User Panel
Quoted:
There is something about that photo that disturbs me other than her resemblance to James Comey. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
There is something about that photo that disturbs me other than her resemblance to James Comey. Because it/he/she is wearing a symbolic mantle of blood. |
|
|
Quoted:
View Quote |
|
Quoted: I damned near spit my Earl Grey all over my monitor when I read that. View Quote |
|
|
Quoted:
If it can not be trusted it should not exist. One coup attempt is enough for me. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/02/12/unfortunately-a-corrupt-group-of-politically-focused-doj-lawyers-isnt-the-only-issue/#more-183439 Overlooked in yesterday's story of the four Mueller Attorneys quitting is the fact that 40 FBI agents continued to work for the Special Counsel AFTER the entire SC Team realized in January 2017 that there was no evidence of Russian Collusion. >A significant issue is in the part of the story most have skipped past without recognizing, because, well, simply we have become immune to the insanity of it. 40 FBI Agents worked on the Special Counsel? >Think about it. For three years Doing what exactly? "Forty FBI agents, spent three years on a mission to investigate /eliminate the candidacy and presidency of Donald Trump" "Forty FBI Agents spent three years trying to aid a transparently political effort to remove a president" >If you give them the benefit of being sound-minded, we had Forty FBI agents who transparently had to know this was a ridiculously weaponized political operation against the opposing political party of their FBI and DOJ leadership and they went along with it. FFS, 40 FBI agents was greater than the combined total of agents J. Edgar Hoover secretly assigned to surveil JFK, RFK and MLK hoping to get blackmail intel to use against them. What were these 80 idle hands up to after they all knew that their primary mission fell apart. This story has to be told. These aren't East German Stasi agents. They are American FBI agents who knew that they were acting like East German Stasi agents. Really need to drop the "spy" side of FBI and put it back to enforcement only. Or make the spies a complete separate division, maybe take over the offices that the disbanded CIA would leave, but put a whole lot more oversight there. CIA has been playing king with the world too long. Far too powerful, to the point that 'who serves who' between US Citizen interests and CIA interests seems to have gotten switched around somewhere. I think the FBI might just be our version of the Stasi, and always has been. They target those that threaten political narratives peacefully as readily as those that pose violent threats. I think rather than conferring honor without evidence, it should be reserved to each individual. If a institution selects for imperfect moral agency from the top down, it does not follow that the individuals selected to serve the institution are morally virtuous. If telling the truth is against the rules, lying becomes a universal virtue. Liars become the virtuous. I suppose the FBI Crime lab and forensics are still solid, but the "lawyer police force" leaves a lot to be desired. One coup attempt is enough for me. |
|
Quoted:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/152525/3eca5eec953d5615fbd0a195b81b52f613f1bc7e-1275617.JPGhttps://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/152525/7e58a5184ab82d8f70995ca8e4c2367c0bc25e54-1275618.JPG https://people.com/politics/mike-bloomberg-girlfriend-diana-taylor-speaks/ Follow the WTF…. View Quote |
|
|
Quoted:
Could it be that he/she/it is wearing a symbolic mantle blood? Because it/he/she is wearing a symbolic mantle of blood. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
There is something about that photo that disturbs me other than her resemblance to James Comey. Because it/he/she is wearing a symbolic mantle of blood. |
|
Quoted:
There is something about that photo that disturbs me other than her resemblance to James Comey. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
There is something about that photo that disturbs me other than her resemblance to James Comey. |
|
Just something I found; no rush, but if you have some time....
When you are awake, you can read. And talk to others. And start an avalanche. We were not awake, despite the warnings. John A. Stormer. Stormer's main book, None Dare Call It Treason, argued that America was losing the cold war because it was being betrayed by its elites, who were pro-communist. The title of the book is derived from an epigram of Sir John Harington: "Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason." It was published in 1964, during Barry Goldwater's bid for the presidency, and sold over one million copies in the first six months. It was distributed in bulk quantities and during the campaign six million copies were circulated.[11] It was immensely influential with the harder line sections of the American Right[12] and has been described as a cult classic of the New Right.[13] Because it was published by a private imprint, however, it never appeared on best-seller lists.[14] In the 1968 sequel The Death of a Nation, Stormer linked collectivism to the work of the Antichrist and discussed signs of the end times. In 1990, Stormer published None Dare Call It Treason... 25 Years Later, which contained the original book expanded with an equally-long update. In 1989, he also wrote that perestroika and glasnost were merely Soviet propaganda tools, drawing on KGB-defector Anatoliy Golitsyn's New Lies for Old. In 1984, Golytsin predicted that some degree of retreat from hardline communism would be used by the Soviets as a way to fool the West. His 1998 book, None Dare Call It Education, was an account of how education reforms are undermining academics and traditional values. Written from the point of view of Republican politics and evangelicalism, it claimed, with the help of statistics, a failure of American public schools to perform their stated mission. Another book, Growing Up God's Way, a guide for getting children ready for school and life from birth on, published in 1984, is now in its 10th printing. Spanish and Russian versions have been issued. His final book, Betrayed by the Bench, detailed how judicial decisions have transformed the US Constitution, courts, and culture. —wiki. |
|
Quoted:
Go to qmap.pub and enter the search term 17. It’s a good start. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
Quoted:
This is what evergreen might be about, remember there are like 30 Corona viruses, all man made, all just a bit different...... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Drug patents: the evergreening problem As any would-be inventor knows, coming up with something the world has never seen before can be tough. Tweaking something old and calling it new, on the other hand, is considerably easier. More at link. In the pharmaceutical trade, when brand-name companies patent “new inventions” that are really just slight modifications of old drugs, it’s called “evergreening.” And it’s a practice that, according to some who have looked into it, isn’t doing a whole lot to improve people’s health. |
|
Quoted:
Mini Mike is the least genuine human being in a party of disingenuousness. Biclen is at least a genuine idiot (and also a liar). Warren is a close 2nd to mini mike. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is something about that photo that disturbs me other than her resemblance to James Comey. Because it/he/she is wearing a symbolic mantle of blood. But I'm with you on Mini Mike and the Scarecrow. They're both down in the Uncanny Valley more than a little bit. |
|
Quoted:
Not QAnon. We went over this when the reporter asked Trump if he knew who anonymous was...several pages back. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: So QAnon is being fired for leaking? Or am I misreading that? As I understand it, Q is the person or persons guiding the movement. The term Q-anon represents the followers of the movement. So in the context of the reporter's question, "Do you know who anonymous is?" wouldn't make any sense. First, anonymous is a plural term; it would refer to a large group of people, in the context of Q-anon. The reporter was asking about the author of a book, so in the context of the question it has nothing at all to do with Q. |
|
Quoted:
I'll throw Booty-gig on that list, too. He's... off... somehow. But I'm with you on Mini Mike and the Scarecrow. They're both down in the Uncanny Valley more than a little bit. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is something about that photo that disturbs me other than her resemblance to James Comey. Because it/he/she is wearing a symbolic mantle of blood. But I'm with you on Mini Mike and the Scarecrow. They're both down in the Uncanny Valley more than a little bit. |
|
Quoted:
How could one possibly remember that there are 30 corona viruses when there is no evidence to support such an outrageous claim. According to the CDC there are only 7 known that can, or have proven to, affect humans. All of them have been attributed to organic creation in animals along with the ability to mutate into a form that affects humans, there is no evidence to suggest any of them were created in a lab. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Drug patents: the evergreening problem As any would-be inventor knows, coming up with something the world has never seen before can be tough. Tweaking something old and calling it new, on the other hand, is considerably easier. More at link. In the pharmaceutical trade, when brand-name companies patent “new inventions” that are really just slight modifications of old drugs, it’s called “evergreening.” And it’s a practice that, according to some who have looked into it, isn’t doing a whole lot to improve people’s health. |
|
Quoted:
Q-anon can't be fired. As I understand it, Q is the person or persons guiding the movement. The term Q-anon represents the followers of the movement. So in the context of the reporter's question, "Do you know who anonymous is?" wouldn't make any sense. First, anonymous is a plural term; it would refer to a large group of people, in the context of Q-anon. The reporter was asking about the author of a book, so in the context of the question it has nothing at all to do with Q. View Quote The anonymous that the reporter ask T$ about is the person who wrote the op-ed in the NYT claiming to be a part of an opposition group within the T$ admin. Link left cold: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html |
|
Quoted:
BootyEdge is straight up lying and deceitful. He's not try-hard pretending to be what he wants others to think he is (like MiniMike & Warren). I don't think MiniMike and Warren even have a real personhood. BottyEdge does, and it's trickery like Obarna. Obarna knew he wanted to change everything, but had to talk around it. MiniMike and Warren are complete losers without an original idea between them. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is something about that photo that disturbs me other than her resemblance to James Comey. Because it/he/she is wearing a symbolic mantle of blood. But I'm with you on Mini Mike and the Scarecrow. They're both down in the Uncanny Valley more than a little bit. Local radio guy was running an interview clip a couple of nights ago where BootyGag was asked whether he thought that there was room in the D party for pro-life beliefs (Bernie said there is not). He wouldn't answer the question and attempted to deflect to "republican this and that". The guy is far more dangerous that Bern. |
|
Dan Scavino writes tweets for T$ and is a member of the Q team. Change my mind.
|
|
Attached File
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/durham-scrutinizing-john-brennans-handling-of-russian-interference-in-2016 Durham scrutinizing John Brennan’s handling of Russian interference in 2016
by Jerry Dunleavy | February 14, 2020 09:02 AM U.S. Attorney John Durham is reportedly reviewing John Brennan’s analysis of Russian election interference, including scrutiny of the former Obama CIA director’s handling of a secret source said to be close to the Kremlin. Durham, who was selected by Attorney General William Barr in 2019 to look into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation and the government’s response to Moscow’s meddling, is investigating whether Brennan’s CIA was attempting to keep other agencies in the dark as he pushed for a specific preconceived analytic assessment about Russia’s true intentions in 2016, the New York Times reported Thursday. The top Connecticut prosecutor’s team reviewed emails from the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency analysts who came together to assess Russia’s interference, the new report revealed, and Durham’s investigators pressed for answers about why some agencies at least temporarily denied other agencies access to secretive intelligence about the Kremlin’s active measures campaign. Durham interviewed agents and analysts from all three agencies, and the report said he was scrutinizing whether the clash over intelligence sharing was the typical sort of bureaucratic turf battle over jealously guarded secrets or an effort to cover something up. Much of this revolves around how the United States government eventually reached its January 2017 intelligence assessment on Russian meddling and whether Brennan was pushing for a biased result. One major battle was about the identity and credibility of a CIA source allegedly close to the Kremlin. The NSA wanted more details about him, which the CIA resisted before providing them. The NSA then disagreed with the CIA and FBI about how much confidence to place in the source. At least some intelligence officials were disturbed by a law enforcement officer such as Durham inquiring into the assessments made by intelligence agencies, though Durham played a similar role in his Obama-era investigation into the CIA's destruction of tapes showing the harsh interrogation of detainees. Durham hasn’t yet interviewed Brennan, though the report said his emails and other records have been requested from the CIA by the U.S. attorney. Retired Adm. Mike Rogers, who was head of the NSA at the time, was interviewed by Durham last summer and fall. The January 2017 intelligence community assessment in question concluded with "high confidence" that Russian President Vladimir Putin “ordered an influence campaign in 2016” and that Russia worked to “undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate former Secretary of State [Hillary] Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency” and “developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.” The NSA diverged on one aspect, expressing only “moderate confidence” that Putin actively tried to help Trump’s election chances and harm those of Clinton by contrasting her unfavorably. “I wouldn’t call it a discrepancy, I’d call it an honest difference of opinion between three different organizations and, in the end, I made that call,” Rogers told the Senate in May 2017. “It didn’t have the same level of sourcing and the same level of multiple sources.” It was Brennan’s still-classified “wake-up call” intelligence that prompted the Obama administration to reconsider how it viewed Russia's hacking of the Democratic National Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee revealed last week. The specifics of the intelligence which jolted Obama's national security team into action is detailed in a blacked-out section titled, “[Redacted] Intelligence Was The ‘Wake Up’ Call.” Within an hour or two of being briefed on the intelligence, then-national security adviser Susan Rice said Obama needed to know. Rice said “the president's reaction was of grave concern” which “prompted her to call the first of a series of restricted small-group Principals Committee meetings on the topic.” “During the meeting with the President, Director Brennan also advised the President of a plan to brief key individuals, including congressional leadership, but not to disseminate the intelligence via routine reporting channels,” the Senate report stated. The committee noted “the receipt of the sensitive intelligence prompted the National Security Council to begin a series of restricted Principals Committee meetings to craft the administration's response” and said the discussions “were atypically restricted” and “excluded” key officials who were normally clued in. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power said that “the extraordinarily restricted nature of the meetings and departure from routine methods of disseminating intelligence were reminiscent” of how they handled preparations for the Osama bin Laden raid. Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates called it “very cloak and dagger.” The list even initially excluded the secretary of state, the defense secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Treasury secretary. “Several NSC officials who would normally be included in discussions of importance, such as the NSC Senior Director for Russia, the Senior Director for Intelligence Programs, and the White House Cybersecurity Coordinator were neither included in the discussions nor exposed to the sensitive intelligence until after the election,” the report said. The Brennan-relayed intelligence was likely detailed in a June 2017 Washington Post article, which stated that in early August 2016 the CIA sent an “eyes only” envelope addressed to Obama which contained an “intelligence bombshell … from sourcing deep inside the Russian government” which detailed Putin’s “specific instructions” to help Trump and hurt Clinton in 2016. The material was said to be so sensitive it was kept out of the President’s Daily Brief. One day after Trump gave Barr “full and complete” declassification authority to examine the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation in May 2019, the New York Times published a piece on this source “long-nurtured by the CIA” whom the outlet hinted was now in danger of being exposed in Russia — but he had already left the country. The source’s initial resistance to being pulled out reportedly led some to question whether he might be a double agent. Hotly disputed reporting by CNN and others in September 2019 about the reasons for the alleged source’s apparent 2017 exfiltration from Russia eventually exposed his identity and revealed he was living in the D.C. area. He’s since been moved, and it is not known whether Durham has questioned him. View Quote Q !!Hs1Jq13jV6 14 Feb 2020 - 11:11:09 AM https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/durham-scrutinizing-john-brennans-handling-of-russian-interference-in-2016?? Read carefully. Sound familiar? Sometimes a leak turns into a flood. Q |
|
Quoted:
Qanon is a group of less than 10, supposedly close to T$, that post on 8kun exclusively. The anonymous that the reporter ask T$ about is the person who wrote the op-ed in the NYT claiming to be a part of an opposition group within the T$ admin. Link left cold: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Q-anon can't be fired. As I understand it, Q is the person or persons guiding the movement. The term Q-anon represents the followers of the movement. So in the context of the reporter's question, "Do you know who anonymous is?" wouldn't make any sense. First, anonymous is a plural term; it would refer to a large group of people, in the context of Q-anon. The reporter was asking about the author of a book, so in the context of the question it has nothing at all to do with Q. The anonymous that the reporter ask T$ about is the person who wrote the op-ed in the NYT claiming to be a part of an opposition group within the T$ admin. Link left cold: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html The “anon” part has nothing to do with “Q”. Anons are who speculate and post about Q. |
|
Quoted:
why are all of their chicks dudes man? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
why are all of their chicks dudes man? |
|
?Q !!Hs1Jq13jV6 02/14/20 (Fri) 10:31:07d5674a (2) No.8134255
https://twitter.com/Strandjunker/status/1228333628955996161 re: delayed testimony 1. allow for public dissemination of critical facts [possible unseal(s)-declas] prior to world televised sit down. Sometimes the necessary forum to update the American public is provided by those same people being investigated for…. Release to change strategy? Watch what happens next! |
|
Quoted:
I was under the impression that “less than ten” could identify Q. The “anon” part has nothing to do with “Q”. Anons are who speculate and post about Q. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Q-anon can't be fired. As I understand it, Q is the person or persons guiding the movement. The term Q-anon represents the followers of the movement. So in the context of the reporter's question, "Do you know who anonymous is?" wouldn't make any sense. First, anonymous is a plural term; it would refer to a large group of people, in the context of Q-anon. The reporter was asking about the author of a book, so in the context of the question it has nothing at all to do with Q. The anonymous that the reporter ask T$ about is the person who wrote the op-ed in the NYT claiming to be a part of an opposition group within the T$ admin. Link left cold: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html The “anon” part has nothing to do with “Q”. Anons are who speculate and post about Q. |
|
Quoted:
?Q !!Hs1Jq13jV6 02/14/20 (Fri) 10:31:07d5674a (2) No.8134255 https://twitter.com/Strandjunker/status/1228333628955996161 re: delayed testimony 1. allow for public dissemination of critical facts [possible unseal(s)-declas] prior to world televised sit down. Sometimes the necessary forum to update the American public is provided by those same people being investigated for…. Release to change strategy? Watch what happens next! View Quote Yesterday it was pointed out that there has been a “countdown”. Five posts, then one, then four, then one, then three... Today is three. |
|
Quoted:
True. Q is Q. Qanon is a handle given by anons and tweeters View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Q-anon can't be fired. As I understand it, Q is the person or persons guiding the movement. The term Q-anon represents the followers of the movement. So in the context of the reporter's question, "Do you know who anonymous is?" wouldn't make any sense. First, anonymous is a plural term; it would refer to a large group of people, in the context of Q-anon. The reporter was asking about the author of a book, so in the context of the question it has nothing at all to do with Q. The anonymous that the reporter ask T$ about is the person who wrote the op-ed in the NYT claiming to be a part of an opposition group within the T$ admin. Link left cold: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html The “anon” part has nothing to do with “Q”. Anons are who speculate and post about Q. |
|
Quoted:
I damned near spit my Earl Grey all over my monitor when I read that. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
|
|
Q post number 3858 has a jpeg named "GA2.21.jpg" and the image says "The Great Awakening."
|
|
The countdown I posted earlier is interesting but it places things outside of Q Team's control.
Deep pockets wearing black hats would stop at nothing using DDOS attacks in order to break the timeline. Let's see how this plays out. |
|
Quoted: I venture to guess there are three Q posts today. Yesterday it was pointed out that there has been a “countdown”. Five posts, then one, then four, then one, then three... Today is three. View Quote Attached File |
|
|
|
Thinking about it,
Countdown is for the black hats They will plan a false flag before that day They get their heads cut off before that....... |
|
|
|
Quoted:
I didn't say they all affect humans........ View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Drug patents: the evergreening problem As any would-be inventor knows, coming up with something the world has never seen before can be tough. Tweaking something old and calling it new, on the other hand, is considerably easier. More at link. In the pharmaceutical trade, when brand-name companies patent “new inventions” that are really just slight modifications of old drugs, it’s called “evergreening.” And it’s a practice that, according to some who have looked into it, isn’t doing a whole lot to improve people’s health. |
|
|
|
|
|
Better source:
|
|
Breaking News
@BreakingNews Justice Dept. decides not to pursue charges against former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, according to an e-mail provided to @NBCNews by his attorneys. |
|
Q will address McCabe in the next drop.
Edit: Once we get to Q Research General #10414. Q will want a bunch of replies and will get that if they post at the top of a new bread. |
|
Quoted:
Better source:
View Quote |
|
Quoted: I was just giving you a hard time (due to yrs + post count). It wouldn't surprise me if you have been watching since day 1 and have more knowledge on this than Nunes, Solomon and Bongino combined. View Quote WWG1WGA |
|
Not fer nuttin,' but the twit universe has absolutely exploded over the McCabe news.
Looks like he's safe only from Horowitz's findings, not Huber. I guess we'll find out one way or the other. Either way, I bought my ticket and I'm not getting off the ride 'til it stops. Then we'll see if we still have a semblance of a republic or not. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.