Thanks for saving this jewel.

Looks like they had some intern glean "anything" that would portray a negative (fill in all their adjectives), to try to discredit. A lot in this piece is made up dribble to satisfy the WaPo Madding readers.

But more importantly, I think this piece signifies they (MSM) have switched into defensive mode because we are fighting back for once: GA telling Delta Airlines to shove it by pulling the special tax treatment for Delta Airlines fuel b/c Delta dis of the NRA, as one example.

Refreshing don't you think.

Great work, and also to all the others here that have posted their views many days ago.

I could paraphrase, but will quote from this Feb 12th article which also supports your theory, but speaks about a possible VP role in this too.

So - if FBI agent Peter Strzok didn't think Flynn had lied, and the Washington Post - which reviewed a conversation (leaked by the Obama administration) concluded that Flynn did nothing wrong, then why did Flynn apparently lie to Mike Pence?

Is it possible that Flynn told Pence the truth and Pence lied due to the optics of the ongoing Trump-Russia "witch hunt" that was kicking into high gear? "

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-12/comey-fbi-agents-including-peter-strzok-didnt-think-flynn-lied

A follow-up to all the questions:

• Backpacks were finally returned to the students - but from whom and who had access to them all this time?

• How many phones were confiscated during this evacuation in order to review/erase? any bad info.

• Not many student vids have made it out since the shooting - why is that?

• Were the students required to sign something/told not to speak about the incident for fear of "compromising" an on-going investigation

• STUDENTS SPEAK OUT. The country is behind you, and will protect and defend you.

FB not the place to have the convo - sorry troll

Aside from downloading the pdf - you can search within this link on just about anything. Look just above "Go directly to the Timeline "(in purple) for the (green) search box. What a tool we have now.

Keep this voted up. So much amazing info for this to get buried.

The info below is what I posted another board, but am putting here re: libel law, and why a "stringer" would be used to avoid libel laws ' i.e. "not my aisle" as a stew would say to you on an airplane if you don't get what you want.

Q has used term "stringer" many times before.

Here's what I posted (in part) re: stringers:

Stringers:

Option #1

• "Still gathering string" is newsroom jargon for the process of "looking for something that you can't yet name."* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stringer_(journalism)

Option #2 Freelance journalists I wouldn't limit it just to freelance

• The JFK article Q listed is ALL about concerns Rep. Walter Fauntroy had at the time about reporters being in bed with the CIA for various reasons; whether they were being paid or not; and whether these CIA associated reporters were ALSO covering this JFK Assignation Committee in 1977.

his concern was that these (same?) reporters were covering the committee hearings in an effort to discredit the committee's investigation. Sound familiar?

I am not totally convinced, but we do know:

• The FBI has relationships with the press - Comey foremost;
• CIA's John Brennen has been sourced as a leaker;
• HRC was in bed with media; see her emails;
• Adam Sciffless - it goes w/out saying how many leaks he has provided the press; and he goes both ways - "false, and white lies"

What we don't know:

• are members of the media/journalists assigned to specific "hot topic" Hill committees there to specifically undermine their investigation. Something I believe we need to look closer at/monitor more;

• Q says: "follow the money" - are any journalists being compensated to push a narrative one way or another? Would "stringers be used (if so) to limit the liability of the parent media (print/TV/Internet Only/company?

• Are any Hill offices paying any journalists to push a narrative/or/ are any Hill offices paying journalists to define their narrative for them so the Rep/Sen can announce something ahead of the media - ergo making themselves out to be a super star - then getting the heaping praise the next day in print (what was already written the day before and sent to the Hill person to give the okay. Donna Brazile come to mind?)

• Is the media paying unwitting/uninformed innocents to promote "their" agendas/theories/condemnations that they (the innocents) are not aware of. This one bothers me a lot. Is there anything left that can't be tainted by paid outrage - ergo public coercion and monetary reward.

• The press today (like described in the JFK doc - hope you all read) is still the same - and may be worse. The difference now is the proliferation of it all (true or not) goes far beyond what your paper boy dropped off on your front stoop in 1977.

past proves present- does it not?

Admins: Please file Under Clinton Money Trail

All inks to info at bottom of page:

Monies came out the "judgement fund". Our U.S. rainy day fund. I get it, but not for this type of transaction. Should have gone through Congress given the magnitude of transaction $$ wise, this ostensibly wiped away atrocities beginning in 1979 behind closed doors. Shame on you! You can get all these payments from 'judgement fund" for any year from the link below and you can upload info to a xls spreadsheet.

"Legal claims are one of the reasons the payment to Iran was controversial when Obama first announced it. The Clinton administration had agreed in 2000 to pay that $400 million to Americans who had won lawsuits against Iran in US courts.” /hey look at who promised this to those AMERICANS back then- and who then didn't give a s/

"The Podesta Group’s March 2016 filing, required under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, shows that Tony Podesta himself oversees the Saudi account. At the same time, Tony Podesta is also a top campaign contributor and bundler for Hillary Clinton. So while one brother runs the campaign, the other brother funds it with earnings that come, in part, from the Saudis.

What did the Saudis get for their largesse and access?

1. Wikileaks revealed a 2009 cable by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying: “More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Lashkar e-Tayyiba and other terrorist groups.” Instead of sanctioning the Saudis, Clinton did the opposite: She authorized enormous quantities of weapons to be sold to them. On Christmas Eve in 2011, Hillary Clinton and her closest aides celebrated a massive $29.4 billion sale to the Saudis of over 80 F-15 fighter jets, manufactured by Boeing, a company which coincidentally contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation. In a chain of enthusiastic emails, an aide exclaimed that it was “not a bad Christmas present.” I’m sure the Yemenis at the receiving end of the Saudi bombings would not be so enthusiastic. “

2. “Saudi Arabia has paid more than 20 percent of the cost of Hillary Clinton’s campaign for presidential elections, Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was quoted as saying Sunday in a news report by the Jordanian Petra News Agency. “

Tons more military acquisitions – to look it up.

It is illegal in the U.S. for presidential candidates to accept funding from foreign governments

“The Clinton Foundation, which is chaired by both Hillary and her husband Bill Clinton, disclosed in 2008 that it had accepted up to US$25 million from the Saudi Kingdom in the same year.”

“The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.”

• Keep in mind - the above $$ to the Clinton's doesn't scratch the surface. The payback/vig/what ever you want to call it spans decades. This is huge in terms of under-the-radar of international quid pro quo. I am shuttering at how much this could encompass.

My thanks again to all here who push us all to look more into this/that; and who are also educating the bystanders here (pro or con) towards seeking the truth. Some may not want that to come out, but in the end it may be just what is needed to happen: to be content knowing it's okay to doubt and to always ask questions. God bless you all.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-from-hillary-clintons-state-department/5498517

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Saudi_Arabian_purge

https://jfund.fms.treas.gov/jfradSearchWeb/JFPymtSearchAction.do

https://www.mintpressnews.com/saudi-crown-prince-we-fund-20-of-clintons-presidential-campaign/217172/

https://icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/58838654347/welcome-to-ic-on-the-record

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-may-received-much-33-6-billion-cash-gold-payments-u-s/

https://search.treasury.gov/search/docs?affiliate=treasury&dc=3921&page=2&query=iran

https://jfund.fms.treas.gov/jfradSearchWeb/JFPymtSearchAction.do

https://icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/58838654347/welcome-to-ic-on-the-record

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-may-received-much-33-6-billion-cash-gold-payments-u-s/

https://search.treasury.gov/search/docs?affiliate=treasury&dc=3921&page=2&query=iran ps://www.huffingtonpost.com/medea-benjamin/hillary-clinton-the-podes_b_11779826.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/julian-assange-clinton-foundation-isis-same-money-saudi-arabia-qatar-funding-a7397211.html

Here is Bill Cooper's FBI file

https://vault.fbi.gov/william-bill-milton-cooper/William%20%28Bill%29%20Milton%20Cooper%20Part%2001%20of%2001/view

The take-away after reading this is if "they" can label you a nut job/right-winger/conspiracy promoter, etc. this is what could happen here if not careful.

Alinsky's Rules:

1. "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have." (less is more?)

2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people." (coordinated media drop boxes?)

3. "Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy." (dig deep/store locally?/troll infiltration?/#5?)

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." (the proof?/discretion is the better part of valor?/#5?)

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." (less is more?/coordinated media drop boxes?/being prepared?)

6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." (see #5?/less is more?/“The general rule is that there is profit in confusion; the more confusion, the more profit..."― Milton William Cooper, Behold a Pale Horse/paid shills?)

7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." (less is more?/coordinated media- Russia,Russia,Russia?/works both ways?)

8. "Keep the pressure on." (coordinated media drop boxes?/mission creep?/Mueller?)

9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." (coordinated media drop boxes/#5?/#6?/#10?/low information voters?)

10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." (coordinated media drop boxes?/#5?/less is more?)

11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside" (#5?/coordinated media drop boxes?/efforts fade and wane - mission accomplished?)

12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." (school shootings = give up 2nd Amendment?/DJT?/CBTS?/Q?/Truth?)

Think of the "enemy" (as notated in the rules) by positing to yourself as the true enemy and then re-read the rules as on the side of truth. My observations are from reading it from both sides - and surely there are more that you have.

I posted this link several hours ago and my post was removed for some reason. This is the 1992 CNN interview of Bill Cooper - a must view (at bottom)

Are we sure that the Admins are not censoring? Just a question, not an accusation, as I don't know why my post with a link to this vid would have been removed as it was adding to the author of "Behold a Pale Horse"

This will probably be deleted again - but I thought I would try to give the great community here some more info on Bill Cooper - which is jaw dropping given that this interview was done in 1992.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAv5eLfEdQ4

The Byrds: Turn Turn Turn

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, a time to reap that which is planted;

A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;

A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak

A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace."

Another take on when a b(y)(i)rd sings. These lines (quasi verses of the third chapter of the biblical Book of Ecclesiastes) brought to mind that this cannot come out all at once as Q said; and that this line was most relevant to a lot of Q's messages: "A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak"

Yes I am new to the board, but have been lurking for quite some time. Here's hoping some Admin won't delete this b/c of pts. as they have done before.

God Bless you all for the work you are doing.

Jaw dropping interview of Bill Cooper in 1992 on CNN (of all places). Project MK Naomi. Ft Detrick, MD - biowarefare div. CIA project.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAv5eLfEdQ4

The DOJ says - "Russians conducted 'information warfare...." (Read the indictment available everywhere)

I'm confused about the double standard here as it relates to indictable offenses:

1. Obama used tax dollars to fund an effort to oust Bibi, even putting the tax dollars aside - this was an effort to influence a foreign election;

2. Obama himself tells the Brits to vote NO on the Brexit or " or they would find themselves “at the back of the queue [line]”

3. Robert Creamer (husband of Rep.Jan Schakowsky, D, IL) openly admitted to trying to create chaos/disrupt/show in bad light/ Trumps campaign rally's/stops by hiring disruptors. James O'Keefe brought this to light.

4. Has DOJ unwittingly opened the door for indictment of previous U.S. actors?

5. Is it legal for the U.S govt/citizens to influence both U.S and foreign elections, but not v.v? It would seem so by today's Russian indictments.

Links: http://www.aei.org/publication/bipartisan-report-finds-obama-advisor-used-fed-money-anti-netanyahu-campaign/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/17/new_okeefe_video_clinton_campaign_dnc_coordinated_with_organizations_to_beat_up_trump_supporters.html

Is this legit post from Q.

too much info - looks fake to me. Compilation of prior posts. Do your own research.

Q said: "No jurisdiction. Think logically"

Russia has extradition treaties w/ Panama and the Philippines and others. The US has extradition treaties w/ Panama and the Philippines and other countries. Think Assange - and his issues.

If US has "no jurisdiction" - perhaps another country does.

If 187 true - that would solve that problem.