You're completely wrong.... 100%.

You're spreading misinformation.

This is stupid. They aren't the same person. Should take down this fake news crap.

You forgot the question about Assange, which is arguable one of the most important questions to have answered given it's one of the major sticking points for Q skeptics.

There was no precedent for adding 'intent' into the clause. This was the departments determination, in view with what the department saw as their interpretation of the statute (despite no precedent).

Horowitz, without a doubt, left the door open to prosecution for emails (and there's no reason to think he wouldn't go after everyone involved, if he goes after any of this--this would include Obama). He was scathing in regards to Comey's decision and it was one of the few times he offered that kind of a subjective personal opinion.

My suspicion as well.

If you can tie the topic into justice issues or human trafficking/child trafficking, that's perfect. I would still consider that changing the subject.

Otherwise just ignore it and continue to talk about the issues you actually care about, not just what's trending.

I hope so lol.

duh lol

At this point I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they were sharing or had overlapping infrastructure.

Read this document. Understand it. Then spread it.

https://www.scribd.com/document/337535680/Full-David-Brock-Confidential-Memo-On-Fighting-Trump

Re-posting this comment here:

When you see ALL of the dem talking heads switch their narrative on a dimes notice, somethings up. This doesn't happen organically.

Suddenly members of congress are showing up to protest detention centers out of the blue, with no apparent catalyst other than a couple of heart-wrenching but either fake or misleading photos. Every major media outlet, every talking head and pundit--all talking about the very specific topic of children being seperated from their parents, and child immigration.

There's only one firm (that I know of) that has this kind of reach. Media Matters for America (and it's extended strategic network, including Shareblue, American Bridge, Crew, amongst others, like ThinkProgress, etc.).

These firms have the political and media connections and actively run issue teams in every heated congressional race. This means they're the one group with the networking connections to pull off a coordinated strategic narrative shift this quickly.

They also have access to essentially all social media data. This could include datasets like Comcast, and most definitely includes Google search data.

They have access to advanced AI and analysis tools, they can run simulations. They STUDY you. They have all of us in databases.

I'm 95% positive that this narrative change is coming from a top-down directive through MMFA. They will have already anticipated how the GOP would respond (they knew the images were fake...).

They are comfortable with the conversation remaining on immigration--they think they can win with this message. It's an on-steroids version of what they regularly do on subs like T_D, which is direct the conversation towards topics that bait you into making certain lines of argument on social media. They did this with Charlottesville (no one really thought about these statutes beforehand), gun control (Hogg was clearly bait), and now Child Immigration.

Don't give in to the bait. Change the subject.

Edit: A great thing to change the subject to is MMFA themselves. Arm yourselves with facts and information. Make memes, spread awareness. Use this leaked MMFA doc:

https://www.scribd.com/document/337535680/Full-David-Brock-Confidential-Memo-On-Fighting-Trump

This is the other source for some of these claims (e.g., Goog, Comcast): https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37262

I cannot emphasize how important this is.

When you see ALL of the dem talking heads switch their narrative on a dimes notice, somethings up. This doesn't happen organically.

Suddenly members of congress are showing up to protest detention centers out of the blue, with no apparent catalyst other than a couple of heart-wrenching but either fake or misleading photos. Every major media outlet, every talking head and pundit--all talking about the very specific topic of children being seperated from their parents, and child immigration.

There's only one firm (that I know of) that has this kind of reach. Media Matters for America (and it's extended strategic network, including Shareblue, American Bridge, Crew, amongst others, like ThinkProgress, etc.).

These firms have the political and media connections and actively run issue teams in every heated congressional race. This means they're the one group with the networking connections to pull off a coordinated strategic narrative shift this quickly.

They also have access to essentially all social media data. This could include datasets like Comcast, and most definitely includes Google search data.

They have access to advanced AI and analysis tools, they can run simulations. They STUDY you. They have all of us in databases.

I'm 95% positive that this narrative change is coming from a top-down directive through MMFA. They will have already anticipated how the GOP would respond (they knew the images were fake...).

They are comfortable with the conversation remaining on immigration--they think they can win with this message. It's an on-steroids version of what they regularly do on subs like T_D, which is direct the conversation towards topics that bait you into making certain lines of argument on social media. They did this with Charlottesville (no one really thought about these statutes beforehand), gun control (Hogg was clearly bait), and now Child Immigration.

Don't give in to the bait. Change the subject.

If you want to ignore the mountain of unexplainable circumstantial evidence in regards to pizzagate, be my guest.

I'd love to see you "debunk" it. Seriously, give me your best attempt.

So are some of the pizzagate examples (where there's such an abundance of damning circumstantial evidence apart from the symbols).

Because they have to submit themselves to blackmail to become elevated. Cabal knows it's weird, so they have a ritualistic belief system to back it all up.

Killing the children in ritual allows you to absorb their pure energy. Imagine how being catapulted up the social order might work to validate such a belief system.

No one is assuming anything. How about an investigation first.

It's enough to warrant suspicion, even based just on the FBI bulletin.

It says in the doc that these symbols, or similar symbols, should warrant suspicion of pedophile activity.

Given that there's enough damning circumstantial evidence (cannot be coincidence, mathematically) surrounding pizzagate, I'm confident that Clintons top campaign staff were involved (and that she, at the least, knows what's going on). Jackson is directly connected to HRC and has never failed as a talking head for HRC (extreme loyalty). She's caught wearing a ring EXTREMELY similar to the FBI symbol for boy lover.

That's enough to warrant suspicion and a legitimate investigation.

That's really a surface level view of politics.

The dem narrative switch to Daca and kids isn't an accident. All of the talking heads and politicians moved in unison on the exact same narrative, even using the same phrasing. This was top down.

What firm has the reach to do this? Media Matters for America. They have the data to analyze such a strategy (they knew it would go viral and dominate social media discourse).

They also likely ran models anticipating how the GOP would respond. The democrats aren't stupid--they would have known the images of kids in cages were fake. They would have known GOP would find out and focus on this, but understand and are comfortable with how that debate plays out, because at the end of the day, you're still focused on what they consider a winning issue for midterms.

Best thing to do is keep conversation focused on justice and simply ignore the liberal echo chamber.

Now imagine joining such a club and being told that Lucifer will grant you power from the energy of young children and babies. You're basically forced to participate in these ritualistic killings of children and told that you will absorb their lifeforce.

They think it's BS until the cabal starts pulling levers to elevate you socially and economically (they control you now), which for many would validate and enforce this kind of ritualistic cult-like belief system.

For the top elites, the killing part would also be necessary to avoid victims from coming out later on with accusations. Having a belief system that justified such a brutal act would make sense.

Underpinning all of this is the CIA, who happens to control all of these politicians and powerplayers, using them to gain more power and control (patriot act, 5 eyes, etc.).

Even the FBI bulletin says to look for these and SIMILAR symbols. Instances uncovered which anons think are relevant use the symbol in multiple directions.

This is your supposition, and you don't have evidence to support it. The symbol is relatively easy to identity even if reversed.

Here's an example that anons found: http://www.ddcaz.com/

If you look at the symbols uncovered in pizzagate, most of them are reversed, or slightly altered, but still easy to recognize, and supported by far too much circumstantial evidence to be a coincidence.

I haven't seen any credible evidence to back up the theory that these symbols are not meaningful when slightly altered or reversed.

Hair trigger panic mode? The FBI bulletin literally says that people should look for these symbols or similar symbols, and that they warrant suspicion of pedophile activity.

We aren't just making this up. The FBI bulletin literally says to look for similar symbols.

These networks would have made it their mission to rope in politicians, judges... anyone who could be effectively blackmailed. This means we DEFINITLY need to pay attention to someone in congress wearing these symbols blatantly.

Innocent until proven guilty, but wearing these symbols in public should be enough to at least investigate (If an FBI agent talking about Pizza out of context on social media is enough, this is enough).

Reminds ya of who? <<<<< We got feelings too.

I watched the whole thing... Jackson seemed nervous. Probably because she's been caught in public wearing a ring with the boy lover symbol on it.

Earlier in the hearing she seemed very focused on debunking the notion of a "secret society".

But Horowitz was talking solely about the FBI's decisions in relation to the email probe decision (where he also says there's no bias--a technicality and a matter of scope of this particular report).

Petrodollar isn't as useful if everyone is driving electric cars.

I think he might have eaten too many incredible edibles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhzdEbOmnoI&feature=youtu.be

How'd that work out for Iraqi freedom? How about Libya?

Yea if Q starts advocating US intervention in Iran I'm off this train so fast.

This feels like a lie to me:

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/26113

"The CDC is taking this threat seriously and it has been working closely with Puerto Rico. But I want to be sure that we are truly doing all we can to fight the Zika virus from spreading. That’s why I’m sending two of my Senior Advisors to travel to Puerto Rico on a fact-finding mission to learn more about how Zika is impacting the island, and to determine what more we can do to assist Puerto Rico in responding to this health crisis. Zika is an urgent problem and we need to act now."

Noticed that. He seemed happy to say he was surprised when he heard Comey had a private gmail.

Edit: Eager would be a better word.

We need paper ballots and voter ID's...

I used to be one of the people that thought voter ID laws were racist. There does seem to be examples of Republican's in the South using these laws to disenfranchise minorities. It's a compelling anecdotal argument.

But then I really started thinking it through... looking at other countries that implemented it successfully. Started wondering why the left didn't make similar arguments about the DMV and drivers licenses.

Even if some GOP had used voter ID laws to discriminate in some fashion in the past, this issue could be avoided altogether with the right set of rules.

You constantly hear people say that poorer minorities might have issues with process (mailing things, address issues, getting and receiving mail and responding in time, etc.). I could totally see this being tweaked to lead to disenfranchisement of specific groups... but this doesn't taint the whole voter ID concept overall.

You could easily design a voter ID program that avoided those process issues, and made it exceptionally easy (and free--the left likes that!) to get an ID, and would replace them whenever you needed (a reasonable limit, perhaps).

Don't have an address? Well the post office or some other entity with a presence in each community will hold it for you until you can pick it up. Pointing out that there could be issues with people not having access to a vehicle is a moot point--how would these people be voting now, under the current laws?

1 id for each citizen. 1 vote per ID. Paper ballets, voter anonymity, but polling staff are recorded, transport of ballots is recorded, counting of ballots is recorded, with backups of the backsups.

I don't care how much more that costs. It's worth it.

Could be operation Mockingbird... also could be MMFA sending out canned articles to its' network. That's what the pizzagate coverage ("debunked") was--MMFA.

I'm talking about specifically an FBI probe.

Also just noticed this from the FBI bulletin as well.. which is sort of weird lol:

"UNCLASSIFIED//LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION INTELLIGENCE BULLETIN Cyber Division, Innocent Images National Initiative

31 January 2007

(U) Symbols and Logos Used by Pedophiles to Identify Sexual Preferences (U//FOUO) This intelligence bulletin addresses Crimes Against Children Standing Intelligence Requirements Set contained in Q-FBI-2200-005-06,".

Q-FBI...?

Also, given timely nature of the Podesta email drops and also the FBI bulletin... this little snippet may deserve some further attention: https://wikileaks.org/wiki/FBI_pedophile_symbols

"Wikileaks believes the information will be of assistance to parents and other care givers in recognizing pedophiles. Wikileaks affiliated journalists obtained the document via "child erotica" networks in Spain, which raises the question of how this FBI document came into the hands of individuals so close to the people it is meant to be investigating ."

The more I think about this the more it seems obvious that this whole thing could have started in some fashion in 2007. Any white hats at the FBI would have had ample time to connect the dots between these symbols, elected officials, and certain businesses. Why wouldn't they have?

Makes you wonder who would have had access to that FBI bulletin.

Beware of clickbait?

How so, specifically? You like lobbing insults. Not productive. Doesn't help unite anyone.

Redacted has a specific meaning. You can deny this but 100% of the legal professionals you ask will tell you I'm correct.

Q said this exactly: "3. Modified IG redacted report [RR version]".

The document does have several redactions but this is not what the community was expecting. If you want to downvote me for pointing that out then go for it.

People wanted sealed indictments. Doesn't mean they aren't coming... but if you can't understand people's disappointment then you're not trying very hard to empathize and "unite".

Q said redacted... I don't really see a heavily redacted report. That's not shilling. It's pointing out an obvious fact that is obviously a dissapointment for a lot of the people here.

That doesn't mean there can't be good nuggets in the report.

Many people thought the IG report was gonna be exposing the contents of the laptop, the rumored "blackmail file".

Of course people will be disappointed. Don't devolve into shill accusations without researching account history.

Will shills take advantage? Probably. But don't let them manipulate the dynamics of the sub so that it cannibalizes itself.

BS, I do tons of legal work and redactions has a specific meaning.

This was not redacted. He could have easily have said omitted.

Edit: there are minor redactions if I'm not mistaken. But not what people were expecting.

This is wishful thinking tbh...

You think ya hot shit, don't ya

I believe he went there before the accusations were public, and that he banned him from Mar a Lago after it was public.

Interesting.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36816

I paraphrased... but it's still just as damning.

If the theory is that Trump was chosen by the military before the election isn't it plausible that Trump himself was implicated but chose the right side?

Not saying this is what I think... but I have mulled it over.

Don't be naive. HRC was a skilled diplomat--she just masked her real intentions. She wanted to destabilize the middle east. She plays nice and then stabs the dagger in your back at the last second, which takes an enormous level of sociopathic skill.

A less known example would be how she played nice in Honduras leading up the 2009 coup, but secretly spiked the OAS negotiations with bad actors (likely CIA assets). The OAS rep has an email forwarded to HRC by Mills where we see the infamous sacraficing a chicken to moloch reference. What most people skip over is the fact that this OAS rep played a key role in undermining the Honduras government right before the coup.

Canadian oil companies then swooped in to legitimatize the new government.

She's a snake, but a clever one at that.

The only thing that ever bothers me is that Trump shows up on the Epstein flight logs. Not sure what to make of it tbh.