TH3WH17ERABB17 -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- -13-

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Can you even indict dead people?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: whereismyusername

Who are you again?

Its funny I was just wondering yesterday how many times Q has made a new anon account here to troll this thread and got banned.

Haha it's flatttering to hear you say that. I have no affiliation to Q outside of reading the drops and my occasional comments here.

Does q post here? I think they may have under other monikers. And i think they have definitely spoken more in private with some users.

But for someone accused of pride and jealousy you certainly go to post count quickly. I made my account, to talk of Q. But I have lurked for some time on these forums. Forst found them in the first bush jr era. Not that such matters when weighed against the content of our discussions.





Regarding the proton mail hack, can we find any recent articles? I cant find anything more recent than 2017 discussing it being hacked.


Where is the source for the celeb indictment claims? Apologies but I cant play the video presently.

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Can you even indict dead people?

If you can elect them to public office...who knows...

Probably dated materials.

a reply to: dashen

Yes, you can.

a reply to: whereismyusername

The ProtonMail hack Pastebin was just posted yesterday, this information is brand new. Definitely NOT from 2017. Paste says ProtonMail has until November 23 to pay them what they are asking, or it all gets released. The pedo stuff and indictment claims from that video come from that Eliahi Priest, White Spiritual Boy, 5 Star Trust stuff that was dropped in August.

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

Me too EMN... I was just pointing out a multiple meaning!

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

You can certainly vote for the dead

www.apnews.com...

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi

Roger that!

The BBC is reporting that California wildfire death toll has reached 631.

A couple of thoughts on this:

1) This smacks of a cabal symbol message like the DOW drop of 66X,

2) At what point can a deep state be evidenced to the public to be actively at WAR with the US? I would argue that demonstrating they killed over half a thousand people with Direct Energy Weapons should do the trick!

If it then came out that deep state ordered the Murrouugh building where a 168 more died in the Timothy McVey bombing, thousands more in the WTC affair, you quickly move towards 5,000.

UK was at war with Argentina over the Falklands and lost 258 personnel.

Optics are important. Getting the public to support rather than fear martial law and military tribunals is important. Is this an impact of the wildfires?

a reply to: eisegesis

Oro en paz Fierro en Guerra
=
Gold in peacetime Fire in war?

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: CoramDeo

So what you're saying is that it would be perfectly fine for me to get on my laptop, wire your money out of your bank account into mine (theft), and there are no repercussions? I was never in your country, so no crime, right? I'm not subject to your laws?

Nice reply! I like it!

I think the situation would be different since in doing that deed, you also broke the laws of your own country viz: Wire Fraud.

This is difficult and Warrior above makes some great points. In Assange's defense, since he is not here: The US (Deep State) has him a virtual prisoner for years on end, I think in that situation I may play hard as well.

This is a difficult case, but the US hands are not clean. To put it another way, he relayed info he received about the US Spy agencies breaking all the world laws and conventions. The spies were caught and Assange decided to give as good as he received.

The US is not at all innocent here, especially wanting him eliminated. Just remember all the deaths around Wikileaks and others. Spies and assassins received a spanking.

Question: Did he damage the US network ... or ... the Deep State network?

Lovely discussion BTW.

P

It all depends on the extradition treaty between the two countries. Some of the extradition treaties require "dual criminality," meaning the act committed has to be a crime in both countries.

I'm not sure citizenship plays a role when its USA v. Enemy of the State. If a crime is committed against a State, and depending in extradition treaties, the affected State can request extradition for prosecution.

I'm one that thinks Assange didnt do any wrong. I dont believe that the government should be using such tools against it's own citizens, and that's what was happening. The same with Snowdens leaks.

Speaking of..if they're going to extradite Assange and prosecute, why not Snowden? He compromised national security then fled to an "enemy" of the United States, deeply compromising natsec.

I dont see Assange releasing Vault 7 as a leak, where WikiLeaks got it from was the leak, WikiLeaks just reported it, as did the other media companies. I highly doubt Wikileaks was publishing anything with regards to compromising natsec, or agents/agencies. It was a "People have a right to know what their government is doing to them" type of ordeal, and I believe we do/did.

It's sort of like the "hate speech" conundrum. If I say something racist, ie: "so and so is an n-word," and someone reads it, gets inspired to commit a hate crime; should I be held responsible for someone else's actions? No.

If the media consistently reports on mass shootings, revealing methods and tools used, along with the name of the suspect, and someone decides to be a "copy cat" killer, are they held responsible? No.

It would be different if Wikileaks made a call to action, after releasing Vault 7, for people to use those tools to commit a crime, then I could see the reason for prosecuting. There was no call to action. Wikileaks didn't hack anything to obtain the information. Someone else leaked to Wikileaks under the impression they were doing a good deed on behalf of the american (and the world) citizens.

Hillary not prosecuted. Huma not prosecuted. Wiener not prosecuted (not for that anyway), Obama not prosecuted. Lynch not prosecuted. All of them deliberately compromised national security with using Hillarys email server. The latter knew about it, and did nothing about it = makes them accomplices. Where it was proven that multiple foreign governments intruded on said server. Snowden personally stole information that deeply compromised national security. His actions = far worse in regards to the law. I dont see any talk about wanting him prosecuted.

a reply to: PokeyJoe

PokeJoe,

This Protonmail honeypot opens up a rabbit hole in this thread because the member who disappeared on the eve before he was expected to launch Q-Wiki, JanAmosComenius, advised us to setup protonmail accounts (TiredOfLooking and myself in particular).

Jan advice (from other thread)

Thread post link

It appears Jan was specific in the advice only in DMs.

Fortunately I only used it as a login credential for Q-Wiki.

I'm hoping this was merely a coincidence but it is suspicious.

originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi

Heres a fun one for ya, Rel. "Michael Avenatti Got Arrested" abbreviated = MAGA.

a reply to: imthegoat

Interesting ITG, though I'm not sure how it relates to the protonmail post.

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi

hey Rel, that's the missing toll. Death toll is 63 but these numbers seem to change every hour.

classicalcapital.rom...

Direct quote from article;
"Project Insignia, described as an investigation into Deep State coc aine trafficking, made a gigantic data dump of its findings on or about August 24, 2018.  Information and documents are so voluminous as to defy concise description, but a start must be made. Operatives working behind cover of a major U. S. “intelligence” construct (call it “Crooks In Action”) had possession of very large assets after World War II, gained either by military, clandestine, criminal or a combination of such activities."

Change the .rom part, but this relates to the drops and linked vid I was asking about.

For those of you who like to read more than watch.

Where is sky?

Didnt he have something written on his wall in the last thread?

originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
a reply to: eisegesis

Oro en paz Fierro en Guerra
=
Gold in peacetime Fire in war?

Iron ?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: The GUT

You have some answers but I've read your stuff and you certainly don't have them all.

And Q has nothing but BS 'acronymology' riddled with stating-the-obvious form questions, and feel good slogans. His only answer is to worship the GOP IC MIC establishment. Everything I've spent over a decade educating against. DEBUNK ME

I dont claim to have all the answers, my role it to tell where its all wrong.

The more I look at the image though....

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

Thanks for the correction!