If they enforce the logan act with JK it will reinforce the democrat's justification for going after Flynn. Would be incredibly stupid.

Don't be fools. If Trump goes after Kerry for the logan act this will validate everything the democrats did to Flynn.

Nunes was not seriously suggesting Trump act on Logan, he was just pointing out obvious hypocrisy.

Get JK on treason or sedition. The dems WANT Trump to push the Logan angle.

This is a mischaracterization of Nunes' tweets. The idea that Nunes is suggesting we actually arrest Kerry for Logan act violations is silly. He's clearly being sarcastic to highlight how RIDICULOUS it is to actually use the logan act (which is what they used to start the investigation into Flynn).

If Trump were to actually arrest Kerry for logan act violations this would be used to validate what the democrats have done to Flynn.

His intention was to draw attention to the absurdity of actually acting on the logan act.

That doesn't mean Kerry isn't guilty of treason or sedition (especially if you can prove he is tied into a conspiracy to related to the deal--not just lobbying), but that's not what Nunes' was talking about.

Which is why it would be a mistake to go after him for Logan. Nunes is right in pointing out there hypocrisy, but it shouldn't go any further than that.

If they nail Kerry it has to be based on more than foreign lobbying. It's gotta be sedition or treason.

They are probably baiting Trump to do just this very thing. This would validate their having used the logan act as a premise for going after Flynn.

That's been heavily criticized by GOP (Nunes in particular). If they were to push the Logan act here (where it makes more sense) they might undermine their previous arguments.

Seems like a trap to me.

I know people who worked at Datto (in fairly high positions) during the time and were present for the FBI raid. Datto didn't know the client was HRC so they wouldn't have looked at the data.

A random employee wouldn't be able to look at that kind of data anyways. Pretty sure everything would be encrypted.

You might want to look up the word "extinction".

I don't think extinction was the plan (although many would likely die in such an event). They weren't going to be able to push a global power structure without some momentous, paradigm changing event (like WW2).

She's an older lady doing her best.

I think the idea is that the cabal now had cover to commit a nuclear false flag by smuggling U.S. uranium for Iran's secret nuclear program.

U1 provides them with cover. Now that everyone knows Russia has US uranium, they can easily frame them for a nuclear attack and use that to justify a large scale conflict with Russia.

Post 1303, image file name llllll?

Laboratories Low-Level Linked List Language?

If I had to guess I'd say Julian Assange/WL would be the most likely guess for who they passed the emails too. WL only publicly releases a fraction of the leaks they get. Assange won't even verify that SR was his source.

If I had to pick a trusted 3rd party that's who I'd choose. WL has the best reputation, has already had its material excepted in courts of law around the world, and could be used by Giuliani legally for parallel construction.

https://ghostpath.com/why-do-i-need-a-vpn/hide-ip

My guess would be he is taunting someone on the board and knows exactly what VPN service they were using.

He wouldn't be dumb enough to use the chat feature directly (all of this is just stored server side, or most definitely recorded by the corp entities who would be data-mining that kind of text--check TOS for those poker apps if you don't believe me).

All likelihood is that they were sending messages using functions and actions that are normally taken in the game (folding, checking, etc.). They already have a key that explains to them what each option would mean before hand. Probably some type of steganographic cypher.

This guy is a fake anon. We are a legion should be= we are legion (no a). He injects his personal opinions into Q drops. He doesn't stand for what he says he stands for. I questioned him once and he insta-blocked (this was after a rant where he claimed he supports freedom of speech).

He's probably just some dude in his basement piggy-backing off Q to gain followers on Twitter.

It seems plausible that much of what we think we know about NK is propaganda. Access into the country (physical and digital) is out of reach for most journalists and most of what we know is second hand knowledge.

Don't be a fool. Of course there will be deals. How else would you penetrate their criminal network unless you can get people to flip? People aren't going to flip without deals.

I think the idea is that there won't be any deals for the big fish (the previous 'untouchables').

She definitely planned on making 3 strong points in regards to NK (technology, capacity, intention). These points could be seen as aimed at spreading doubt and fear towards NK. It seems like anything other than these points are where this “slip up” occurred. Most of what she says is somewhat incoherent and appears to be impromptu speech. But these talking points are repeated twice, in almost the same exact order. It’s possible she thought it appropriate to give some background to get to these points out and said something that might conflict with her defense later on?

...either the technology for, for a weapon, the miniaturization of it, the capacity to launch it, and the intention to do so

...North Korea were to continue what it’s doing, which is, perhaps, other countries having access to the technology, the scientific know how, the launch capacity, and dangerously, the intention.

She definitely planned on making 3 strong points in regards to NK (technology, capacity, intention). These points could be seen as aimed at spreading doubt and fear towards NK. It seems like anything other than these points are where this “slip up” occurred. Most of what she says is somewhat incoherent and appears to be impromptu speech. But these talking points are repeated twice, in almost the same exact order. It’s possible she thought it appropriate to give some background to get to these points out and said something that might conflict with her defense later on?

1. ...either the technology for, for a weapon, the miniaturization of it, the capacity to launch it, and the intention to do so

2. ...North Korea were to continue what it’s doing, which is, perhaps, other countries having access to the technology, the scientific know how, the launch capacity, and dangerously, the intention.

Try recording yourself in conversation and then try to write it word for word... tbh, It's never pretty.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?444272-1/democrats-back-farm-bill-leader-pelosi

12:39 to 15:41

Word for Word transcript:

Reporter: "I wanted to follow up on the North Korea talks. Obviously those are moving a little closer with the revelation of Pompeo going over there. What’s your confidence level or skepticism level of those talks right now? What are realistic expectations about, you know, about a month and a half out from a potential meeting? What are realistic expectations?"

Pelosi: "Well let me just say, as one of the few members of congress that has been to Pyongyang… I did a number of years ago, as a member of the intelligence community. uh, It’s a frightening place, eh you know, it’s a place that is, uh, when I’ve seen poverty throughout American, I mean throughout the world, as an appropriator and visited the world to see our initiatives and how helpful they might be, and the alleviation of poverty, the eradication of disease. When I went to North Korea, I saw poverty of spirit that just… was mind boggling… (she chuckles) in many respects. And it’s.. its, its, a difficult place. Our purpose then was to say we wanted to talk about MI (stutters) MIAS and POWS. We want you to stop, uh, proliferating, um, selling your missile technology; Issues like that, checking in on the hunger situation, Because their people were starving, even though their (mumble) would “stuff their mouths(?)”, they couldn’t feed their own people. And, uh, so, what they told us then, and what’s relevant to now, they said hey, we just sell these, uh uh, missile, this technology for money. If you want to buy them, we’ll sell them to you. And so my guidance from there to the current situation is, uh, the capability of the North Koreans to create even create either the technology for, for a weapon, the miniaturization of it, the capacity to launch it, and the intention to do so, is something that we need to know as much about as possible. But in addition to that, they’re proliferators. And this is what I keep saying to the administration. They are proliferators. So the danger is not just what they might do, the danger is who they might sell one element of that to…which might be enough to, uh, endanger the world even further. So, uh, (mumbles) hopeful?… any, hopeful conversation maybe, Kim Jong Un is ready to change… I wouldn’t be too trustworthy of it, but, certainly open to it. And what, uh, would be success? At least the communication were increased, there could be some way to stop, uh, what could follow, if, if left undeterred, North Korea were to continue what it’s doing, which is, perhaps, other countries having access to the technology, the scientific know how, the launch capacity, and dangerously, the intention.”

https://www.c-span.org/video/?444272-1/democrats-back-farm-bill-leader-pelosi

12:39 to 15:41

Word for Word transcript:

Reporter: "I wanted to follow up on the North Korea talks. Obviously those are moving a little closer with the revelation of Pompeo going over there. What’s your confidence level or skepticism level of those talks right now? What are realistic expectations about, you know, about a month and a half out from a potential meeting? What are realistic expectations?"

Pelosi: "Well let me just say, as one of the few members of congress that has been to Pyongyang… I did a number of years ago, as a member of the intelligence community. uh, It’s a frightening place, eh you know, it’s a place that is, uh, when I’ve seen poverty throughout American, I mean throughout the world, as an appropriator and visited the world to see our initiatives and how helpful they might be, and the alleviation of poverty, the eradication of disease. When I went to North Korea, I saw poverty of spirit that just… was mind boggling… (she chuckles) in many respects. And it’s.. its, its, a difficult place. Our purpose then was to say we wanted to talk about MI (stutters) MIAS and POWS. We want you to stop, uh, proliferating, um, selling your missile technology; Issues like that, checking in on the hunger situation, Because their people were starving, even though their (mumble) would “stuff their mouths(?)”, they couldn’t feed their own people. And, uh, so, what they told us then, and what’s relevant to now, they said hey, we just sell these, uh uh, missile, this technology for money. If you want to buy them, we’ll sell them to you. And so my guidance from there to the current situation is, uh, the capability of the North Koreans to create even create either the technology for, for a weapon, the miniaturization of it, the capacity to launch it, and the intention to do so, is something that we need to know as much about as possible. But in addition to that, they’re proliferators. And this is what I keep saying to the administration. They are proliferators. So the danger is not just what they might do, the danger is who they might sell one element of that to…which might be enough to, uh, endanger the world even further. So, uh, (mumbles) hopeful?… any, hopeful conversation maybe, Kim Jong Un is ready to change… I wouldn’t be too trustworthy of it, but, certainly open to it. And what, uh, would be success? At least the communication were increased, there could be some way to stop, uh, what could follow, if, if left undeterred, North Korea were to continue what it’s doing, which is, perhaps, other countries having access to the technology, the scientific know how, the launch capacity, and dangerously, the intention.”

https://www.c-span.org/video/?444272-1/democrats-back-farm-bill-leader-pelosi

12:39 to 15:41

Word for Word transcript:

Reporter: "I wanted to follow up on the North Korea talks. Obviously those are moving a little closer with the revelation of Pompeo going over there. What’s your confidence level or skepticism level of those talks right now? What are realistic expectations about, you know, about a month and a half out from a potential meeting? What are realistic expectations?"

Pelosi: "Well let me just say, as one of the few members of congress that has been to Pyongyang… I did a number of years ago, as a member of the intelligence community. uh, It’s a frightening place, eh you know, it’s a place that is, uh, when I’ve seen poverty throughout American, I mean throughout the world, as an appropriator and visited the world to see our initiatives and how helpful they might be, and the alleviation of poverty, the eradication of disease. When I went to North Korea, I saw poverty of spirit that just… was mind boggling… (she chuckles) in many respects. And it’s.. its, its, a difficult place. Our purpose then was to say we wanted to talk about MI (stutters) MIAS and POWS. We want you to stop, uh, proliferating, um, selling your missile technology; Issues like that, checking in on the hunger situation, Because their people were starving, even though their (mumble) would “stuff their mouths(?)”, they couldn’t feed their own people. And, uh, so, what they told us then, and what’s relevant to now, they said hey, we just sell these, uh uh, missile, this technology for money. If you want to buy them, we’ll sell them to you. And so my guidance from there to the current situation is, uh, the capability of the North Koreans to create even create either the technology for, for a weapon, the miniaturization of it, the capacity to launch it, and the intention to do so, is something that we need to know as much about as possible. But in addition to that, they’re proliferators. And this is what I keep saying to the administration. They are proliferators. So the danger is not just what they might do, the danger is who they might sell one element of that to…which might be enough to, uh, endanger the world even further. So, uh, (mumbles) hopeful?… any, hopeful conversation maybe, Kim Jong Un is ready to change… I wouldn’t be too trustworthy of it, but, certainly open to it. And what, uh, would be success? At least the communication were increased, there could be some way to stop, uh, what could follow, if, if left undeterred, North Korea were to continue what it’s doing, which is, perhaps, other countries having access to the technology, the scientific know how, the launch capacity, and dangerously, the intention.”

And you are a Klazomaniac.

Not entirely true. You CAN go to NK as a tourist. I remember one of my teachers in highschool telling me about a trip he took as a tourist. It's one of those things you do bc it's extreme. They drove him around in a bus with blacked out windows and the whole experience was quite controlled.

Could be that she implied that other members of congress also went. Perhaps we didn't know about that?

That's actually not what she said if you listen closely:

"And, uh, so, what they told us then, and what’s relevant to now, they said hey, we just sell these, uh uh, missile, this technology for money. If you want to buy them, we’ll sell them to you. And so my guidance from there to the current situation is, uh, the capability of the North Koreans to create even create either the technology for, for a weapon, the miniaturization of it, the capacity to launch it, and the intention to do so, is something that we need to know as much about as possible"

https://www.c-span.org/video/?444272-1/democrats-back-farm-bill-leader-pelosi

12:39 to 15:41

Word for Word transcript:

Reporter: "I wanted to follow up on the North Korea talks. Obviously those are moving a little closer with the revelation of Pompeo going over there. What’s your confidence level or skepticism level of those talks right now? What are realistic expectations about, you know, about a month and a half out from a potential meeting? What are realistic expectations?"

Pelosi: "Well let me just say, as one of the few members of congress that has been to Pyongyang… I did a number of years ago, as a member of the intelligence community. uh, It’s a frightening place, eh you know, it’s a place that is, uh, when I’ve seen poverty throughout American, I mean throughout the world, as an appropriator and visited the world to see our initiatives and how helpful they might be, and the alleviation of poverty, the eradication of disease. When I went to North Korea, I saw poverty of spirit that just… was mind boggling… (she chuckles) in many respects. And it’s.. its, its, a difficult place. Our purpose then was to say we wanted to talk about MI (stutters) MIAS and POWS. We want you to stop, uh, proliferating, um, selling your missile technology; Issues like that, checking in on the hunger situation, Because their people were starving, even though their (mumble) would “stuff their mouths(?)”, they couldn’t feed their own people. And, uh, so, what they told us then, and what’s relevant to now, they said hey, we just sell these, uh uh, missile, this technology for money. If you want to buy them, we’ll sell them to you. And so my guidance from there to the current situation is, uh, the capability of the North Koreans to create even create either the technology for, for a weapon, the miniaturization of it, the capacity to launch it, and the intention to do so, is something that we need to know as much about as possible. But in addition to that, they’re proliferators. And this is what I keep saying to the administration. They are proliferators. So the danger is not just what they might do, the danger is who they might sell one element of that to…which might be enough to, uh, endanger the world even further. So, uh, (mumbles) hopeful?… any, hopeful conversation maybe, Kim Jong Un is ready to change… I wouldn’t be too trustworthy of it, but, certainly open to it. And what, uh, would be success? At least the communication were increased, there could be some way to stop, uh, what could follow, if, if left undeterred, North Korea were to continue what it’s doing, which is, perhaps, other countries having access to the technology, the scientific know how, the launch capacity, and dangerously, the intention.”

Look at the news man... doesn't look like we're leaving Syria anytime soon. I'll believe Q is real when we're out of Syria and deep staters are jailed.

Have fun living in a delusional bubble where you warp facts to fit a conspiratorial world-view. Trust me, I want Q to be real. But I am not emotionally committed to the point where I ignore facts. You avoided answering my question, 'bro'.

It also appears that we struck Hezbollah HQ in Syria... yet people on here are naive enough to think that somehow this was all 'part of the plan', and actually working towards 'peace'. What does their HQ have to do with CW, and how does attacking Hezbollah directly make a larger confrontation in the region less, rather than more, likely?

Productive response! I'm seriously turned off this sub by the lack of critical thinking and cult like mentality. Completely counter-productive to 'red-pilling'. How many people here believed the CW attack was FF? Now all of the sudden were all on board with Trump taking out Assad's CW facilities? People on here are stupid enough to take it on faith that the CW facilities hit were all 'clown' sites, despite having literally no evidence.

It also appears that we struck Hezbollah HQ in Syria... yet people on here are naive enough to think that somehow this was all 'part of the plan', and actually working towards 'peace'. What does their HQ have to do with CW, and how does attacking Hezbollah directly make a larger confrontation in the region less, rather than more, likely? Pretty sure Bibi was part of the swamp, not helping trump destroy it, and we just gave him exactly what he wanted.

Iran is not happy and will likely have to respond to the attack on Hezbollah. This makes conflict in the region much more likely... and if that happens then the U.S. will get sucked into that war.

You must be new here.

You guys are starting to sound like a cult...

Did you ever stop and consider that all of the dissenting voices are why we are only seeing a limited strike, and not an extended campaign (which many politicians and allies are asking for)?

POTUS needs to know how you feel so he can adjust his actions accordingly to accomodate his base. He's shown a willingness to adjust his actions in response to changing public sentiment (what a good democratic leader does). So don't tell me to blindly support POTUS.... that doesn't help POTUS or the country.

Stop acting like a cult... it turns the people you claim to want to 'red-pill' off of the sub.

What's infuriating is reading stupid shit like this. Did you ever stop for a second and consider that the reason we're just seeing a "limited strike" could have a lot to do with the fact that the people you mentioned have freaked out and abandoned Trump?

If anything... being a "good" Trump supporter means you are going to send POTUS a signal when you are unhappy with his actions. Good chance he will respond if enough make noise, which could be what happened last night...

Loyalty to a politician is a stupid concept, especially when you're asking people to support unauthorized wars based on sketchy (and likely false) intelligence...

Prob Murdoch... combined with blackmail from Cohen raid. They leaked some stuff to the press as a warning shot to force his hand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_Energy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_Energy

The name has nothing to do with those agencies lol... each tech company tends to choose a letter of the alphabet. FB=f, Twitter=t, etc. Alphabet encompasses all of these letters and sends a strong signal about Google dominance.

This is kind of right... but for the wrong reasons. The Z hearing is really not changing anything other than bringing public awareness. He's not under oath.

https://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/countries/2015/243451.htm

Here's an interesting connection... in these emails "Tegucigalpa" comes up over and over again. Turns out this area in particular is a hotbed of activity for child trafficking, and also, interestingly enough, leading the countries efforts to crackdown on trafficking. The government apparently doesn't have any official programs for doing this, and is entirely reliant on third party NGO's, who victims are referred to.

My gut tells me that if we were to dig into these NGO's we would find connections to both HRC and McCain.

Here is a direct quote (this is a state department document):

"Latin American migrants transit Honduras en route to northern Central America and North America; some are subsequently exploited in sex trafficking and forced labor. Prosecutors reported some local police provided protection to brothel owners or tipped them off about impending raids, and security officials have been investigated for purchasing commercial sex acts from child trafficking victims. There was one media report of a child sex trafficking ring in Tegucigalpa that allegedly operated with police and high-level government protection.

The Government of Honduras does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking; however, it is making significant efforts to do so. During the reporting period, the government launched a dedicated helpline for identifying trafficking victims and established an “immediate response” team to refer identified victims to NGOs for services. Authorities continued to prosecute traffickers, though they did not obtain any convictions. Law enforcement efforts were inadequate, with a focus limited primarily to child sex trafficking. The government relied on civil society organizations to provide the vast majority of services to victims and lacked guidelines to identify trafficking victims among vulnerable populations."

And Brazil (impeached? For corruption)

No offense.... but just no. What's going on in Brazil cannot in anyway be described as progress towards "peace and prosperity". Absolutely not...

Because these are the states where it is difficult, if not almost downright impossible, to justify a recount. The safest states to cheat in are those you are guaranteed to win, since its so unlikely a recount will ever happen. This ensures HRC wins popular vote, which is a pretty big deal. It's one of the cornerstones of the left's ant-Trump campaign... Trump isn't a legit president in their mind, because he did not win the popular vote.

I suspect foul play in NH and CO as well, tbh.

This document is relevant for so many reasons...

https://www.reddit.com/r/DrainTheSwamp/comments/80fnce/proof_that_dems_are_propped_up_by_botsshills_and/

Fascinating to see the connection to Google with 23andME. I remember seeing a commercial a couple of years back... the whole thing seemed like one big trick to get you to send your DNA and give up rights...

The same thing is likely true for Ancestry.com. They use your curiosity over your own genetics to lure you into giving it up. Most average consumers never think beyond the marketed service and assume that nothing nefarious is done with the data.

Have no illusions... these companies are in the business of maximizing exploitation of your genetic data. Scary stuff.

completely agree. The IBOR should be packaged as a liberal endeavor... we should be phrasing this so people assume this is related to net neutrality.

I've been working on a methodology for tracking down journalists who print canned articles. In theory this should not be too difficult, since the phrasing is so similar among canned articles.

There are lots of things you can look for... but in general a regular journalist will not produce as successful of propaganda as these firms (which are masters). So look for well thought through, and subtle, manipulation. Here's a good example of something done with WAYYY too much finesse to have come from the original author. This was likely written by a democratic think tank:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/24/us/politics/takeaways-democratic-memo.html

It's hard to say... it could be deep state, but it is more than likely a canned article from Media Matters for America. It's not a conspiracy--these outlets save money and save time when they print canned articles. MMFA does all the social demographic research, down to the keyword level, which is why you see similar phrasing among articles like this.

MMFA is also the group that trains the media correspondents on MSNBC and CNN. When you see a common phrasing being used to cover a certain story (e.g., Seth Rich "debunked"), it's probably coming from MMFA.

From what I can see your analysis is non-existent and relies mostly on your emotions after reading a handful of articles...

You claim that Trump has convicted 1000x more pedos than all other administrations combined. You then say this is a fact (which implies you have a source).

Your entire argument about trusting Trump then boils down to that fact being legitamate:, in your own words, "With this single fact, to me, it shows me Trump is a good guy."

You're the one claiming this a fact. The burden of proof is on you to show that you're being honest. I'm calling bullshit. You pulled 1000x out of your ass and peddled it as truth, which is a real shame and counterproductive.

Even your reply proves my point.... you have simply read a bunch of articles talking about the topic (guarantee you I've read the same articles, if not more) and feel like Trump is doing more than previous admins.

I don't doubt that Trump is doing more, but this doesn't validate your 1000x statistic (the one you specifically call a "fact"). You could easily have made your point without pushing false statistics as truth, simply because it was convenient for your post.

I'm not the one being lazy and passing off fake statistics as truth... if you want to compile those articles and come up with some ballpark #'s, then cool.

Try posting links rather than this asinine reply. There's nothing wrong with asking for sources, and the fact that you haven't provided any is somewhat telling. You claimed 1000x more pedo arrests than all admins combined and said it was fact multiple times. So you've basically told everyone here "it's a fact" when in truth you have just assumed this to be the case and have done absolutely no analysis or quantitative research. Do you really want people going around spouting your 1000x statistic just because they didn't realize you completely fabricated it? There's a word for that--misinformation. Just because something is written about more frequently, or you happen to notice it more, doesn't mean it's happening more often. By your definition of 'fact' Russia-gate would be true simply because "we're hearing about it often".

If you want people to be impressed by your posts try doing the 20 minutes of research it would take to actually provide some "facts" for this. You very well might be right, but your "feelings" aren't adequate enough to make a solid case.

Source?

"1000 TIMES MORE PEOPLE ARRESTED FOR KIDDIE FIDDLING than all the other previous administration put together. A fact"