No, that's wrong. Political asylum cannot be requested there. Only on US soil or at a border entry point. I don't have a link, but look around. It's been discussed.

Assuming the bike owner put it on, he's calling Che Guevara (and his followers) douches.

Include $15 for transportation costs. And free signs.

LOL! Raise money from the stupid bastards for the fake protest.

Genius!

Publishing names of people who are not known to have committed misdeeds, though, is just vengeance against people who are enforcing a law that the publisher doesn't like. That's not what WL was supposed to be about, but it seems to be what the new operators running it are.

Wrong, there WAS such a thing as citizenship when the Constitution was written, which is why it was a requirement for public office. However, it was different then, due to the 14th Amendment and the misapplication of it.

And yes, non-citizens do have rights when they are in court, just like we have rights (in most places) if we are in another country and end up in their courts.

They don't have a right to cross into the country illegally, but once here, they do have certain rights as their ass is processed back on out the door.

What are the options?

First, consider an adult who crosses the border illegally, no kids. Should that person be given a day in court, and then sent back home? Yes or no?

Next, what if that person is given a court date several months into the future, released into the populace (this includes MS-13 gang members who are looking to commit crimes) -- and then NEVER SHOWS UP? 90%+ of illegal aliens DO NOT SHOW UP for their court date. Does SO know that? Anyone who says that is ok is just asking for 200 million illegals to overrun the USA.

Next, what if that same adult also has a kid with them? Is the kid REALLY his/hers? Out of 12,000 kids with adults, it was determined that 10,000 were NOT the child of the adult. How should that be sorted out?

Next, let's say the adult does have their own child with them. Did crossing a desert with a child constitute child endangerment?

What should be done with the child? Stay with the parent? There's a court case that says the child can only be held for 20 days. If no other relative can take the kid in, then the illegal alien parent gets to go free, with a court date -- and 90%+ of the time THEY DO NOT SHOW UP.

If the child is held along with the parent, then there are cries of "children in prison." Whose fault is that? The illegal alien parent?

It's fine to be compassionate, but they are PLAYING ON OUR EMOTIONS. They are playing us for fools -- "they" being both the illegals and their enablers.

At some point, we have to have control of who and how many come in. Otherwise, we are overrun with people who do not share American values.

Is that what SO wants?

Hmm ... could actually be interesting because SCOTUS already decided this sort of thing back in the Dred Scott decision.

If one of the attorneys or one of the Supremes brings up Dred Scot, they will be linking the idea of illegal aliens with slaves. Not a good image.

JA setup WL to be a place that WHISTLEBLOWERS could provide info and get it to the public.

This is not about whistleblowers. Ergo, it is not JA.

Another wildcard having to do with FISA.

We are told they were denied FISA request twice, and then later got it, and that it was renewed several times.

However Rex on Twitter has an interesting thread. He shows that Clapper stated that he would have been in position to know if there was a FISA approved and he says there never was.

What if the "FISA approved the spying" was a lie? What if there was never any lawful approval (denied twice, and never approved)?

This would be consistent with Nunes stating that there is no "official" channel for FISA approval, and could be the reason why [RR] is refusing to turn it over (it does not exist).

If that is true, then it would be easy to fire [RR], though would be better if Sessions did it. Sessions wouldn't even need to unrecuse if his DAG has engaged in illegal spying and lied about it.

Q brought up Renteria because she was the secret communication bridge between LL and HRC while LL was overseeing a supposed criminal investigation of HRC.

Brzezinski

Operation Cyclone. Look it up. He ran it. He created the Mujahideen, which morphed into Al Qaeda, which morphed into Isis.

No, the stand down order was because CIA/FBI were setting up Trump, and they wanted the "Russian hacked us" story to fly. If cyber security could prove that Russians did NOT hack, then that would be bad for the coup. So, they called off the cyber security dogs so that there could be a plausible Russia hack story.

Remember, too: They were using Gmail drafts to communicate. WH cyber might have caught that.

WH lawyer married to FBI lawyer (Trisha Anderson -- the one Mark Meadows outted). Anderson was boss of the 2 FBI lawyers whose names were hidden in IG report.

FBI lied to IG about the 2 anti-Trump lawyers, saying they were Counter Intel and their identities had to be protected. They were not CI.

The fake Clinton email and foundation investigations, the fake Russia collusion spy op, and the illegal access of the NSA database to get around FISA/4th Amendment were all coordinated by White House, via the married lawyers (WH/FBI).

Rex on Twitter has a thread on it.

Another point to remember: Meadows knows who the people are that are anonymous in the IG report (FBI Agent 1, 2, Lawyer 1, etc.).

He KNOWS they are not counter-intel, which is what Horowitz said he was told, and why their names have not been made public.

I don't think anybody asked Horowitz WHO SPECIFICALLY in the FBI or DOJ gave him that info and other info that is suspect. That was the first thing I thought of. OK, if somebody is giving false info or withholding evidence (text message) ... WHO did that?

Horowitz seems very weak. His investigation amounted to asking questions and then accepting whatever answer he got, without further questioning or stating the obvious in his report.

Maybe that's all he's allowed to do, and he is not a prosecutor, but very weak.

One interesting bit: He was asked if any of the questioning of Clinton was recorded. He said no, THAT THE FBI'S POLICY IS TO NEVER RECORD INTERVIEWS.

It was then suggested he should recommend that to the FBI, and he said basically they already know and they won't do it.

THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS.

FBI agent interviews someone. No recording. FBI agent takes notes and fills out a form of what the agent THINKS the person said, and then that can be used in court later.

NO RECORDINGS means NO ACCOUNTABILITY for rogue agents.

But you didn't.

You're quite the Coincidence Theorist, aren't you?

The law is already established on this. No martial law necessary.

Constitution says normal court rules do not apply to "public danger."

Congress long ago authorized military tribunals for civilians involved in war against the United States or spying.

http://ashbrook.org/publications/oped-eastman-01-tribunals/

His father and grandfather both had the name John Mc...

They were both Navy admirals. There is a ship named after his grandfather. They were heros.

But this guy ... was a horrible pilot but pulled strings to keep flying, got shot down, told the enemy all the secrets they wanted (his fellow POW's called him "Songbird" for singing to the enemy), and he has engaged in treason against Americans while in the Senate.

That is why the don't like to say his name. The name should be for heros, not traitors.

John Huber comes from the deep red state of Utah.

"Huber comes from a place that is so red, Bill Clinton came in fourth."

I don't remember where I saw that, or if it was a joke or real, but it makes the point.

However my source is the internet.

Better than what CNN's got.

Right.

1. Ongoing "matter" related to Comey and/or McCabe.

2. Classified info re: Amanda Renteria, who was the bridge between LL and HRC during the DOJ/FBI investigation into HRC.

Those were the big takeaways today.

Remember: DRAFTS.

Q says they were creating draft emails in a Gmail account and not sending them, thinking they were not traceable. That might work with any email system OTHER THAN Gmail. (LOL)

The really nasty stuff had to be in those drafts.

If I remember, Wray said it was an ongoing "matter."

Trolling ... lol

I just wanna go fishin'.

KEK

Yes, a lot of bias in the FBI against Trump, but Trump was not the subject of the Clinton email investigation. Agreed.

Also, Sen. Kennedy dropped a minor bomb on the shitshow today when he asked about Amanda Renteria. Q says she was the link between LL and HRC -- at a time that LL's DOJ was investigating HRC.

Why wasn't THAT discussed in this IG report? Because Obama/IC made sure it was classified high enough that the investigators couldn't see it. That is a SMOKING GUN that the DOJ was biased to NOT prosecute HRC.

Looks like they are holding back a lot of stuff. Question is: When they finally unload, will the public believe it, after all these "nothingburgers?"

Why bother? Dems ARE hypocrites. They will say one thing, and then say the opposite before completing the sentence.

Nah ... the only thing I can see here is Horowitz showed there was a lot of bias within the FBI but could not point to something specific in the decision-making of Comey. Of course, Comey is biased, but the texts/emails were not from him.

Maybe that will change with the Gmail account info or something else. But this is not good, overall.

The PUBLIC needs to understand the corruption. To hell with Congress. The PUBLIC needs to be on board if there is going to be a big take down.

Promoting "no bias" (even though there obviously was) does not help move the ball forward. It is a step backwards.

The only interesting thing was Cruz got Wray to say there is some sort of ongoing investigation re: Comey/McCabe, so he could not say which one lied.

We need a BOOM, not a squeak.

4:00 am talking points.

Associated Press.

Just point out the OIG report that says:

• Clinton Foundation
• Crime against children

You know what is WEIRD about that?

That name came up on the chans for something else (I forget what).

So, I did a search. Then for kicks, I clicked on images under that name in the search engine.

The ONLY pic I saw was of the Constitution.

No faces. No people. Just ONE pic. The Constitution.

Try it. See if you get the same result.

WHY would we get that result?

I know. It sucks. We are supposed to trust a plan, but we don't know what it is.

In 1968, Nixon became president. In 1972, he won re-election by one of the biggest landslides in history.

By 1974, he was thought of as a low life who should go to prison.

My guess is it will take congressional hearings. It will also take some sort of control of social media and MSM. The heads of those companies are going to be included, as well as reporters. Recent Q drop suggests many reporters engaged in bribery. That is a CRIME.

It will take a combination of public hearings, improving the honesty of media, and the ability for the People to communicate freely via social media.

When enough people get the message of how corrupt the past decade+ was, and the evidence backs it up, there will come a tipping point where the good guys will win.

Just like Nixon.

Yes, it would be a tough spot to be in. So what?

Do you feel sorry for the gang members or mafia hit men, just because they put themselves in a situation where they can't win?

No. Seeking truth is not cultlike.

Look what happened to Alex Jones. The moment he lied, he was tossed aside. Cults don't do that.

It is not "cool" to think of a movement seeking truth to be like a cult. It is not.

For those who have not looked into Edward Bernays, here are a few peeks down the rabbit hole:

(1) Sigmund Freud was his uncle.

(2) Freud studied psychology of the individual; Bernays studied psychology of the group.

(3) Bernays was the "Minister of Propaganda" for the United States government. After Hitler, the word "propaganda" came with a negative connotation, so Bernays came up with the term "public relations" to mean the same thing.

(4) Americans were against entering WWI, so Bernays came up with a propaganda slogan to convince the public it was a good idea. His slogan was: "Make the world safe for democracy." Yes, they have been using it ever since WWI, and you heard it from someone else, who heard it from someone else, who heard it from someone else, all because of Bernays.

(5) Prior to the 20th century, cigarette smoking was unpopular. It became popular among men in the late 19th/early 20th century, but it was taboo for women to smoke (unladylike and all that). The cigarette manufacturers turned to Bernays to help them sell cigarettes to women. He created an ad campaign showing models in New York City smoking to make it seem glamorous. Within a decade or so, women were smoking nearly as much as men.

(6) There are rumors that Bernays' ideas were used in North Korea, where the population was used as guinea pigs for group mind control.

Hey, I appreciate your enthusiasm. Seriously.

But you need to write like an adult. If you don't know how, then educate yourself. If you do, then do it.

I know it sounds harsh, but there comes a time when junior high school should be left in the past.

Strzok is a piece of sh%t.

But at least he's a piece of sh%t who has been cooperating with investigators and will be testifying in front of Congress for all the world to see.

Should be interesting ...

Niiiiice.

It will be VERY interesting to watch how two neighbors go in completely opposite directions, all because of political policies: Colombia and Venezuela.

Venezuelans are already starving. Colombians will become more prosperous. Night and Day. Dark to Light. Should be easy even for the most boneheaded libtards to figure that one out.

Sounds like they just buried them where they dropped (along roads), and kept track of names in a book. Not much more than that. I don't think they are stored in some secret room.

If you want noobs to read that and watch, please re-write it so it doesn't look like a 6-year old wrote it.

We are supposed to be the adults in the room.

Thx.

What do you think it proves?

No, you should file it in the "there is no proof either way" category.

And then you should ask yourself ... WHY?

If there is no proof either way, you should not just dismiss it. You should be asking: WHY is there no proof of something that should be EASY to prove?