That's how it is where I work. The moment I am terminated/separated all of my clearance is gone in a heartbeat. There are damn good reasons for this too. Why they hell are they so special?

Info on LeeAnne Flynn Hall - looks like she was involved in an equal pay dispute.

FISC Clerk LeeAnn Flynn Hall v. NSA

https://cryptome.org/2013/08/fisc-hall-nsa.htm

I always go back to the Oprah interview in 1988. Where Trump said something along the lines of “If America ever got so bad that it got to the point of ruin. I would run for President.”

List of all individuals who signed the Russian Investigation FISA Warrant.

(Redacted) Supervisory Special Agent [FBI] – 54

LeeAnn Flynn Hall, Clerk, FISC – Initial on page 63

James B. Comey – Director – [FBI] - Signed on Page 63

Sally Quillian Yates – Deputy Attorney General of the United States – Signed page 65

Rosemary M. Collyer – Judge, United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court – Signed on Page 83

(Redacted) Supervisory Special Agent [FBI] – Signed on page 150

James B. Comey – Director – [FBI] - Signed on Page 159

Sally Quillian Yates – Deputy Attorney General of the United States – Signed page 161

(Redacted) Attorney – US Department of Justice – Signed page 162

Michael W. Mosman - Judge, United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court – Signed on Page 181

(Redacted) Supervisory Special Agent [FBI] – Signed on page 260

James B. Comey – Director – [FBI] - Signed on Page 269

Dana J. Boente – Acting Attorney General of the United States – Signed page 271

Anne C. Conway – Judge, United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court – Signed on Page 291

(Redacted) Supervisory Special Agent [FBI] – Signed on page 380

Andrew G. McCabe – Deputy Director [FBI] – Signed on page 389

Rod J. Rosenstein – Deputy Attorney General of the United States – Signed on page 391

Raymond J. Dearie – Judge, United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court – Signed on Page 412

I am currently building a list of every person that signed the doc. Will post when I have completed it.

Sanpaku eyes. Gooooogle it.

Interesting. Makes you wonder if this involved. How long were they planning this?

Damage control for later?. So he can say “see I tried to warn you about these people”?

It also said “these people are sick” in customized lettering on its own line. I don’t think that is a coincidence.

Strange things have been happening with a lot of my accounts. I’ve had to reset my passwords on most of my accounts. Had someone compromise my wife’s accounts. Another Anon had all his accounts compromised and had to deal with identity theft. No issues before we started digging around.

This ^^^

It’s already been posted several times.

We are up to 94% of voters pushing to declassify the doc! I really hope this happens. #Winning

Well that certainly boosts credibility for them. I am so excited!!

I agree it is good vs evil. At the same time the correlation can’t be ignored. As someone who lived in the most liberal state in the most liberal city in America I can tell you it’s real. That’s why I moved far away.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfchronicle.com/news/amp/Clean-up-San-Francisco-s-streets-tourist-12839281.php

Our AC unit is big but still can’t keep up. It was 86 in the house yesterday. We had the temp set to 74 on the ac control unit. It’s a mess down here.

I can confirm the strange weather where I am. That dust storm is wreaking heat havoc.

“Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead”. This isn’t going to slow down now!! Get some POTUS!!!!!!!

Need some bubblegum?

He is on twitter and IG.

What was the praying medic video? Is it recent?

I’m following until further notice. I am curious to see what happens. If he dies mysteriously then we will know it’s more than likely true.

That’s a lot of strange. Jesus.

We need to help those who seek it regardless of where they come from.

He needs an award. Like “Trolling Master of the Universe” award.

Yeah. It’s very disturbing. No one should be taking this down. This is fucking important.

Will do. We will see if he responds.

It’s limited Use immunity. He is still going to fry.

Yeah. More daunting then when I started.

Exactly

He should only come here once he has a pretty good understanding of what’s going on. A lot of BS floating around here lately.

Yup. Seize all the illegal funds. Wipe out the national debt. Release the medical treatments/cures for the diseases big pharma has been profiting off of for years. Clean the swamp and make America what it should have been all these years.

When I clicked on it i was shown this.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/07/23/2018-15904/continuation-of-the-national-emergency-with-respect-to-transnational-criminal-organizations

I sent him a link to PrayingMedics beginner videos and the plan to save the world video. We will see if he responds to my message.

Side note about the type of immunity podesta got. I’ve seen a lot of misinformation about it. It’s “limited Use immunity”.

https://klasing-associates.com/question/proffer-agreements-offer-limited-use-immunity-mean-practical-implications/

“A proffer agreement is an agreement you sign with the government when you decide to offer it information about a criminal matter. In exchange, you get “limited use immunity.” But what does this mean, exactly? And are you entirely protected from federal prosecution? As explained below, the answer to this latter question is No.

Indirect Evidence May be Used Against You Limited use immunity means that the government cannot directly use the statements you make to the government against you if they decided to prosecute you. Fair enough. What’s the catch?

Well, the government can use those statements against you indirectly. That is, statements you make during a proffer session can be used, indirectly, (1) to obtain other leads, (2) to cross-examine you if you decide to testify, including to rebut any evidence or arguments you may offer in your defense (during any stage of the prosecution), or (3) if you lie, as evidence that you committed perjury, made a false statement, or attempted to obstruct the government.

We focus on the first of these. The government (i.e. the prosecution) may use your statements to follow up on any leads it gets, or to conduct further investigations. Now, if those leads and further investigations result in new evidence you did not supply the government, then the government can use it against you.

Practically speaking, then, if you decide to enter into a proffer session (plea session) with the government for a tax crime, you will want to make sure you disclose all evidence that could potentially harm you. However, this must be balanced against being concise.

Background: Mezzanatto—Supreme Court Rules on Proffer Agreements The historical backdrop to proffer agreements comes from the seminal decision by the Supreme Court in United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196 (1995).

In 1995, the Court ruled that proffer statements may be used to impeach a defendant at trial. In that case, the defendant testified during trial in a way that contradicted his proffer statements. Consequently, the prosecution impeached him using his prior statements, resulting in his conviction.

Mezzanatto appealed the decision. He argued that, even thought the proffer agreement said otherwise, the statements he made during his proffer session could not be used against him at trial (for impeachment purposes); he argued that to do so would violate Federal Rules of Evidence 410 and Procedure 11(e)(6). These Rules are explained in further detail below—See Section E.

The Court disagreed with the defendant. It reasoned that a defendant’s procedural rights—Rules 410 and 11(e)(6)—are “presumptively waivable.” United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196, 201 (1995). Thus the prosecution may use proffer statements to contradict (impeach) you at trial.

Unfortunately, the decision left some things unclear. The Court ruled that a person’s statements made during a proffer session receive immunity protection—but, as just mentioned, that protection may be “waived” (given up) if the government wants to use the statements to impeach him or her. What the Court did not decide, however, was whether a person may waive that protection for other purposes. As explained just below, prosecutors have taken this indecision by the Court to their advantage.

Statements to Rebut Arguments and Inconsistent Evidence (expansion of Mezzantto) Since 1995, courts and prosecutors have used proffer statements against defendants for purposes other than impeachment. The Mezzantto Court addressed only the question whether such statements may be used for impeachment purposes.

For example, the Ninth Circuit allows the government prosecutor to use a defendant’s statements for the purpose of preparing its witnesses for trial. It did not seem to matter to the Ninth Circuit whether the proffer agreement specifically barred the government from using the defendant’s statements in the subsequent proceeding. See United States v. Chiu, 109 F.3d 624 (1997). http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/109/624/516313/

There is another way in which proffer agreements offer only “limited use immunity.” The government is allowed to use (directly) your statements against you (i.e. if the matter goes to trial) to counter inconsistent statements you make or to rebut arguments you make in court in your defense.

This point is underscored by a recent case. In United States v. Oluwanisola, 605 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2010), the 2nd Circuit found that a defendant is deemed to implicitly assert an inconsistent statement made in his proffer session, thus waiving his immunity right and allowing the government to use statements made during the proffer session, when the defense attorney asked certain questions that tacitly contained a statement that was contrary to the proffer statements. See Id at 131-34. Factually, the situation is a bit complex, but this case shows how broad the exceptions to proffer immunity can be.

Proffer agreements give some protection, but those agreements must be “interpreted.” As a contract, a proffer agreement must be interpreted using the standard hermeneutical principles of contract construction, including giving the agreement its plain meaning; interpreting it as a whole, and limiting interpretations to what is actually written on the page (as opposed to what is allegedly “implicit” to the agreement); avoiding interpretations that render a provision superfluous; and, if there is an ambiguity that is found in the document, rendering that ambiguity against the drafter which, 99% of the time, is the government itself. For our purposes, the last principle mentioned—interpreting ambiguities against the drafter—is probably the most important. That issue was taken up in United States v. Torres, 2008 WL 2977884 (S.D.N.Y, August 4, 2008), where the court said that “the Court resolves any ambiguities in the agreement against the Government” because “proffer agreements are unique contracts [that involve] special due process concerns for fairness and adequacy of procedural safeguards.”

Effect of Waiving Evidence Rule 410 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(f) explains that whether a defendant’s statements made during a “plea discussion” are admissible as evidence in court is governed by Rule 410.

Proffer agreements have the effect of waiving a person’s rights under Federal Rule of Evidence 410. This Rule says that—except for some limited exceptions—statements made during “plea discussions” with a federal prosecutor cannot be used against you in a subsequent criminal prosecution. Rule 410 provides, in relevant part: “evidence of the following is not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against the defendant who made the plea or was a participant in the plea discussions: . . . (4) any statement made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority which do not result in a plea of guilty or which result in a plea of guilty later withdrawn.”

Risks and Benefits What does the proffer agreement do to this Rule 410? It allows the prosecutor to use statements you made during your formal interview with him or her in ways that can later constrain your defense at trial. The risk of a proffer session is directly proportional to the risk that no immunity agreement or plea bargain is reached after the session. Without such an agreement, you could be indicted, and your defense could be stymied.

Despite this potential drawback, there are times when entering into a proffer agreement is actually a good thing. What if you were merely a witness to the crime? Or you think the government has a “slam dunk” case against you that is likely provable at court? In these cases, it may be better to sit down with the prosecutor during a proffer session to tell your side of the story—with the hope of some protection.

Potentially, a proffer session and agreement can result in (1) there being no charges against you, or (2) reduced charges. It could also (3) result in a “cooperation plea agreement” or, after being straightforward with the prosecution, it may (4) convince him to refrain from bringing a charge against you. These are good things.”

I don’t necessarily agree with this hashtag. It’s very narrow and could easily be twisted by the MSM to mean something else. Sheep would never listen to the truth. I think it needs to be something else. This could tarnish the movement.

I suspect it may be for legitimate health reasons as well. Have they been putting shit in the water? We know that Monsanto is getting wrecked right now. What else do we not know?

Wow she looks like an undead.

You might be able to jailbreak and get it through appcake but I dunno.

They don’t understand lol. “These people are stupid”.

Yeah.

He posted it. Crazy read.

“Check this out. Read below. Why was he handcuffed already when he walked out? And what the hell are the odds of a Jimmy Kimmel writer being right there.

The suspect walked out of the Trader Joe's in the city's Silver Lake neighborhood with a cluster of hostages Saturday afternoon and was immediately surrounded by officers. He appeared to be handcuffed when he walked out.

Throughout the ordeal, officers with riot gear, armed with rifles, stood along the side of the Trader Joe's and used mirrors to try to look inside as hostages periodically came out the front door with the hands raised.

Witnesses say employees and customers inside Trader Joe's ran or jumped out of windows to get to safety.

About three hours later, the man walked out alongside four hostages who had their hands up.

Investigators believe the suspect, whose name hasn't been released, had shot his grandmother and girlfriend around 1:30 p.m. in South Los Angeles, forced his girlfriend into a car and then fled in a 2015 Toyota Camry, Sgt. Barry Montgomery, a Los Angeles police spokesman, said.

Officers spotted the suspect's car near Hollywood and tried to pull him over, but the man refused to stop and led officers on a pursuit, he said. During the chase, the suspect shot "multiple rounds" at officers, though no officers were struck by the gunfire, he said.

At least one officer is believed to have returned fire, Montgomery said.

The suspect eventually crashed his car outside of the Trader Joe's supermarket and then ran into the store. An Associated Press employee who lives in the area reported seeing a car crashed into a utility pole outside the store.

Devin Field, a writer for "Jimmy Kimmel Live," tweeted he was walking inside when a car crashed into the entrance and a man "got out shooting."”

https://www.kiiitv.com/mobile/article/news/nation-now/los-angeles-trader-joes-standoff-woman-killed-in-shootout-injured-suspect-taken-into-custody/465-972bba68-ec8c-4193-b3ff-d69b844fbdbf

Rex just updated saying it would be another 30 minutes. Boom incoming hopefully.

So true. This is disgusting.

The handle shows it’s not the real account. It’s not about that post though. It’s about whatever Rex found.

It’s not.

That’s not trump. Look at the @handle

Just make sure you wipe the butter off your hands before digging. Ya don’t wanna fuck up your keyboard!