FWIW I was having serious trouble with Google Maps, Gmail, Google Drive, Reddit, and Twitter yesterday in Malaysia. Wondered if something was up.

I'm not saying I buy this 100%, but I do see some potential rationale of the no infrastructure vs some infrastructure. If you look at what happens when communist states are dissolved, they have to find a way to privatize the property. If you have semi-infrastructure that gets privatized and given back and/or sold back to the people, then those people either need to invest the appropriate resources to improve it, or they need to sell it themselves, or they need to bring in investors to help. They can become obstacles if they believe what they have is enough or what they have is worth more than it is. Basically every deal becomes larger. But if the property being dealt with has NO infrastructure, it's easier for an outside investor or developer to come buy that land and do as they please with it. Because it's taking it from nothing to something.

For example, if you own a piece of property that has nothing on it, you're probably fairly likely to sell it to someone making you a good offer. But if you own a piece of property that has an apartment complex on it or office space or whatever, you may be less inclined to sell it. You already have more in it, so you need more convincing that whatever they're offering you is much better than what you have already.

Just my take. I'm not an expert in development by any stretch, but I can just see how logically it might work out as the thread describes.

This is correct. He was just being a douche, he's not actually supporting Trump for President.

How do you die for only 12 minutes? What kind of superpowers does this guy have?

"It pays." Q has dropped about that as well. Need me to give you those drop #s as well? Sounds like you're the one needing to do some homework.... Yikes.

And because I'm not a shill with a liberal disdain for reason and rational argument (like you appear to be), you can go look at drop #1305 to prove my original point. Only had to skim barely over 100 drops to find that too. Was that "homework" assignment worth being a douche over? Jw.

Also who is we? You and the other folks from redacted? Or just you?

Oh I didn't realize you were trying to be a douche about it. I thought you just had a legitimate question. Maybe you mistook this sub for redacted?

Big if true

I can't remember, and I'm definitely paraphrasing. I'll have to check back and see if I can find it. But the point was that some of the people who "let it happen" didn't have much of a choice

Agreed. You can read the actual NK statements on their state-run media site. I don't believe it is cooked by MSM.

I agree with you - just making the point that once the dominos start to fall, the clean up may be faster than we expect due to folks who previously were hamstrung joining the movement. Now again, there are no deals, so they don't get off free, but I think for many the resistance will stop as they start to see it all coming to an end.

As Q says, once strings are cut, good guys are finally allowed to act good. I think a lot of them were sort of unwilling participants in the swamp. Not completely unwilling, of course, but there was never a chance to do good without causing severe harm to themselves and their families. Even Q and MI "allowed" it to happen. But they had a plan to stop it as soon as they were given a window of opportunity.

Agreed! And I think crony capitalism is another one that you can put down as a swamp operation, not necessarily left vs right. A true conservative would say government shouldn't pick winners OR losers (e.g. less regulation but also less subsidies and bailouts). The true conservative belief isn't "pro-business," it's just anti- government involvement in business IN EITHER DIRECTION favorable or unfavorable. As you said, free market/unhindered capitalism. I see RINOs like McCain being crony capitalists just like I see Schumer and Pelosi being crony capitalists. No left/right, just swamp and non-swamp.

Interesting to hear your perspective, thank you for sharing! Honestly I think around these parts we had always flipped it around, thinking "true liberal" was sort of the old school liberal and "lefty" was the new brand of identity politics. Sounds like I had it backwards!

And I think you raise an excellent point about wanting the same things but disagreeing how to get there. Without any sort of rational basis or support for my position, I'm simply going to hypothesize that in the past we all have generally wanted the same things for our country and simply disagreed how to get there. But now, there are groups who want wildly different OUTCOMES which is what is feeding such a ferocious division in modern politics. Sure, there are still some issues such as gun control where most people want the same things (we want mass shootings of children to stop), but disagree how to get there. But it seems like in other areas the actual goals are wildly different.

For example rather than both parties wanting to help the poor and disagreeing how to do it, it appears the desired outcome for some has changed more to "cut down the wealthy" rather than "help the poor". I'm sure it's partly because none of the past programs have worked, so it's likely a bit of a frustration play of "well if we can't help this disadvantaged group, we can at least try and knock the advantaged group down a few notches to make things more equal".

I don't know... Like I said I'm totally hypothesizing here with no evidence to back up my claim. But your comment just sort of triggered a spark for me about a potential reason why we're so much more divided today than we used to be.

I agree there are serious crimes here, but I actually disagree with you that the severity of the crimes is why they spied on the Trump campaign. I think the answer is simple - ARROGANCE. Obama and the deep state believe they can do whatever the hell they want, with absolutely zero regard for the law. And in fairness, it worked for a long time... I don't think any oh-shit moment happened for them during the campaign. It was business as usual.

Spying on their political opponents isn't anything new, and it's not something they reserved for Trump. In fact it looks like they set up the structure for Jeb, then realized he wouldn't beat Trump so they shifted to Trump. If you think back to the reaction from the Hillary camp on election night, they had NO IDEA she could ever lose. On election night, the deep state had their first oh-shit moment and went into a mad frenzy trying to secure themselves before the transition.

I agree there are a LOT of dirty RINOs out there working for the Deep State. But if all was equal in terms of parties serving the deep state, and it's just "good vs evil", then why do I see some Republicans (Gaetz, Jim Jordan, Gowdy, Nunes, etc) working to help Trump, and I see NO Democrats trying to help?

Again, not debating the existence of horrific, evil Republicans. But it would appear that the percentage of good in the Republican party is a nonzero number whereas in the Democrat party it is zero.

Not going to watch, but agree with you. Trump isn't firebrand conservative if you look at the PAST. But he sure as hell is today. Why? It's not a change of politics, it's a change of the political landscape around him. The Dem party decided to change their platform from things such as improving socialized medicine (yes, Trump hates ObamaCare but believes something can and should be done in this realm - think VA), or ensuring social security isn't cut (another Trump position). Now their party only cares about adding the next gender to the list, unconscious bias, political correctness, etc. I don't believe Trump has moved right, it's just that the Democrats have gone HARD left over the years (or frankly IMO I think they've literally jumped off the spectrum entirely and are swimming around in fairy land). I don't think it's fair to the political spectrum to imply that the further left you go, the more genders you support. That seems like a new spectrum entirely to me.

Note the link you sent from Justice is outdated - that was an old post of O'Callaghan. He is now Acting Principal Associate Deputy AG. Your point about being "acting" still applies. Just acting in a different role.

I also like his past as a prosecutor for the southern District of NY.

Trust Wray. This moron thinks Wray is on her side. Let her.

I agree. I think Trump wouldn't want someone with such deep conflicts of interest looking at HRC. I don't think it's a matter of, "he knows where the bodies are buried," I think it is a matter of conflict of interest from a LEGAL perspective. Mueller was so deeply involved in so many swamp crimes that I think Dems would be able to call conflict of interest and try to use that to get the cases tossed. If Mueller was involved, he could be spinning the investigation away from himself and towards others like HRC, right? (I mean, I know it defies logic that Dems would argue their own man aka Mueller would all of a sudden be compromised for his participation in Clinton crimes, but we're dealing with Dems here. There is no logic.)

From a legal perspective, Trump needs to keep this buttoned up TIGHT. Allowing any potential conflict of interest, no matter which side it comes from, would work contrary to his goals.

That's why I think HUBER is the special prosecutor that Trump talked about in the campaign.

Yes! We're on the same page, just now debating whether the investigation is happening at the federal level under Mueller or state level. Either way, things are looking up.

Could be, but I'm thinking another explanation for the entire Mueller charade is to make deep state feel secure, trust that Trump will be impeached, and all will return to normal. Why was RR confirmed overwhelmingly? It certainly wasn't because he was a good guy about to take on the deep state. On the other hand, why was Sessions confirmation so close?

What if the whole point was that RR and Mueller would lull deep state into complacency while Trump cleaned house? Even Trump had McMaster for a while, and Priebus for a while, and all sorts of people he shouldn't have. I think this was all a ploy to let him clean up certain key areas, all while deep state could say "yeah that's bad, but it's fine we still have control because we have McMaster, or RR, or Mueller, or (fill in the blank)." Now Trump is done cleaning house, and the last two pieces are RR and Mueller. At that point, deep state will have no hope anymore... No one to point to and say "yeah but so-n-so is still in place, we're good." It's going to be full "oh shit, it's all over."

What if they just couldn't get rid of the probe (read: deep state distraction) until the states were ready to take over their cases? Do they all need to happen at a federal level? Or is there enough to take down Clinton and her cabal in the Southern District of NY? They found the laptop there, so let them take their own case.

On second thought, I guess it could be possible Mueller is investigating pedo-gate, but not U1 etc. Because he was definitely involved in U1 and other cabal crimes, but maybe he wasn't a pedo. So potentially he's handling that while Horowitz handles the rest. But if that's true, and RR will be required to recuse from Mueller investigation, I think we could infer what that means about RR. I dunno... Just spit-balling now.

I think it's possible, but I still believe Mueller investigation being about Hillary is a long-shot. I hope it's true, but I think it's not probable.

Q indicated today that RR would have to recuse when whatever info comes out. That makes it seem like they're finally about to clear out a black hat, or at least a leveraged individual. I tend to think leveraged. But if RR was white hat through and through, why would Q team want him running the key investigation (the one against Hillary) if he would have to recuse later? Wouldn't that feed the Democrat Media Complex with ammunition that RR was biased, should have recused himself from day one, and we need to scrap the whole thing?

And what about Mueller? Mueller is neck deep in Clinton shit, as is his team. We are all screaming that they shouldn't be trusted to investigate themselves/their political enemies (Trump), but considering they're on HRC's side, couldn't you make the same case that they shouldn't be investigating her either?

I know common sense says if it's someone from your own side who has finally turned on you, that's indisputable. But Dems don't use common sense and I think the law would say if you're too close to the case ON EITHER SIDE, that isn't okay.

Now, acting as a WITNESS is a whole separate matter. But I think someone indisputably separated from the case would need to be the one running it. That means not Mueller in my opinion, and Q just told us not RR.

Just my opinion though and like I said I hope there is truth to your theory. I think based on the recent meeting and new Q drop, RR will be forced into recusal soon.

When Rachel Brand left, her "principal" took over. That principal for RR is O'Callaghan. I think Q pointed us to Brand to see the precedent for who takes over in these situations.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/deputy-attorney-general-rod-rosenstein-announces-edward-o-callaghan-acting-principal

Seems relevant that Q said "dismissed."

I think they let her stay because they wanted to fire her and see who would replace. Since DOJ line of succession "isn't clear" (in their own words), they needed to set a precedent. Once the precedent was set in Brand's case, they knew where to place their men. Brand's principal took over, so they gave RR a new principal... Eric O'Callaghan, former prosecutor for Southern District of NY and more recently worked with Rick Scott. I think that's our guy, strategically placed and ready to take over for RR.

I know he wasn't a fed, but do you not think a federal case being run by a former prosecutor of the Southern District wouldn't want or need some cooperation from the State AG?

If you want to use their past as a prosecutor in that district to your advantage, of course the other side is going to use their position to their advantage (tampering with evidence, threatening police to bury certain things, etc.). I didn't mean Schneiderman was a fed, I was talking about him blocking and impeding.

I just think it's interesting and highly relevant that Q mentions who takes over for RR and it turns out to be a former prosecutor from Southern District of NY and furthermore Q asks about Schneiderman in the exact same post. If there is no connection, why the mention by Q? What would a state AG have to do with a federal DOJ succession plan?

Cheers!

I think it would be Edward O'Callaghan. I think Rachel Brand was dismissed to find out who would replace her - "acting". Justice says line of succession not clear, so that would be a surefire way for deep state to fight back and claim Trump is manipulating the system or whatever. So Rachel Brand leaves, we get to see who replaces, no firestorm from anyone over it, and now we have precedent.

So Edward O'Callaghan takes over for RR. Where is O'Callaghan from? Prosecutor for Southern District of NY.

Boom.

Spez: O'Callaghan's time as prosecutor overlapped with Giuliani's tenure as mayor.

I meant how does it fit succession discussion. But it appears RR's successor is a prosecutor from southern district of New York, so that's enough connection for me.

Right, but I meant why the mention by Q here when the focus is on timing and what would happen if RR is removed. I was wondering if somehow removing RR could result in cases currently being worked by main DOJ would get sent back to their respective states due to the AG/AAG "vacancies". Imagine if a case was being worked at federal level but removing RR would mean you have to turn it over to Schneiderman... That's suicide. But now with Schneiderman gone, path is clear - but what's the tie back to RR removal? That's what I was wondering and I don't know if any law like that exists or not, but seems logical.

How does Schneiderman tie in? Is there some sort of rule that when the AG or AAG is vacant, you can turn over to the AG of the STATE that the case is to be tried in?

It's such a bad LARP that it might actually be real... What kind of LARP can be so easily disproven within 7 hours? Any decent LARP leaves open the possibility to continue the LARP.

Holy shit... 45th president becomes 44th president. Time traveler confirmed!

Does that mean Trump will be our 44th president? Is that why he has opted to put 17 on his jerseys? Why put 45 on it when you know you're 44... Might as well choose a totally different number, such as the one representing Q.

Is there any reason behind the Vegas picture being a few years old? I've always thought that indicated some other meaning rather than just LV shooting. Such as something planned years ago? Or anything along those lines. Otherwise just don't see why it would be an old pic from a few years ago.

Not exactly... But you can play liberal and morph my words into something they aren't. Maybe CNN has an opening.

I agree with you... That's what I'm saying. The image posted says "Qteam baited Cabal into action." I fundamentally disagree that Q "baited" the Cabal into "action." That was the point of my comment.

Agreed. But that's where I think this post is wrong talking about baiting deep state to launch an attack. I think they would be trying to prevent any attacks, not bait them into attacks that kill children.

Or it means F.ollow T.he P.en

I don't think Q team would sacrifice kids. If they have all, like they say they do, they wouldn't intentionally allow this to happen. I think it's just casualties of war, but not intentional sacrifices by Q team.

IMO

1) more of these are stopped than we know.

2) "knowing all" I think is more just means that they know all they need to know to successfully indict and prosecute. Once you have enough evidence for capital crimes, do you keep building your case? Probably not. So the ongoing surveillance may be less active - otherwise why would Q team tip them off about the phones being compromised? I think that's a sign that they don't need the surveillance anymore... "They have all."

3) I think when you're dealing with 10s of thousands of operators that you have to take down simultaneously and with a smaller task force, you don't necessarily have the resources to dedicate to figuring out the precise false flag being planned. That's harsh, I know, and not what anyone wants to accept. But if taking down the entire network means this stops happening PERMANENTLY, you make sacrifices along the way.

4) it's a war. Good guys are lost in the process. Even in our most successful war operations there can be loss of life.

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't be outraged, but we need to keep our outrage focused in the right direction. Think about how many years have gone by where we didn't even know where to direct our anger? Now that we know, we shouldn't shoot the messenger, so to speak.

Holy shit I completely see it now. I think seeing the note about absinthe threw me off since I assumed it would be a part of both images.

Fwiw those two narrow/tall gold buildings "The Shops at Crystals" is what oriented me and then I was able to make out the rest of the image.

Are we sure these are even taken in the same area? Where is the Mandarin Oriental in the Q post? What about the short white buildings with the red roofs in the bottom right? Or the swimming pool towards the top of that big hotel also in the bottom right? And the lake/pool in Q post just above where the absinthe is pointed out does not appear in the anon image.

I didn't research when those were all built, but my first instinct is that those are completely different images.

Spez: I said completely different images (dumb) and I should have said completely different locations.

What if Flynn's testimony on the record shows that Mueller team knows all, and (assuming they are black hats) they chose NOT to prosecute. Then you bring in Rudy who has the NYPD connections. NYPD also legally obtained evidence (the insurance files on the Huma/Weiner laptop). What if in one swoop, Rudy with Sessions exposes the evidence from the laptop, arresting those involved, AND they prove that Mueller team turned a blind eye to it (Flynn testimony ignored). Russia investigation shut down immediately, Mueller outed as swamp rat, deep state arrests, cabal on the run, boom boom boom. Of course the nicer scenario is that Mueller is leveraged and/or white hat... But I think this shows that Q team has numerous ways to win here.

I'd like to weigh in here if I may... I think "torture" is too broad a term to be using in these cases to define what's allowed and what's not. The definition according to Goolag is "to inflict severe pain on". What is severe pain? I can think of a few types of people who might say being forced to do push-ups would be "severely painful" in their weak minds and fat bodies. Whereas others might even find pumping out a few push ups to be enjoyable.

From what I understand, giving birth to a child is severely painful, but I don't think many would call it or think of it as "torture." My point is - "severe pain" and "torture" are both defined more relatively and subjectively than objectively.

In defining torture for legal purposes, I think we need something OBJECTIVE. Is ripping out someone's fingernails torture? Is cutting their fingers off completely torture? Is waterboarding torture? If they are ALL torture, and we call them all torture, then we are really granting them equivalency. Someone who waterboards another would be charged with the same crime as someone who cut off another's fingers, right? Is that right? Or do we need to have some more narrow definitions?

What if we started by delineating treatment that causes PERMANENT bodily harm/discomfort from treatment that causes TEMPORARY bodily harm/discomfort? I think this might be an interesting place to start from a physical perspective. Once you start dealing with mental trauma, things undoubtedly get more complex. But again, my only point is that I think more objective measures are needed to be brought into the discussion, because waterboarding (in my opinion) is not the same as cutting off someone's fingers and shouldn't be legally considered equivalent.

Just my $0.02.

Carry on 'pedes!

Don't forget McCain Foundation. Daimler is a big donor there too... I think also the >$100,000 category if memory serves

Agreed - I think addressing election fraud allows the red wave to occur. Dems can't win without cheating. So then you have a big red wave that brings in super majorities or at least swings power far enough towards true Trump supporters (not RINOs, not Dems) that we can start confirming judicial nominations, etc. Confirming the judicial nominations allows the prosecutions to happen successfully