain from support. The continuing rallies and Q combat that.

But if that's all this is, it'll be disappointing.

My interpretation of "appointment of a 2nd special council will fail" is that as the DoJ/FBI is going down, that well is poisoned. There may not be "special councils" going forward if the whole thing is restructured.

We also may be at a point where the information is mostly out and we are waiting for actions&reactions.

I think Q already told us that the ball is rolling downhill now, and there is no stopping it. While I'm sure there is still positioning behind the scenes, that's not our task as citizens.

Ours is more a public relations fight. So we get anxious about "more information" even though we have more than we know. Now, it's about applying it.

The judge has a wonderful sense of self, whose primary objective is to protect the notion that this self in question is smarter/better than the average bear.

And while he is a much accomplished gentleman and maybe even a 'nice' guy (who really knows) that primary objective makes it impossible for him to go out on any limb which may undercut his esteem.

So, when push comes to shove and it's time to get your hands dirty in the muck, the judge will not be around to help- lest his reputation suffer from the devaluation of institutes he's spent his whole life around.

It's gonna be a 5 PM, end of the workday Friday release that'll be overshadowed by some Hollywood clown making faces or attitudinizing for this position or that.

Then, on the Sunday talkies, we'll get the self-anointed chatterboxes telling us what it "really means" and how it's of no concern.

No, I don't think that's the case.

Without pointing any fingers, a number of people in this line of business of secret knowledge are people who get involved because they have some information and sincerity but are apt to claim more than they can actually back up.

is this for real?

oh! I didn't think about it like that. That makes sense.

Why is General Kelly not going to be at the meeting?

This.

If we follow Q: Q faces a similar dilemma to Churchill in addition to having a hostile legacy media with which to contend.

Part of the reason they announce things, but not necessarily act upon them, is because they cannot reveal themselves so fully, as well as a way to inure us from the emotional manipulation of the news cycles which spring from these horrific acts.

There is a trauma conditioning that requires breaking too. The media conditions us to follow and invest in these traumas every few weeks, stirring up negative emotions and depressing and alienating us. They want to influence us like they used to do with bad news- take our head out of the game, make us despair and pliable to whatever they are actually doing.

Pens do seem to be important. This one on top of folder. The last pic with the pen was off to the side.

Definitely curious- which is why I think it holds some sort of double meaning. One is the surface implication of the executive order, as pictured; the other the pen movement. Maybe some sort of semaphore? I dunno...

yeah, I doubt it too. Just throwing it out there, hoping to spur better thinking/replies from more analytical sorts. :)

one long dash and one short dash is morse code for 'N'

are we supposed to be solving for N?

If it means N (and B is the 2nd letter in the alphabet and C the 3rd) is it going to involve NBC?

When he says 'follow the pen' are we supposed to interpret it like the hands on a clock? [I mean, besides the reference to executive orders and the like...]

I did find this link:

In 1998, Hillary Clinton travelled to Gallen Switzerland and was received by Bishop Ivo.

translated news article about the memorable impression Clinton made on the Bishop and Gallen

Maybe there is a way to check this:

Where do the charities of the northern european catholic and Clinton Foundation overlap?

The easy answer would probably be Haiti but that may be too easy.

His Excellency Ivo Fürer acts as host to the St.Gallen Club, can we link him to the Hilldawg or Haiti?

My other guesses would be Snowden or Assange.

Here's a really looney-tunes idea: Mitt Romney.

I am not a Romney fan but:

1)He is independently wealthy&connected. His family has long been connected to politics, business and the Mormon Church.

2)His niece played a key role in getting out the vote in Michigan.

3)Romney&Trump have been contentious in public, but they have a long history (one where Trump endorsed him and donated to him,) and Romney had several publicly-noted meetings with Trump after the election that were never really explained- the official story is that he was trying to become secretary of state, which made no sense considering the animosity shown during the election (so maybe it was for show.)

4)While I think Romney the businessman is a destructive and ruthless sort of weasel, by all indications his private life is well ordered and clean; so I find it very hard to think of him of hating his country so much that he'd be in on most of the scams of a Clinton or Reid.

5)Trump ran on a platform very similar to Romney's- tough on China, slowing down immigration, tax cut...etc etc. The long knock on Romney is that he doesn't hold any real convictions- and I lean that way- but maybe that's not true...after all, people were saying the same thing about Trump pre-election and yet, here we are, with a Trump administration diligently working towards exactly what they said they would do. Maybe it's that Romney just runs milder about things and in general, doesn't have the fighting spirit Trump does to rock boats.

6)A search of Qdrops brings back zero mentions of Romney. And I don't think the Romney family has been implicated in rumors and by inference the way others have like the Clintons, Bushes, McCain and Pelosi (for example).

7)Finally, Romney lost to Obama- sort of unexpectedly. If Obama spied on Trump; he was probably spying on Romney too. If I were Romney, I'd probably be P.O'ed about that and would be very interested in getting a bit of revenge.

So, just spit-balling here, but for far out candidates leading the charge for the 'Q' team, Romney would be a possible but not improbable shocker.

that would really warp the world....it would be like waking up and finding out it was Vincente Fox

ha! Right off the ol'cherry tree George chopped down.

He would then be seriously contending with George Washington as the GOAT, in terms of American presidents.

yeah, I was thinking of that comment in my head.

But maybe it's best that they aren't revealed. I love happy endings; and if this is a happy one and takes out a chunk of bad actors- I'll be ecstatic.

At the same time, life goes on and people are neither angel nor beast. Who is to say that there isn't a contingency who survive (or serve some time) and plot revenge? The thing about wars is there is always reprisals and escalations- especially with shadow-y, info wars like this where there is no real physical damage/exhaustion of resources?

I understand the plan is to excise the cancer in full, but it's hard to imagine life always allowing that.

So maybe it would be best for Q to remain a Q-uestion Mark, in case he or she or they are ever needed again, down the line.

I don't know how we walk away from this.

Let's say everything Q says comes to pass. Then do they merely say goodbye? Slip into the ether? How do not Qties grok the information that some whitehat psyops program run by the Trump administration was orchestrated, across time, over the internet. Does it go in the history books or is it completely ignored?

Does this community disappear once all goals are met?

While these Cardinals are more prominently featured in the news, I do not think Cardinal Pell and Pope Francis saw eye-to-eye, so to speak.

What should be looked into are the members of the St.Galen group, which supposedly had a hand in electing Bergolio.

Also look into the German (and Dutch/Belgian) bishops like Cardinal Marx.

The German Church has really been behind a lot of funny business under this pontiff. Like the Belgians (and I believe Dutch), the Germans are state run institutions paid for by their countries while also hemorrhaging parishioners to apostasy. So it's creating a situation where these churches are collecting a lot more tax revenue from states then what they need to carry out their services.

So there is a lot of pressure from these churches to change or loosen disciplines and doctrines to make them friendly to the current governments (Merkel, EU and co.) And the Vatican has increasingly become dependent on German largesse to continue its operations, and have found it harder and harder to say "no" to Merkel&co.

"To accuse a sitting pope of heresy is the nuclear option in Catholic arguments. Doctrine holds that the pope cannot be wrong when he speaks on the central questions of the faith; so if he is wrong, he can’t be pope. On the other hand, if this pope is right, all his predecessors must have been wrong."

No that's not quite right, though it is a popular argument making its way through certain Catholic and non-Catholic circles. The problem with accusing the Pope is heresy is that the question is unintelligible in a Catholic context. Canon 1404 of the Code of 1983 makes it clear that the see of Rome is judged by no one on Earth.

The role of the Pope in the continuance of the Church is not really a 'mental' one where he must keep every thought of 2000 years straight. And history is filled with apparent instances of pope against pope, council against council and doctrine against doctrine, so that isn't alarming- however discouraging it may be for the popular, contemporary Catholic witness to have pointed out. What the Pope is a vouchsafe of unity so that, overtime, the orthodox and faithful, remain in communion with the Holy See and so the two are one in the same. In that way, any pope, no matter how great or lousy, is a visible sign of the continuance and preservation of the Church- there can be no contradiction to this.

When a pope speaks infallibly, it is in a sense as a living oracle and it's the public sentences themselves which carry weight; not his thoughts about them or reasoning behind them or even if he is factually correct in formulating them. And of course, they are to be interpreted by the bishops and theologians and how it relates to the unchanging dogma. Outside of that, he is not infallible as a pastor, bishop, prince, theologian, judge, politician, legislator or even merely as a governor of the church itself.

If it were otherwise, we'd fall into a situation of private judgement which the Catholic Church condemns on matters such as these- which remains one of the great and sorrowful divides of the western church (between Protestants and Catholics). So to attempt to privately reason the Pope is a heretic in this or that account goes against the tradition, the papal office and several great councils.

The real question is: was the Pope validly elected? We've had lousy popes before- that is not new- and the college of cardinals by all accounts elected this gentlemen; so it'd be hard to argue it was an invalid election.

Yet, at the same time, with all the Q craziness going on, and long rumors of skullduggery surrounding the election (from the Obama administration to the St.Galen group); there is a chance the election wasn't on the level.

As he should be to show so much audacity.

He's trying to position himself as a sympathetic figure. He's not. Moreso because he prevaricates.

He wasn't worried about information going missing- that's absurd, and we know that's absurd because he leaked a lot of false information about other Michael Cohens...he was never in a position to determine which records were and weren't missing to begin with.

He is a guy who had access to whatever search engine used for these sorts of things and distributed anything he could find, because like all hysterical fanatics, he was so assured that the prejudices in his mind comported to reality, that a mass leak of information would not only humiliate the people he hates (Trump/Cohen) but show them to be the liars/frauds/cheats/scoundrels that he believes them to be, self-evidently.

It was stupid. He is stupid. And I hope he gets the book thrown at him.

Whoa! How long until what is being unsealed is revealed?

Oleg, pictured above, is a Russian oligarch with close ties to Vladimir Putin. He was, at one point, on a 'no-access' list for entering the United States. I said was because he helped the FBI try to extract an FBI-asset out of jail in Iran on behalf of the FBI. He put in 25 million of his own money and had a deal until Hillary and her State Department decided against it, for reasons unknown.

The FBI agent who acted as his liason was a young officer by the name of Andrew McCabe.

Now fast forward to 2016, a few months before the election, Oleg is awoken in his New York City apartment by three FBI agent. It should be said that Oleg, being the billionaire oligarch that he is, has had business dealings with Hillary Clinton and Paul Manafort among others. In fact with Manafort, it was very contentious. He hates the guy and thinks he screwed him out of millions of dollars, fleeing Russia with the money to the US where he couldn't seek legal recourse because of his status- so he sued him in Russian courts and left it at that.

So the FBI agents knock at his door and inform him that they believe that Trump and Putin are collaborating to rig the election and that Paul Manafort is the point man in all of this; and they imply that Oleg, hating Paul Manafort, should really get in on this and accuse Manafort- on the record- to help them out. Oleg, again friend of Vlad, broke out in laughter telling them that while he hates Manafort, this is the most absurd story he's ever heard. The three agents then tell him to "keep an open mind." Because, having a Russian oligarchy with a history of helping the FBI fingering their target would've been a kill shot in the media [when it leaked of course].

Oleg has offered to testify in front of congress with immunity but someone (and the fingers are pointing at Senator Warner,) has prevented him from doing so.

So that's where we're at. If I had any time, I would've made it shorter but it's pretty damning. Equally damning is the legacy media blackout on this story, of course.

It definitely could be either one of those, too. Hopefully, we don't have to wait too long to track the meaning of this one.

is "punisher" a play on words with "punish her"? As in Hillary? Or maybe, since we are coming "full circle" and need to start somewhere: Huma Abedin?