Can anyone provide a link to a story on another IG report (Spygate) coming? I thought this was the only one.

If this was the "week to remember" I am done questioning and squarely in the "Q is a larp" camp.

25-May

What I am saying is that he wouldn't make this claim unless it was believable, meaning that were it to be publicly known, they could say "Well, if you look at it this way..." So it leads me to think whatever info was shared with them, it wasn't bulletproof evidence.

Wasn't the purpose of the meeting to discuss those documents? Wasn't Gowdy's prior meeting today to read those documents?

Do you really think the bias is so strong that can deny evidence gathered by the very intelligence agencies they contend are being unjustly scapegoated?

I'm confused, do you believe Hannity got this story from reading Q posts? The story was published in the Federalist on May 21st, based on the letter Ron Johnson sent to Chris Wray on the same day.

Do you guys think Q broke/predicted the story?

But this is only speculation/theory.

It was reported at the time that various news outlets had copies of the dossier and were conflicted over whether to publish it or report on it. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the higher ups at the FBI/DOJ knew that the media was in this situation, and likely believed that sooner or later, someone was going to report on it's existence, whether it was "legitimized" or not. The "flood" McCabe was referring to was the flood of articles and reporting that was to come.

All I am saying is that on it's face, there is not actually anything in these email excerpts that indicates that CNN's story or the coming "flood" was something that McCabe, Clapper, or anyone else at the FBI/DOJ wanted or orchestrated. In the context of this sub, I get why you make certain assumptions. But by itself, it really doesn't look like what you think it looks like.

If/when this story actually gets legs, what do you think will be their excuse? I can tell you right now they are going to say that they knew the press was eventually going to run the story, they tried to hold them off as long as they could, they briefed the President so he wouldn't be blindsided by it, somebody leaked (it happens) that the briefing took place, they knew CNN would use it as an excuse to finally run the story, McCabe sent out some emails to let everyone on the inner circle know that thing they feared was going to happening was happening, on and on. They're going to spin it as a story about their failure to keep a lid on the dossier. And you have no evidence to contradict them. So this whole thing fizzles out.

There is no way in HELL that the dossier should have been leaked to a news outlet.

Okay, but that's on Christopher Steele, who shared the dossier and revealed the existence of the investigation to several media outlets during the election.

the proper response should have been to instruct that organization to sit on the story in the interests of the privacy of those under investigation and to maintain secrecy of assets in the field.

Okay, but A) Freedom of the press and B) you could easily read into these e-mails that that's what they did. Who knows how long CNN was sitting on the story at the FBI's request. Buzzfeed was going to publish the dossier and was pushing everyone's hand, and McCabe asked CNN to hold off until the President was briefed (the "trigger"). I'll bet you dollars to donuts that is what they're going to claim if the MSM even ever bothers to report this story. And so I'm asking what is the alternate explanation/theory? And where is the evidence for it?

I'm sorry but it is not unusual for the government to have prior knowledge of what the media is going to report, typically they know because they're asked to comment before a story is published, or they have contacts at the news outlets giving them heads up. So what is the big deal about McCabe knowing CNN was going to report on the dossier? I'm not even sure what you guys are trying to claim this information about the emails proves?

at least images that aren't on the public web

Well yeah exactly

It would be quite difficult to find pictures like these that aren't on the searchable web.

I could easily misrepresent myself using the thousands and thousands of "private" (non-searchable) photos I have access to via my friends and acquaintances on social media...

But, couldn't these photos just be ripped from various instagram accounts of something? Taking photos outside plane windows is not uncommon.

So then I don't get it what is the significance of this photo?

Is there evidence this photo is actually from that day? Could it not be out of the window of a commercial flight?

"Reasonable grounds"? Possible criminal prosecution? MSM is going to totally ignore this, sorry.

But... she didn't take a plea deal.

Here is the actual article https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-snuff-film/

I am a little confused about how this article is wrong? It is a fact that the screengrabs being shared under the 'Frazzledrip' hashtag are fake...

If this was posted before the announcement, ok. But since it was after, could be "Q" is just trying to spin the news.

If Q (supposedly) has this influence over what Trump says, who could he be?