-@TH3WH17ERABB17 -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART -s3V3n-

originally posted by: dashen
may 2016 nypd armored cruiser pilot program

July 2017 nypd gets over 4 million dollars to armor cruisers in wake of officer misotis familias murder


Coincidence? Who got the contract? What came first? Contract or shooting?

Hmmm my Q cheat sheet says no coincidences...

So probably?

Contract shooting?

a reply to: GeneralAdmission

Would a business deal valued at over 4million dollars of state grant money be worth shooting a few cops over?
I'm not saying......
Just saying......

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: GeneralAdmission

Would a business deal valued at over 4million dollars of state grant money be worth shooting a few cops over?
I'm not saying......
Just saying......

No...

And Yes....

From the article I cited in the last page

Except that the ICA did not reflect the consensus of the intelligence community. Clapper broke with tradition and decided not to put the assessment out to all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies for review. Instead, he limited input to a couple dozen chosen analysts from just three agencies — the CIA, NSA and FBI. Agencies with relevant expertise on Russia, such as the Department of Homeland Security, Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department’s intelligence bureau, were excluded from the process.

While faulting Clapper for not following intelligence community tradecraft standards that Clapper himself ordered in 2015, the House Intelligence Committee’s 250-page report also found that the ICA did not properly describe the “quality and credibility of underlying sources” and was not “independent of political considerations."

In another departure from custom, the report is missing any dissenting views or an annex with evaluations of the conclusions from outside reviewers. "Traditionally, controversial intelligence community assessments like this include dissenting views and the views of an outside review group,” said Fred Fleitz, who worked as a CIA analyst for 19 years and helped draft national intelligence estimates at Langley. "It also should have been thoroughly vetted with all relevant IC agencies,” he added. "Why were DHS and DIA excluded?”

Fleitz suggests that the Obama administration limited the number of players involved in the analysis to skew the results. He believes the process was “manipulated” to reach a “predetermined political conclusion” that the incoming Republican president was compromised by the Russians.

“I’ve never viewed the ICA as credible,” the CIA veteran added.

A source close to the House investigation said Brennan himself selected the CIA and FBI analysts who worked on the ICA, and that they included former FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok.

“Strzok was the intermediary between Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he was one of the authors of the ICA,” according to the source

www.realclearinvestigations.com...

This former cia agent says that it looks like a select group of people were given access to the material to come up with a ore determined conclusion, that Russia worked with trump to hack the dnc.

So characters like comey Brennan clapper and even lover boy strzok got to control the narrative instead of all agencies getting the info including dissenting opinions as would be the norm

And Hillary and the media spouted the lie over and over again that this was the consensus of 17 agencies

a reply to: GeneralAdmission

You know how fast they armored ,repainted , and reapplied the decals on those cruisers?
Faster than NYC has ever done anything ever

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: GeneralAdmission

You know how fast they armored ,repainted , and reapplied the decals on those cruisers?
Faster than NYC has ever done anything ever

So four weeks?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Trillium


1. I don't see the QNN you reference at: twitter.com...

2. Vid doesn't play.

Please advise. Tks.

LOL put your class on



As for the vid can't make it work here ?????
anyway just go down a few off his post
as soon as you see
youtu.be...
Chick-A-Boom . . Chick-A-Boom
(Don't Ya Jes Love It)
it work on his page

originally posted by: Skyfloating
Ask a shill to explain why Roseanne or Assange are being censored. All just for a LARP. They won't respond because they can't explain it. If the shills are right, censorship would not be needed.

Seems like some people don't understand what part of this is a LARP and what part is real.

This might help:
Trump is POTUS = real
Trump says he wants to MAGA = real
Trump really wants to MAGA = ?
MSM is working overtime to make Trump look bad = real
Trump is reading your posts because you are providing info that he dearly needs = LARP

a reply to: daskakik

Holy crap....

WE WERE THE LARP ALL ALONG

originally posted by: GeneralAdmission
Roseanne is getting her Q tweets censored off of Twitter.

Something Yuuuge must be in the works..

That's because Roseanne is very influential with key demographics.. Middle and Upper-middle class income earners, corp managers, and entrepreneurs. These groups control huge swaths of American society, the economy and voting trends.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Skyfloating
Ask a shill to explain why Roseanne or Assange are being censored. All just for a LARP. They won't respond because they can't explain it. If the shills are right, censorship would not be needed.

Trump is reading your posts because you are providing info that he dearly needs = LARP

Trump reads this

He loves Q

He could be posting in this thread and you wouldn’t even know it

a reply to: dashen

I actually find it odd that Q posts "all for a LARP?" when they are either:
1) Really insiders so they wouldn't be LARPing
2) Hoaxers, which means they are still not LARPing

That actually makes me think they are number 2 because real insiders wouldn't be bothered by that accusation. And, as has been pointed out before, they wouldn't care if other people turned a buck from the movement either.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: dashen

I actually find it odd that Q posts "all for a LARP?" when they are either:
1) Really insiders so they wouldn't be LARPing
2) Hoaxers, which means they are still not LARPing

That actually makes me think they are number 2 because real insiders wouldn't be bothered by that accusation. And, as has been pointed out before, they wouldn't care if other people turned a buck from the movement either.

They’re real insiders

Trumps about as inside as you can get

a reply to: Skyfloating

No, we all know Assange was railroaded and censorship of Rosanne is political but that doesn't prove your CT is right. They are just loosely connected dots that obviously don't convince everyone.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

One of President Trump's reasons for visiting the U.S. Senate today was to urge McConnell to use the Simple Majority voting method for confirming Judges.

I think only 18% have been confirmed thus far, due to Democrats obstructing the judicial nominees, using various methods.

Once the number of Trump-appointed judges reaches a certain threshold, indictments can begin to be unsealed, and trials scheduled. When Q pointed out this "setting the stage" logic last week, I suddenly stopped doubting Jeff Sessions committment to seeing Obama Admin people punished. Mr. Sessions is just waiting for the number of Trump appointed judges to become numerous enough to handle the large cases coming their way.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Skyfloating

No, we all know Assange was railroaded and censorship of Rosanne is political but that doesn't prove your CT is right. They are just loosely connected dots that obviously don't convince everyone.

43 million people discerning information using logic.

Number of questionable entities attempting to LARP harder to disprove.

I’m guessing Brock’s Boys have something to do with that last part.

Hardwire.... Tunis....
Not saying....
Just saying........