It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: scraedtosleep
Or maybe there is no bombshell at all! Sorry, I've seen this all before. Constant "on the edge" predictions that fail. Then a reason is given to why it failed.
Either it's "it was done on purpose", or, "it did happen but it was kept low key". The only exception here is that Q has become huge.
Q has failed countless time, yet somehow convinced his followers that the failed predictions are all apart of the plan.
Then Q believers think the skeptics are trolls or shills! Reminds me of flat earthers.
originally posted by: CanadianMason
a reply to: 3n19m470
...chan board asking Q+ (Trump) to use a specific word in his next tweet and less than 10 minutes later, Trump tweeted and used the word requested....
I remember that happening. Do you recall what the word was?
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: PokeyJoe
I go to church to check out chicks. That doesn't mean that other's are not there to worship.
Ok, not true, but I think it illustrates the point.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: tiredoflooking
Since when did he need to bait people to attack him?
originally posted by: ErrorErrorError
How's it going with those 50k sealed indictments?
But thanks to the filings of Agnifilo and Geragos on this topic, we also know several more facts about the case against Raniere et al – including these little tidbits:
On January 18, 2018, Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak (EDNY) issued a search warrant on Raniere’s Yahoo account: [email protected].
In March 2018, the government obtained search warrants for Nancy Salzman’s house – and Clare Bronfman’s Gmail account: [email protected]. In October 2018, the government obtained additional search warrants on the same two email accounts – and on some of the devices that were seized by the FBI from Salzman’s house back in March 2018.
On November 2, 2018, the government disclosed the existence of the new search warrants. On November 21, 2018, the government provided redacted copies of the search warrants to the attorneys who are currently representing Raniere, Bronfman, and Salzman.
On November 26, 2018, the attorneys who are currently representing Raniere, Bronfman, and Salzman requested that the government “…promptly produce the unredacted versions of the search warrants, at least to the portions of the affidavits that refer to the alleged schemes already charged in the Superseding Indictment returned over four months ago.”
As of right now, this little brouhaha is nothing more than a pissing match as to when the government has to totally unseal the new search warrants it obtained a couple of months ago. That’s eventually going to happen as part of the normal discovery process.
The real news is that the government is continuing to gather new evidence against Raniere, Bronfman, and Nancy Salzman.
The leaves open the question of whether the government is also actively investigating other members of the NXIVM crime syndicate – and whether it will also name some of these individuals in a future superseding indictment.......
One other thing that Agnifilo and Geragos disclosed in their aforementioned December 5th letter is just how much information the prosecution has already accumulated against the defendants. As they noted in that letter. “… the defendants have been actively reviewing the ‘250,000 bates-numbered pages of discovery,’ (and) the ‘forensic copies of devices containing at least another approximately 1,000,000 documents and approximately 1000 audio/visual files’ the Government has produced”.
originally posted by: PokeyJoe
a reply to: daskakik
I cant find one person around here worshiping Q, and we're some of the most fervent followers around.
originally posted by: Extorris
originally posted by: PokeyJoe
a reply to: daskakik
I cant find one person around here worshiping Q, and we're some of the most fervent followers around.
If a "fervent follower" is not a "worshiper" then what is the distinction?
Healthy skepticism?
On a different note, can anyone summarize the predictions that "Q" is making in this OP?
Not being a "follower" I find most of this very cryptic and confusing.