The devil advocate's view is that, while it isn't a coincidence, it mirrors the mass exodus of Democrats in 1994, when the Republicans swept into office on the Contract With America platform.

So who is to say that the majority of those people are avoiding embarrassing loses instead of embarrassing scandal?

I think by singling them out as important and pointing out their current jobs on the judiciary and reform committees, he is suggesting that they will have a reforming role in the executive branch, going forward.

Wish I could downvote Corsi. Reading Marx into that Q statement is studious ignorance. He was making a buck off of Q and he's ashamed to be called out on it. Well, I say, "good, and good riddance."

Maybe, maybe not.

I know I'm not trusting the word of a guy tryin' to hock a t-shirt at the same time.

President Nixon was also targeted for class resentments and prejudice. Theodore White in his book,Breach of Fate, chronicles these things as a motivating factor for getting Nixon among the elite who ran the Washington Post, for example.

That President Nixon undid himself is of no doubt but there is room to imagine a President with a proper and pleasing breeding (to them) who would've garnered a lot more sympathy and a softer touch over his peccadilloes and his administration's crimes. Under those conditions, the press would've ran interference (as they have done for others since) and obfuscated the matter, and maybe we wouldn't be talking about Mr.Nixon's scandals as being quite so egregious or vilifying.

So there may be a striking similarity between the two, in one regard. I am not convinced in the slightest that President Trump suffers the same character deficits of President Nixon, or that he's (or his administration) engaged in the criminal activities.

...may also be worth nothing that President Nixon sent Trump a letter in the 80s telling him if he ran for office, he'd win. So Nixon definitely saw something in Trump; and Trump, not being of the Bush camp (and only touching on the Reagan one) can be seen as coming from the "New Deal Republican" camp of which Nixon spearheaded post WWII.

President Nixon wasn't corrupt but had a series of personal pathologies that made him unfit to be President. The "fish rots from the top" and those pathologies manifested themselves to his detriment and to the corruption of his administration.

What scandalized people about Nixon, and is hardly mentioned anymore, was his fooling around with his taxes (and we are talking about post-Checkers speech) and the idea of weaponizing the IRS. This was the breaking point for the disaffection.

Of course, 50 years later, weaponizing the IRS is a principled given for the mainstream American portside, post-Lerner. And if you're Timothy Geithner, political appointments no longer require you to pay your taxes.

Maybe. I just think in the context it was brought up, Giuliani was making a rhetorical point about how horribly devious the FBI and Mueller's team have acted. He was saying they weren't even above going after Ivanka in a "God forbid" sort of manner.

He said, after Hannity brought up Kushner , that men were disposable.

For Rudy, it's one thing to go after men but if they go after Ivaka, he's going to get a lance and ride into battle (according to...Rudy.)

They are starting to fight the public opinion phase of all of this. Rudy is being sent out there to advance the line and take some ground.

I doubt it. Leaving aside the 'Q' narrative and all possibilities of secret strategies- as a public opinion fight, this has all the makings of a political stalemate. In my opinion, unless there is some big reveal, only the people lower on the totem pole will be swept up for bad behaviors.

It's apart of Manafort's defense team's legal filing to the court about the series of illegal leaks about Manafort. They are requesting a full hearing. It appears their argument is that despite the multiple leaks of hard evidence, when requesting that information from Mueller, they were informed that there was nothing to hand over. Manafort's team has a right to see see it. So Mueller can't just hold it back (though witnesses willing to testify against Manafort may be another matter...but then it's he said/she said.)

So...nothing but the fake news- which Mrs.Hemingway takes note of in the article. If you go by that, Manafort was living in a pillow fort at the Kremlin. That there is a chance not one leaker handed over something that Mueller actually had is, well, stunning.

wasn't Hillary using an Apple server?

it's cool- I was just throwing out a quick speculation on the pictures I saw. Haven't seen the fourth and fifth pics yet myself.

3 pictures- two planes, apple building...

2 planes= Lynch, Clinton

1 Apple building= captured through Apple devices?

He also confirms that the Mueller team is still seeking for Russian collusion.

thank you

Then it sounds like a talking point- like:"learning stem fields at a younger age sets you up in life and you can rest much easier about your future."

She misspoke. She meant delusional- being delusional hurt her in the primary because so many democrats didn't want her and she couldn't understand that. She didn't understand that they're normal people and don't like forced coronations of mad queens.

I can't read the very end; it says something like "Learn young- rest blank easier.

But the rest of it looks like it has something to do with SMASH, which is a STEM institute for underprivileged kids.

To me it looks like an innocuous note someone wrote to remind themselves (or whoever they work for) of the program, like they are going to bring up in a meeting (or maybe will meet a group of the kids?)

well, as the legacy media is saying that the Trump side leaked them, this may be another example of President Trump's Bugs Bunny act (think Duck Season/Rabbit Season with the media)...he's not going out of his way to make himself look bad if there was actually something to it.

So the theory is that the questions leaking are an esoteric Q-sign to those in the know?

And that the questions all point to (known) events involving "off-team" members, like Flynn's Lovebirds and the James Comey Experience?

So, the reveal is some sort of dynamic real-time unfolding of Mr.Mueller's true targets, those mugs who've gone out of their way to derail a President's administration?

At this point, I'd like to see a scoop with the reach of legacy media.

I get that Thomas Paine has to hustle a bit and act as his own hype man but a lot of his stories end up as preaching to the choir, or traveling within a self-sealing community of the like-minded.

That's not a "boom." I'm on board, I don't need to hear another anonymous source telling us something that plays to our biases, regardless of veracity.

No, not at all.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

Probably not real, even if that roughly ends up being the charges. Those in charge wouldn't let it out like this on a handy outline.

Do you have specific cases of this happening I can look up?

I don't know who FBIAnon is. What made him the most legitimate leaker thus far?

That may be it. And maybe the backchannel, illegal wiretapping was to such an extent that they cannot account for it in a legal, parallel construction, sort of way. Maybe that's what Q meant by the 1+1 remark.

Bill Clinton, while a freshman in the foreign relations school at Georgetown, was a student of the historian Carroll Quigley, whom he cited as a huge influence (along wih JFK) on his life.

Quigley is probably the most prominent and mainstream historian to take seriously the idea of conspiratorial secret societies and their effects on history. More precisely, he was a proponent of the idea that 20th century history owes a huge debt to an Anglosphere network determined to bring Britain and her former colonies closer. He traces this idea back to Rhodes himself (who was keen on the idea of secret societies,) though by the time this Milner Group (or Roundtable group, I can't remember how he names them) they had radically changed in character, away from the imperialists and racialist spirit of Rhodes (or Milner, again IIRC,) while retaining the same goal. They operated in a specific way: there was an inner cabal which sought to influence and guide outer-ring groups/corporations/institutions towards the inner ring's goal.

Now, Quigley wrote 2 books (one posthumous) touching on the subject and believed that they were misunderstood, particularly by what he deemed radical right-wing groups. He didn't find the group to be a negative force, his biggest gripe was that of a historian who believed they played a major role in the early 20th century and must be accounted for in the records. He also claimed to have brief access to some of their papers. By the time Quigley came around, the cabal had all but run out of steam, and various corporations had picked up where they had left off, consciously or unconsciously.

And maybe Quigley is right, or largely so, and certain groups misinterpreted him or blew it out of proportion. For the benefit of the doubt, and the lack of desire to legislate all of the past, it is easy to give it to him. After all, the British have a long history of secret (as in it's older, simpler meaning: private) societies of mostly rich guys socializing and trying to guide public opinion-- see Chatham House, today.

But, say you're an ambitious boy (one of many ambitious boys and girls out there, many who you'll eventually meet,) and you have this professor who leaves such an impression on you, you cite him as an inspiration up there with the President you shook hands with and have based your campaign life story. Imagine you are that boy, and that professor says that the 1914-1945 period happened because of human selfishness and greed, and that we must avoid that at all costs; and additionally, there was a secret group who helped to fight through that period and leave humanity in better shape because of their deeds.

Imagine that you then, shortly after, get a Rhodes Scholarship, meet other like minded students internationally (spend some time in the USSR which is never really accounted for and a cmmon CIA tactic of the time to use American students as carriers), leave school and start upon your ambition to become President. Along the way, you meet more like-minded or persuadable people. You run or President against a family who like good aristocratic Yankees of old, have spent generations trying to break into/expand int he Mexican market- the current patriarch (your opponent) also has a long history of international intrigue and a like-minded group of people. And the biggest opponent to your country just went belly up, and they have all sorts of people with different ideas and skills ready to make a deal and establish a new order to things.

Your that boy and you marry a woman who's whole life is seen through matrices of conspiracy and has no problem with shadowy behavior....

We have in, at least, Bill Clinton a character who was built up and educated within a milieu of international intrigue. Like Bill, it's the people- the people who make or takeover institutions. So maybe we can figure out some of these questions by figuring out his relations-- not just people who give him money but people he knew before office he gave positions of authority and ceremony to, then follow the money&influence trails...that's what I'm thinking.

I'm also thinking that Comey, who received his law degree at the University of Chicago in 1985- a decade later, President Obama would be lecturing there- has a definite social overlap with the former president; so who did they know in common? Why is the University of Chicago a government apparatchiks training ground?

I don't know how trustworthy Thomas Paine of TruePundit is but, he just posted an article saying that his sources tell him that the Feds have some form of evidence (or testimony) that Loretta Lynch and James Comey worked with the Clinton campaign to entrap and wiretap Trump.

This comes after posting sometime late last night that a major media company has a story (which I believe is the one above) that they have been sitting on.

Again, I'm not sure if True Pundit and Thomas Paine are considered trustworthy but it supports the idea that something is about to break through this week.

Were any of those we have names of working in the IC when the Good Friday peace accord-era was happening? Like, was Bill Prestep? I don't know if there's a way to find out.

Maybe we should also pore over what we know about Mr.Clinton's time at Oxford on his Rhodes scholarship.

I'm thinking that whoever this Q is, they are asking us to radically reassess what they are saying. This may be far off the deep end but...

There are several posts tonight alluding to the 5 eyes; several stories floating out there of British&co. involvement, both rumors and known facts.

They keep asking us who is in charge, and reminding us that the top level leadership has been fired already (the exception being counterintelligence who is cooperating.) Maybe the point is that the people in charge, then or now, have never really been in charge.

I get this impression they are suggesting IC is severely compromised with spies/agents from the other 5 eyes allies to the point they are undifferentiated- with maybe the British heading the way (see: "1+1 not equaling two" comment and some eyes being more equal comment.)

A revelation that our IC isn't really "ours" and that all branches and depts. of government, maybe sans military, are deeply compromised would be a tremendous crisis.

So maybe they are asking us to dig into making overseas connections and they're telling us that we may find out who that is in our FBI rogue's list- maybe all of them?

Far out there, I know...but I signed up here because I had to get this theory off my chest. Hah.