New A.G. William Barr is in Disbelief and Disgusted by U.S. Government Activities.

"rabid alcoholism"

That's close, he might have seen pelosi's liquor tab.

originally posted by: Admitted
"In all my years, in all my life..."

Was he giving a speech? No one speaks like this in casual conversation. Anyway, the empty space is as bad as the unnamed sources frequently complained about. Q is a T.

We'll see in AG Barr's actions over the coming weeks, what he meant. Barr's strong endorsement of President Trump's National Emergency Executive Order this past Friday, gives an early clue.

Source: abcnews.go.com...

a reply to: Lumenari

I still don't think the "Orange Man Bad!" people on ATS will be as shocked as the News Media. But based on their lack of coverage of escalating revelations, I think the "big 6" MSM owners are starting to sense a major change in the direction of investigations.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

Courts only allow verifiable EVIDENCE to be introduced.

Incorrect.
Eyewitness testimony is allowable in court.

Since Q is saying (as an eyewitness) that William Barr spoke those words, his recollection is acceptable evidence. Thanks for the clarity!

It's probably something non-descriptive like "dishonor".

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Q never lies.
Or makes stuff up.

All hail Q. Q is the redeemer.

Q isn't even human lol, what are people thinking

a reply to: MisterSpock

This time it may well happen, but we'll see. The eagle's wings are clipped.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

Courts only allow verifiable EVIDENCE to be introduced.

Incorrect.
Eyewitness testimony is allowable in court.

Since Q is saying (as an eyewitness) that William Barr spoke those words, his recollection is acceptable evidence. Thanks for the clarity!

Eyewitness testimony is known to be often unreliable.

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist
The word he most likely used was "TREASON". This whole mess was an inside hit job to remove a President, and overturn an election. There needs to be people who go to jail for a long time over it.......but I remain skeptical that anyone will face charges.

"Treason" seems to be the odds-on favorite. There's reason to be skeptical, but there's also reason to be hopeful, after the Matthew Whitaker letter was discovered last week. The one where he hinted that Mueller was already investigating Obama-era operatives.

originally posted by: MisterSpock
a reply to: annoyedpharmacist
Looking at it from outside, it would damage the US on a world stage(economically) to the point of collapse. So "greater good" and all that.

The United Kingdom and Australia want to avoid being exposed as conspirators. That's why they asked President Trump to NOT declassify the FISA-Spygate documents this past October. To this point, those documents still remain classified.

I'd like to solve the puzzle Pat.

NAGGERS!

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

Courts only allow verifiable EVIDENCE to be introduced.

Incorrect.
Eyewitness testimony is allowable in court.

Since Q is saying (as an eyewitness) that William Barr spoke those words, his recollection is acceptable evidence. Thanks for the clarity!

Eyewitness testimony is known to be often unreliable.

Yes it is. We'll await actions. Especially in this world, where everyone lies so easily.

originally posted by: BoscoMoney
I'd like to solve the puzzle Pat.

NAGGERS!

Careful, most people won't get the reference.

Damn, I was even going to drink some Kool-Aid and join the party but they said it was out already.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

Courts only allow verifiable EVIDENCE to be introduced.

Incorrect.
Eyewitness testimony is allowable in court.

Since Q is saying (as an eyewitness) that William Barr spoke those words, his recollection is acceptable evidence. Thanks for the clarity!

Eyewitness testimony is known to be often unreliable.

Yes it is. We'll await actions. Especially in this world, where everyone lies so easily.

Scary when POTUS does constantly and is praised for it.

originally posted by: Tempter
It's probably something non-descriptive like "dishonor".

"Dishonor" is less damning than "Willful Negligence"...and a far sight short of "Treason". I don't think there would be a reason to hide the word "dishonor".

originally posted by: BoscoMoney
I'd like to solve the puzzle Pat.

NAGGERS!

If Barr was referring to Congress, you may be on to something.

a reply to: MisterSpock

Yeah I spose I better explain somewhat.

Nag: Verb. Harass (someone) constantly to do something that they are averse to.

originally posted by: BoscoMoney
a reply to: MisterSpock

Yeah I spose I better explain somewhat.

Nag: Verb. Harass (someone) constantly to do something that they are averse to.

I was thinking about clarifying the family guy reference.

The definition shouldn't be in question, but then again ATS these days SMH.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

Courts only allow verifiable EVIDENCE to be introduced.

Incorrect.
Eyewitness testimony is allowable in court.

Since Q is saying (as an eyewitness) that William Barr spoke those words, his recollection is acceptable evidence. Thanks for the clarity!

Eyewitness testimony is known to be often unreliable.

Yes it is. We'll await actions. Especially in this world, where everyone lies so easily.

Scary when POTUS does constantly and is praised for it.

Probably because POTUS lies don't hurt individuals and families. Obama was roasted for his lies, because they had a direct, negative effect on the lives of those who elected him.