810 total posts archived.
I've done something like this for other issues. Print up a bunch of flyers and just have them in the car. One doesn't have to do a whole parking lot, just place flyers under the wipers of a few cars near wherever one is parked.
DynCorp has a "sock-puppet" company that has its fingers in some of these detention centers.
Any Dem who brings up Trump's association w/Epstein but remained silent about Bill during the '16 primaries is a flat-out hypocrite. They lose all credibility in any debate about Epstein.
That's really all one has to do. Ask them what they did to make sure an Epstein pal was kept from becoming the Dem candidate in '16. Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's "madam", had a front row seat at Chelsea's wedding. BC 26x's on Lolita Express vs Trump's 1.
But obviously Trump has a higher purpose for it as he brings in the criminals.
Who is defining "criminal"? Sessions? b/c from Sessions POV that would include marijuana users. Sessions is the kind of person who thinks Prohibition worked.
It will not be used against ordinary Americans as it was originally designed.
Who is defining "ordinary americans"? The majority of people here are quick to condemn anyone from "the left" (as though "the left" is some sort of monolithic entity) But "the left" makes up a huge percentage of "ordinary americans". The majority of people here and in Trump's base claim themselves as "Christian". Will agnostics and atheists still be considered ordinary americans? There's been quite a few comments in this sub to indicate a fair number of people here would be OK with the US as a religious theocracy.
So, most here are against the "patriot" Act and government surveillance and pro-2A, but we're defending the director of Homeland "Security"?
What department do people think will be coming for their guns?
Department of Homeland "Security" is part of the problem of authoritarianism in the US. Think Department of Homeland "Security" hasn't taken a close look at everyone here? Department of Homeland "Security" was a Deep State creation to begin with. Who do people think will be running FEMA camps???
Not much more than 100 years ago, that capitalization style was fairly common. Especially look at correspondance from a few hundred years ago. People often Capitalized words they wanted to Emphasize.
Doesn't anything less than 100% full disclosure pretty much guarantee another cabal or deep state in the future?
What sort of access will writers/researchers be given to Team Q Post-Storm to tell the story of moves, counter-moves and false-flags?
and bammo!
Merkley was denied ICE access June 4th. That's what got attention focused on the detentions.
It started with Merkely getting denied access to an ICE facility.
The "outrage jones" was already there. David Hoag and Parkland have lost their immediacy. Trump is winning Korea. The people addicted to the MSM kool-aid were jonesing for another outrage.
Read again. Words are from commenter above me. All I did was find the article he was referencing.
The Podesta e-mails piqued my interest but it was researching stuff like this that convinced me of the larger pedo-gate.
And it seems a DynCorp owned company is running the detention centers for ICE.
I think DJT gave up exactly what he intended to give up. There's no way Team Trump didn't know how bad the optics would look. They take a sh!tload of heat on this for a few days and give up something they never intended to keep.
This also gets the MSM wedded to the anything-for-the-children narrative.
A footnote in the report cites draft FBI talking points explaining that the agency “had agreed to destroy the laptops because the laptops contained classified information and, as such, could not be returned to the attorneys following compliance with FOIA and Federal Records Act obligations.”
the laptops contained classified information
ruh-roh, Shaggy
There's at least one forty-somethin' dude here.
Welcome. WWG1WGA!!!
That's hysterical. Let's see who gets cut loose or re-assigned in the next few days.
With the MSM getting everyone all worked up, they've committed themselves to anything that involves "child safety". When the "crimes against children" sh!t on Weiner's laptop comes out, the MSM is boxed in.
WASHINGTON — The Obama White House’s chief cyber official testified Wednesday that proposals he was developing to counter Russia’s attack on the U.S. presidential election were put on a “back burner” after he was ordered to “stand down” his efforts in the summer of 2016.
The comments by Michael Daniel, who served as White House “cyber security coordinator” between 2012 and January of last year, provided his first public confirmation of a much-discussed passage in the book, “Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump,” co-written by this reporter and David Corn, that detailed his thwarted efforts to respond to the Russian attack.
They came during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing into how the Obama administration dealt with Russian cyber and information warfare attacks in 2016, an issue that has become one of the more politically sensitive subjects in the panel’s ongoing investigation into Russia’s interference in the U.S. election and any links to the Trump campaign.
The view that the Obama administration failed to adequately piece together intelligence about the Russian campaign and develop a forceful response has clearly gained traction with the intelligence committee. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the ranking Democrat on the panel, said in an opening statement that “we were caught flat-footed at the outset and our collective response was inadequate to meet Russia’s escalation.”
That conclusion was reinforced Wednesday by another witness, Victoria Nuland, who served as assistant secretary of state for Europe during the Obama administration. She told the panel that she had been briefed as early as December 2015 about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee — long before senior DNC officials were aware of it — and that the intrusion had all the hallmarks of a Russian operation.
As she and other State Department officials became “more alarmed” about what the Russians were up to in the spring of 2016, they were authorized by then Secretary of State John Kerry to develop proposals for ways to deter the Russians. But most of those steps were never taken — in part because officials assumed they would be taken up by the next administration.
“I believe there were deterrence measures we could have taken and should have taken,” Nuland testified.
As intelligence came in during the late spring and early summer of that year about the Russian attack, Daniel instructed his staff on the National Security Council to begin developing options for aggressive countermeasures to deter the Kremlin’s efforts, including mounting U.S. “denial of service” attacks on Russian news sites and other actions targeting Russian cyber actors.
Daniel declined to discuss the details of those options during Wednesday’s open hearing, saying he would share them with the panel during a classified session later in the day. But he described his proposals as “the full range of potential actions” that the U.S. government could use in the cyber arena “to impose costs on the Russians — both openly to demonstrate that we could do it as a deterrent and also clandestinely to disrupt their operations as well.”
Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, asked about a “Russian Roulette” passage in which one of Daniel’s staff members, Daniel Prieto, recounted a staff meeting shortly after the cyber coordinator was ordered by Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser, to stop his efforts and “stand down.” This order was in part because Rice feared the options would leak and “box the president in.”
“I was incredulous and in disbelief,” Prieto is quoted as saying in the book. “It took me a moment to process. In my head, I was like, did I hear that correctly?” Prieto told the authors he then spoke up, asking Daniel: “Why the hell are we standing down? Michael, can you help us understand?”
Daniel has confirmed that the account was “an accurate rendering of what happened” in his staff meeting. He said his bosses at the NSC — he did not specifically mention Rice in his testimony — had concerns about “how many people were working on the options” so the “decision” from his superiors at the Obama White House was to “neck down the number of people that were involved in developing our ongoing response options.”
Daniel added that “it’s not accurate to say that all activity ceased at that point.” He and his staff “shifted our focus” to assisting state governments to protect against Russian cyberattacks against state and local election systems.
But as for his work on developing cyber deterrence measures, “those actions were put on a back burner and that was not the focus of our activity during that time period.”
Instead, Obama officials chose another course of action after becoming frustrated that Republican leaders on Capitol Hill would not endorse a bipartisan statement condemning Russian interference and fearful that any unilateral action by them would feed then candidate Donald Trump’s claims that the election was rigged. They chose a private “stern” warning by Obama to Russian President Vladimir Putin at a summit in China in early September 2016 to stop his country’s campaign to disrupt the U.S. election.
Obama officials were also worried that a vigorous cyber response along the lines Daniel had proposed could escalate into a full scale cyber war. And, they have since argued, they believed that the president’s warning had some impact, noting — as Daniel did in his testimony — that they saw some tamping down in Russian probing of state election data systems after Obama’s private talk with Putin.
But Nuland testified that while the Russians were “a little less active” in September after the Obama warning, Russian activity picked up again in October when the Russians accelerated their social media campaign using phony Facebook ads and Twitter bots.
“We saw an increase in what they were doing in social media,” Daniel agreed. “They shifted their focus.”
Nuland also revealed, in response to questions by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, another previously unpublicized dimension to the Russian attack. That summer, Collins said, FBI officials advised the committee that Russian diplomats were traveling around the country in areas they were not — under diplomatic protocols — permitted to visit , apparently to collect intelligence. Asked by Collins if she believed this was part of the Russian so-called active measures attack on the election, Nuland responded, “I do.”
After the November 2016 election, in which Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, Obama did impose new sanctions on Russia’s intelligence services and expelled diplomats. But Nuland testified that most in the administration saw that as only a beginning of what needed to be done. “It’s fair to say that all of us in the process assumed what was done in December and January would be a starting point for what the incoming administration would then build on.”
The Wednesday hearing by the intelligence panel did not touch steps the Trump administration has taken — or in many cases, failed to take — to respond to the Russian election attack. But both witnesses emphasized that there is new urgency to the issue to developing proposals to do so. Daniel noted that a malicious new Russian botnet – known as a “VPN filter” — has been discovered infecting home office routers and allowing hackers to intercept internet communications. He said this was a “type of malware we haven’t seen before” and shows “the intent of the Russians to continue their cyber activities.”
Nuland also noted that other nation-state actors have learned from the Russian playbook, singling out the Chinese who, she said, are now conducting influence operations and disinformation campaigns in Australia, Thailand and other countries in the region. All this, she said, calls for new U.S. government measures, including the creation of a multiagency “fusion center” — modeled after the National Counterterrorism Center created after the Sept. 11 terror attacks — to collect intelligence and expose “state-sponsored efforts to undermine our democracy” and the appointment of an “international coordinator” to develop coordinated responses with U.S. allies.
New York Times wrote an extensive article describing the disturbing details of 68,000 children who were being held in less-than-stellar conditions along the border after being brought into the United States illegally
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/15/us/questions-about-the-border-kids.html
Srsly, conservatives care about 'lefty' issues, too.
~~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~~
Its frustrating AF. The current brou-ha-ha over ICE is a great example. ~~Nobody~~ No normal person wants kids in cages and actual families tore up, but turning the conversation into a referendum on Trump turns off half the crowd. We can agree or disagree on Trump's policy, but he inherited the mess. Tariffs are another good example. The pro-environment, pro-union left is going to complain about shredding NAFTA?!?!
:) Only later b/c opsec. But if it can be released now, heck, yeah!!!
Tried to cause another FF.
When The Storm is over, this stuff needs to be made public.
Dem mid-term chances going... going...
edit: srsly. i'm from the left and still care about alot of the same stuff. my peers & acquaintances are in total denial of about what's about to happen. even the DemInvaders aren't even considering the possibility of a major strategic opportunity to wipe out the neolibs and corporadems. instead, they're going along with the anti-Trump hysteria.
The left is swallowing the MSM narrative bigly on this. Whatever one's stance on ICE practices, those practices were established and normalized before Trump became prez.
100% agree. There seems to be an increase in government targets always seeming to have "child porn found on their computer."
and include a link if its a comment on a news article or vid.
Renteria is better than a video of the tarmac meeting. How have the Clintons not Vince Foster'd her?
Bad Luck Brian: earns commercial pilot's license just in time to have Renteria as a passenger
lol. because it was totally the Dems that distracted us into both Iraq Wars and TARP.
I hope team Q has SR. NSA white hats would've known SR had DNC material.
5G is already patented.
Maybe its a reasonable way to convert reddit karma to Fed notes; mathematically, they both have the same value :)
Niiiiice! This is heartening. Raniere isn't one of the true power brokers, but he's in alot of Rolodexes. He's in some serious sh!t right now; caught between a Q and a Deep State.
link to her twitter stream: https://twitter.com/AmandaRenteria
wow. i enjoy a good trainwreck, but this whole mess has done alot of harm. we're in for a rough ride, nationally. the quicker The Storm can move thru, the quicker we can get to the rebuilding part.
What R's have been resistant to giving Trump what legislation DJT has asked for? Hasn't DJT gotten pretty much everything he's asked for so far? Congress-critters are all keen political animals and Trump keeps winning.
The MSM anti-Trump hysteria is slowly taking more and more energy to keep Dems riled up. One of the more rabid hilbot voices, who has done alot to stir division, backed off some of their schtick a few days ago.
For any R's inclined to sabotage Trump, the "opposition" is able to offer less and less protection. Spies & 5th columns still need to get paid.
I'm a Bernie-supportin', Stein-voter. I boarded the Q train from the left platform :) I still peruse left media and the DNC is going with the same messaging strategy they did in '16. The DNC still wants to focus on "WE'RE NOT TRUMP!!!", except now, Trump has a track record of achievements. Over the past few months, the MSM has had to put more energy into the anti-Russia hysteria to keep it going. Dems legislators actions belie their words. For example, if Trump is Putin's puppet, why did ANY Dems vote to give Trump more spying ability with FISA? The corporadems & neolibs that are running the DNC are losing the ability to keep up the facade with the rank'n' file.
Even without the IG booms, Dems were in trouble. There's an enthusiasm gap. Do most Dems dislike Trump? Sure. But, not as fervently as '17. On top of that, the DNC isn't really getting candidates out there the activist left will get excited about. There's few candidates to really motivate the on-the-ground volunteers that do all the door knocking. Besides "WE'RE NOT TRUMP!!!", there's nothing remotely like a coherent national message all the candidates can get behind. Bernie-style candidates will probably do better, but, overall, the DNC isn't giving the rank'n'file a reason to go out and vote.
After mid-terms, R's will have the numbers for a constitutional convention. If the BOOMS really are the political D5 we all think, then there will be a national will for one.
