-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- -22-

a reply to: dashen

Deep sigh...

Babylon 5 revival won't ever happen, insists series creator

a reply to: pavil

Read the twitter replys to this.

a reply to: dashen

Roger that. Ready, I think...

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

I've listened to a few lectures from one of George Church's colleagues --David Sinclair

They are both big proponents of resetting DNA to reverse ageing. Of course, the methods they use involve CRISPR and other technologies that would give them complete control over our genetic codes and allow them to experiment however they wish

Humans have the ability to reset our own DNA through the power of our thoughts and intentions. No advanced, scientific intervention needed

originally posted by: dashen
imagine if you will.

a new plane of reality has been discovered, and the elites have been the keepers to this place.

a fifth dimension

D5

GATEkeepers

Can’t be opened without the keys

a reply to: pavil

These Ivy League lawyers are master word salad chef's.

a reply to: SouthernGift

it is possible to "POSSES" a key.

originally posted by: pavil

Tweet
I was wondering about the consensual recording myself.

Pretty simple to figure out: Did the IG interview Page and Paps, and if so, what did they say about this issue? Or, are there written consents? It's a simple, binary question.

It's like, Investigation 101. Or is the IG setting up the FBI's defenses for the likely civil rights lawsuit?

a reply to: LanceCorvette

I will defer to your legal expertise in most cases but I'm pretty sure the consent referred to in the report was one-party consent

Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. ... This is called a "one-party consent" law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation

The Pentagon’s Top Asia Policy Expert Resigns

Randy Schriver, the assistant secretary of defense for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs, has resigned his post, three sources confirmed to Foreign Policy, creating yet another vacancy in an increasingly empty Department of Defense despite new Pentagon chief Mark Esper’s push to fill top jobs.

Schriver carved out a reputation as a China hawk, helping oversee the Pentagon’s strategic shift from wars in the Middle East to confronting Beijing. He was one of the first senior U.S. officials to publicly criticize China for its mass internment of ethnic Uighurs and describe the internment facilities as “concentration camps.”

Meanwhile...

Bipartisan defense bill passed. As impeachment rocked one side of Capitol Hill, there was a rare surge of bipartisanship in another. On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a defense policy bill authorizing $738 billion for the Pentagon’s budget, including the creation of a new Space Force, operating under the Air Force. The bill also includes $300 million in funding for military assistance to Ukraine, an issue at the center of the impeachment inquiry into Trump.

Missile alerts would fall to FEMA under defense bill

The federal government is poised to take over responsibility for alerting the public of a missile threat under a provision authored by U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) that was inserted into the proposed National Defense Authorization Act. The measure was introduced in response to Hawaii’s false missile alert of two years ago.

Clip

This is why Q.

Lt General Flynn & Admiral Rogers

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

Q Team is best team

a reply to: dashen

Start with the premise that I haven't bothered to read the report.

That said, there's a patchwork of federal and state consent laws when no eavesdropping warrant is present.

The tweet above states that Page and Paps, themselves, didn't consent. That's different than whether another party to the conversation consented pursuant to one of the consent statutes.

I'd be curious ... but not curious enough to read the entire report or scan it ... to read the portion of concern from the report in the tweet.

a reply to: LanceCorvette

consensual monitoring of the August 20 meeting between Source 2 and
Carter Page was presented to McCabe, Priestap, then FBI General Counsel James
Baker, Strzok, Anderson and other FBI personnel during briefings on August 25,
2016. Baker told the OIG that what he remembered about the briefing
was feeling comfortable that the focus was on the Russians, the focus
was on trying to get foreign-intelligence information, [and] that this
other stuff [regarding the campaign] was part of the cover story and
not what we were interested in, and something that we ... just weren't
going to make any use of.
He added that "even though the FBI was collecting some type of political
information" through Source 2's conversation with Carter Page, the political
information "was not the focus of what we were after ... [and] it was being minimized

a reply to: dashen

That was quick, thanks.

So, in my profession, there's facts, and there's conclusions based on those facts. "Consent" is a conclusion based on a set of given facts. One doesn't give "consent" although that may be the word used, one says "I will allow you to record this ..." or "I consent to recording my meeting this afternoon" or some such.

While it's likely Source 2 was a mole and consented to the convo, I'd like to see what that consent looked like, and whether it was truly "consensual" (e.g., did he consent under duress). Is it in writing? What's the writing say? Who drafted the writing? Was it oral? When was it given? To whom? For this one conversation or broad consent? Why was Source 2 in a position to do this in the first place?

More to the point, it doesn't say Page and Paps consented. It sort of brushes over who actually gave the consent. Lots wrong with this, it's just poorly written.

So this is something from Mike Huckabee. We have talked about this here I think, and its been shot down. Could Trump possibly serve a third term?

twitter.com...

I'll be on @seanhannity 2nite @FoxNewsat 9pm ET and will explain how @realDonaldTrump will be eligible for a 3rd term due to the illegal attempts by Comey, Dems, and media , et al attempting to oust him as @POTUS so that's why I was named to head up the 2024 re-election.

a reply to: PokeyJoe

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

a reply to: LanceCorvette

you say poorly written.

i say purposefully written



this is not a game

Why is Nadler in charge?
Nadler dozing off
Nadler drooling
Nadler being a puppet