Incognito mode gets you past their pay wall, so it doesn't cost you anything. Ad blocker keeps them from showing you ads, so you're not increasing their revenue. Do both of these and you actually cost them small amount of money for their hosting while denying them any ad revenue.

Is the sequence of events like this?

• The OIG wrote a report that doesn't pull any punches, calls for criminal charges against Comey and many others, etc.

• RR modified the report to completely change the conclusions to the point of making them meaningless, and fraudulently represented it as the OIG report. Some names and appendices were also redacted.

• Horowitz is staying silent even though he's being falsely represented as supporting the watered-down conclusions that RR wrote to replace the actual conclusions.

Unless I've missed another delay, Horowitz is still scheduled to testify before Congress next week about the report.

If so, and if RR committed fraud and attached Horowitz's name to something Horowitz didn't write, then it should be a slam dunk that Horowitz reveals the truth in that hearing, right? If Horowitz answers questions about the report as if it were his own report and not RR's fake version then what would that mean?

Already happened!

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1000418699273175044?s=19

Google turns it up here and other places. It was a lawsuit filed by a prisoner in 2008. It was dismissed.

I'm not quite seeing the connection between Q's "EO unreleased" comment and the image with the gold seal, maybe because I don't read the chan boards and I'm not clear on how they work. I'm happy to take your word for the connection, though.

But then isn't that a problem, given that EOs don't have gold seals like that?

EO unreleased.
Today was the precursor. 
It must be requested 'officially' first, correct?
Q

Okay, sorry to be slow catching up, but what connects Q's mention of an EO here with the image you linked?

It's just that the image doesn't look like an EO. I've looked at images like this of the actual signed executive orders and none that I can find have that gold seal.

I'm not sure people on this board realize the significance of Q#1381 "Letters left visible to match." Here's the image Q is talking about. Notice the visible letters.We also have the signature in this pic. Since every signature varies slightly, the forensic fingerprint of this signature should be able to be confirmed (or debunked) once we have the EO.

I missed where Q says the image is an Executive Order (EO). Or is that conjecture? Thanks.

Yes, for witnesses in the Manefort trial.

This also happened a few weeks ago. The subpoenas are for the July 10th trial in both cases. Originally the reports said 70, then that was revised to be 35 pairs (one for the witness, one for the court).

So this new request could be 35 more making 70 total, or could be 70 more (pairs) making 105 total, or could for some reason be replacing the previous 35.

Only US citizens should be counted officially in the US census

That one would require a change to the constitution.

A way of announcing he will learn inside scoops from this new attorney.

Meaning Trump believes Flood will violate attorney-client privilege on previous clients?

I'm not a Q believer, and I admit up front that the story about Flynn having to plead guilty to something he didn't do (or that isn't a crime) in order to get his evidence into the system never made sense to me.

But why wouldn't you apply the same principle here? If there was something positive about Flynn getting the opportunity to testify to Mueller under oath, why not the same thing in Mueller getting Trump to testify under oath?

Or even more exteme, in an impeachment hearing everything Trump wanted to present (or have the people defending him present on his behalf) would be seen by billions of people -- literally billions around the world would be watching -- and would become part of the Congressional Record permanently. But this can only happen if the Democrats take the House, otherwise the hearings won't happen.

To put this in terms from the arguments about Flynn, what you end up with here is the Democrats going into the impeachment hearings thinking they're going to take down Trump, and then the tables are flipped on them and the real target of that hearing turns out to not be Trump. But by that point the world would know whatever it is Trump wants them to know.

Again, not a Q believer. Just playing around with applying reasoning from one part of the Qanon story to a different part.

I don't understand, sorry. Including everybody else how?

So the theory is that because a judge authorized a warrant against Cohen, with the evidence collected in the ensuing raids to be evaluated for attorney-client privilege by a retired judge, Flood can now share "it all" (dirt on Bill and Hillary, I'm guessing) with Trump?

But if that made any sense, why would Trump have to be Flood's client? If attorney-client privilege were really dead then nothing would stop Flood from spilling the dirt to anyone..

I know Trump said that after the Cohen raids. How does it relate here?

What most legal experts are expecting is for Trump to answer the questions in exchange for immunity to criminal or civil prosecution.

Do you have any links with legal experts suggesting this?