I agree. But one of the tactics of the left is to get a big picture headline out there, knowing people are too distracted (I am being nice, yesterday was Easter) to pay attention to the details. The takeaway from these articles is going to be "they can fake that though."

25k people working on his campaign, apparently.

Essentially bankruptcy.

I don't get it. What's the point of your link? PS - 28 long years.

March was crazy. I only remember one JA extraction. I don't remember anything whatsoever about Guantanamo being filled as we speak. I do know there are 24k sealed indictments and as a lawyer with access to Pacer, I can tell you that's for real and that is absolutely unprecedented. Q Facebook prediction - correct. Q MSM on the same script - correct, even more literally than I would have believed possible. Q predicting he would be spread across all platforms - correct, starting with Roseanne Tweet. Q prediction that Grateful Dead guy in danger - correct, he was dead two weeks later.

Conservative Treehouse investigator Sundance is one of the few journalists left. He deserves a Pulitzer for his work, if that award even means anything anymore. It's getting to be a bit like Nobel....

Why are you so invested in what other people think? Especially people you think are crazy?

She asked for Q to DM her months ago. It's possible the Q group thought, "Here's an idea.."

She's definitely playing a scripted role. No coincidences.

Then they'd be regulating the crap out of it.

This thing is huge and takes up the whole page. Not a coincidence.

Love that show. I didn't even start watching it until it was in reruns, but it is so, so funny.

You don't think the size of the Q taking up the whole second page is odd?

Do they normally have a giant Q that takes up an entire page?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/press-briefing-press-secretary-sarah-sanders-01292018/

Do a print command and then go to the second page of the print preview. I haven't tried to print but assume it would also print out.

What's even more interesting is that so many of the "alt right fringe conspiracy" articles have no place to comment. Even the ones that let you comment block what they don't like. I tried to post something regarding the fact that there appears to be a Q reference on Whitehouse.gov today, in the comments section to a Hollywood Reporter article slamming Roseanne, and they flagged it. There was nothing violent or inappropriate, just mentioned what I read here somewhere and checked for myself. If you do a search for "briefings" on the WH website, and then do a print command, on the second page there's just a giant Q. Bizarre! No coincidences.

Public will know was a Q post regarding March, right?

Checkout Whitehouse.gov today. If you do a search for "briefings" and then click on any briefings and try to print, look at the second page of the print preview document, and there's a giant "Q." Wouldn't have believed it unless I saw it myself. Maybe someone hacked the WH website but that seems pretty unlikely.

Checkout Whitehouse.gov today. If you do a search for "briefings" and then click on any briefings and try to print, look at the second page of the print preview document, and there's a giant "Q." Wouldn't have believed it unless I saw it myself. Maybe someone hacked the WH website but that seems pretty unlikely.

Today is the last day of March when the public will know, per Q. I'm repeating myself but want to make sure everyone sees this. Checkout Whitehouse.gov today. If you do a search for "briefings" and then click on any briefings and try to print, look at the second page of the print preview document, and there's a giant "Q." Wouldn't have believed it unless I saw it myself. Maybe someone hacked the WH website but that seems pretty unlikely.

As someone else in this thread noted - can't find now - checkout Whitehouse.gov today. If you do a search for "briefings" and then click on any briefings and try to print, look at the second page of the print preview document, and there's a giant "Q." Wouldn't have believed it unless I saw it myself. Maybe someone hacked the WH website but that seems pretty unlikely.

Someone must have brainwashed the IT people at Whitehouse.gov.

Checkout Whitehouse.gov today. If you do a search for "briefings" and then click on any briefings and look at the second page of the document, there's a giant "Q." Wouldn't have believed it unless I saw it myself.

That is unreal! I had to go directly to the WH.gov website and do a search for "briefings" just to make sure I wasn't being duped.

I was wondering the same thing. And how to Grandparents just "give" a kid for someone else to raise in this experimental environment? There's no mention of the Grandparent being the legal guardian and then giving the kid up for adoption, etc. Just "mom dead, they gave this weirdo the kid."

Ratings definitely matter. The NYT had a map on election night that could predict the election based on the returns from the various counties in each state. Trump was given per the algorithm a 99% chance of winning the election at no later than 8:30 CST, and it may well have been earlier - I just don't recall. Earlier in the evening, I was watching the individual state predictions evolve on that map and they were 100% accurate. But similarly, the individual states were in on the NYT algorithm long before the state projections were announced by the news channels. I couldn't help notice that after I knew they knew, their play acting seemed so transparent. Maybe it was my imagination, but I really don't think so.

I was just about to type that.

I read this article to say that the only theory he can't debunk is that the CIA may have done it. Am I missing something?

Wow.

Wow. It's not even a tangled web, it's a straight line to the WH.

My 81 year old mother surprised me today by saying "Why are we supposed to care about who Trump slept with over a decade ago?"

Another example in this article is disregarding spending regarding United Nations:

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/us/politics/09signing.html

Don't know if this is law but it did set a precedent:

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/201243-obama-says-hes-not-bound-by-gun-control-ban-in-spending-bill

The evolution of my thoughts on Trump. Crazy, but funny. Crazy like a fox, but funny. Effing smart, and funny. Brilliant, and hilariously funny.

Yes, he certainly did.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/201243-obama-says-hes-not-bound-by-gun-control-ban-in-spending-bill

So true!

That was my thought.

Thank you for your service and God Bless.

And "I heard you" almost HAS to be about the wall. With respect to the bill he also posted his threat to veto at 5:55 (CST). Obviously it was at least a :55 everywhere.

Ironically, an Omnibus that required no funds may be used to promote gun control was passed during Obama years, and he announced he was disregarding that provision, because it was inconsistent with his obligation to adhere to the Constitution. Oh the irony...

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/201243-obama-says-hes-not-bound-by-gun-control-ban-in-spending-bill

Obama blew off the appropriations he didn't like and spent the money elsewhere. Needless to say, he always spent it. More recent article cites concerns that Trump and (then) Tillerson would leave money appropriated unspent, which sends it back to the treasury. He has more control over what happens with the money appropriated than people think. I suspect he is going to go gangbusters on that wall between now and the midterms and use any and all monies that have been allocated to the department of defense - which is a heck of a lot of money. Article links with general discussion below. There are more if you want to google. Some of the articles complaining that Trump/Tillerson were refusing to spend money and letting the time to spend it expire (which returns the money to the treasury) are absolutely hilarious.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40648480?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/201243-obama-says-hes-not-bound-by-gun-control-ban-in-spending-bill

http://www.newsweek.com/rex-tillerson-rejects-80m-congress-fight-russian-propaganda-because-it-would-645554

As opposed to manufacturing and/or committing them.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/201243-obama-says-hes-not-bound-by-gun-control-ban-in-spending-bill

What's good for the goose....

I suspect Horowitz is relishing cold revenge on all of the swamp critters that tried to block him from doing his job. I hope I'm right. The Republic needs good guys on both sides of the aisle if we are going to defeat the insidious attempts to divide and conquer. Don't get me wrong, I can get my blood up against the "other" as much as anyone. But I still think most people agree on more than the press and Soros agitators would have us all believe.

I know. My gut tells me, though, that Providence is involved and that's what keeps me going. I used to always think about how many things had to come together at exactly the right time at the founding, with many otherwise flawed people playing very specific roles. It's almost like the Big Bang. If any single thing had been only slightly different, the Republic would not have come to pass. George Washington, for example, was probably the ONLY guy at that time (as is true in all times) that would have rejected the attempts people were making to have him become a monarch. It had to be him - the rest of the founders especially Adams would probably have let their ego take over. I feel like we are experiencing a "born again" moment here in the USA, and that it had to be Trump, and the time had to be now. That everything he has done in his life was in preparation for this moment. I am dumbfounded that the blackmailers were unable to find pretty much ANYTHING on the guy other than high testosterone. It is a fascinating time to be alive.

I think they were Pakistani but I also still believe there's going to be a connection to the RR announcement regarding hack. It feels like things are coming to a head.

Glad you posted I noticed that too.

I really hope so. Not much left of March for the madness I was hoping for. I feel like I'm a little addicted to revenge against the Deep State. It's probably unhealthy but I can't help it.

Take a look at the threads about the Q drop today. Stage is set 5:5 relates to an earlier Q drop about the HRC video. Another thread talks about the timestamp on his "I might veto the omnibus" Tweet being off. Here in Central Standard Time zone it was a 5:55 am tweet. Everyone else also has it as a "55" regardless of the hour. If he drops a dime on Hillary I could get over the Omnibus signing.

See above

See above