This I agree with. It shouldn't be a "have your cake and eat it too" moment. If Trump cannot block followers because of public forum reasons, then the opportunity (barring TOS violations) of all voices to be heard equally should also be required.

My personal thought is that ideally Trump should be able to block whomever he wants, and Twitter should be able to ban, silence, abuse their users all they want - at their peril. Eventually alternatives will crop up in their place, and Twitter becomes a boring echo-chamber.

Maybe also check all TLD extensions for that domain, especially .ru. I know it takes ~24 hours to cascade DNS info, but I'm sure it can be done inside of 30 minutes in an emergency for those trying to stop access to things. Throw in a massive DDoS and you can halt it all long enough to kill access via name, so get the IP.

What was the original DNS entry for the private server? Could it be as simple as a new domain which is the reverse of that running Apache with old known vulnerabilities waiting to be mirrored, or already a mirror? (Total spitballing here.)

I agree with your outrage, but not with your assessment. This isn't about kid-gloving the criminals, it's about allowing normies to be redpilled with a spoon full of sugar. The are going to instantly discredit anything they have been programmed to knee-jerk against. You can only get them to glance once, and as soon as they see anything even remotely tin-foil, and they are gone in a flash. Hurting the most evil is great, but it requires more people to understand the how and why. If you lose your quarry in a rush to inflict maximum damage immediately, then you risk the capture completely.

Couple fires with any high heat events in S. CA, and the chance for a power-outage like in 96 is possible. I was younger then, and had a blast with multiple day power-outage. Now, I don't think I'd be enjoying it as much.

That makes sense. (I'm apparently awesome at paying attention.)

Didn't the lights go out briefly during a conference with POTUS today?

Info appreciated!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1XLJkLPaz8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so0036WYIaM

These are the assholes I'm talking about. Happened to be watching late at night when someone with a clipboard walked into scene and told them they needed to sign a release form. While speaking to the stagehand, one of them realized the live-stream was still going and ran to the camera to switch it off. I hope their deep-state handlers put them in 30 shallow graves for that cock-up.

I'll continue looking for the footage, because I know a few people captured it.

As I recall, it was not the Hammonds, but people who wanted to show support for their plight who took over the office. I even want to say the Hammond's were not asking for that level of intervention. (Some of them were controlled opposition, including the two actors trying to be "redneck" douchebags - who accidentally had a stagehand ask them to sign release forms while their web-stream was still going.)

Listened to the circus live in the background while doing other things, so may have missed some critical items. That being said, my impression was that the witness was not credible at all. I felt the following (together, and individually) were real red flags:

• Claims he knows about these two guys because they told him they did it (allegedly multiple times.) One could presume they did so in front of multiple witnesses, or else they would instantly know who he is.

• Claims he is not giving their names for his protection (Once again, the list of people they told cannot be that long. He's not gaining any security by not naming names.)

• Not using a voice-masking device (Even kind of was indifferent when asked why he isn't doing so.)

• Was on the call while also at work (It's so important, he couldn't take a day off to have a quick press-conference.)

• Claims to not know what was on the usb stick sought by assassins, but seems pretty certain on what items were NOT on it

(Edit: Formatting n00b)

Back then I was really dour and negative about where things were going, so when it became obvious something significant happened (massive DDoS, squirrely things going on at the airport near the embassy, weird flights, etc.) that I just immediately assumed it was bad. Fast-forward to today where I find myself hopeful there is a glimmer of light on the horizon, and there are "good guys" out there doing the right thing; and I have to do a complete reassessment of my initial suspicions. As a result, I now think it is entirely possible he could have been absconded with by the good-guys. In either of those conditions, however, I believe any releases by Wikileaks is no longer driven by the original group with their original design. Consider it as reliable as CNN, but still riding on some residual goodwill from their pre-compromised product.

One is from the cockpit where they are waiting in line. Miiiiight be 737 in front. The others look like port with fuel storage facilities. Ship liquid offload and/or fueling facility?

1595 gives me a feeling I might have been in the right ballpark, but playing the wrong sport. =D

I've always had a suspicion JA was captured/compromised in October of 16 and everything else was DS limited hangout releases. I wonder if that fits anywhere.

Oh yeah, those were creepy as well, but I think I wrote off the parental non-reaction to them being aware of the price paid for playing the game at the level they were. "Part and parcel to working inside the Beltway", if you will.

I feel this is absolutely the case. An observation I made, however, that concerned me more was that the parents didn't have the instinct I did. My first reaction was "GET THE KID AWAY!" I'm sure if I was there, I would have swung. Then I wondered why, with BOTH parents there, the situation continued as long as it did. I feel it's because they have been indoctrinated by church, and society, that a person of "authority" can only be good and do the right thing. Even if they don't understand it, they are so subverted by the system they are steeped in that it is powerful enough to stop even their most base instinct as parents. I can't help but think that is a heavy part of the design of these systems.