-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- - 32 -

a reply to: crankyoldman

Are you talking about Ley Lines?

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I hope they all double down and run themselves straight into the ground with it. These clowns have been lying to us for decades. I won't miss that when it's gone.

I wouldn't be surprised if most MSM don't need viewers because 3 letter agency is picking up the tab.

NO way a REAL business could take the hit they have taken without trying to fix it nor would pick their political ideals over money. There history if 3 letter agencies being tightly intertwined with media , Hollywood, and other public type industries that are ideal for propaganda . The fact they have chosen political ideals over making profit is very telling and if they go down don't expect the new ones to not be run by the same people.

a reply to: crankyoldman

If this crap is not some sort of code, I do not know what is.....although Swalwell seems like the type of guy the true masters of the Democrats would want to keep as far away as possible from any giant scheme. He is sure to screw it up, or say something hes not supposed to say on national TV.

a reply to: interupt42

China has a bigger potential consumer base than we do. More money to be made there.

The NBA is a good example.

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist
a reply to: butcherguy

I am a fan of bongino. I remember him saying he owned parler on his podcast. I heard it in his voice. He said it with such authority I took him to be the most important member. Either the owner or main shareholder.

I just edited my post, adding a link. He is an ownership level strategic investor, not the outright owner.

a reply to: carewemust

How is she going to go thru 8,000 pages of evidence by 10AM today? Dont you think she should consider what has been presented before her, before she decides on the case?!?

originally posted by: butcherguy
I remember reading the tweet and it was just as the member says.
I took the wording by Bongino to mean that he owned Parler.

Ok, so, show the tweet(s) - in context...

Also, explain why he would make such a claim, when it can easily be disproven?

Ok, here is the tweet, and as I said, when taken in context, it is obvious he wasn't claiming to be the sole owner, he was just passionately denouncing the fake claim that George Soros owned it:

"All,
Parler has NOT been sold. I assure you, as an owner of the company, that if we sold it, I would know! Parler has exploded. We’re adding thousands of users per minute & were working out the glitches as a result. But don’t buy internet BS rumors from hoaxsters. I own Parler."

See his first reference saying he is an owner? That context shows that his last 'I own Parler' comment was just him passionately disputing the ridiculous claim that Soros owned it.

Next?

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: crankyoldman
The invocation involves military due cyber capabilities as well as resources. Three letter agencies have been rendered irrelevant.

I also saw reference to the fact that the CIA and other agencies have basically been taken out of the loop with respect to intel sharing - anyone got a link to that one? That is significant, if true.

originally posted by: PilSungMtnMan
a reply to: carewemust

I think there was a trap set. The “fraud” momentum grows each day. There’s no defense of it from the Left. They think MSM ignoring it will make it go away. It’s not going away and it doubles in size and ugliness each week.

We shall see very clearly who is Deep State and who is not. Fox News showed its true colors. Which GOP’ers pick wrong on this issue? There is no neutral position. You’re either helping expose the fraud or your part of the fraud. Cut & Dry. Spinning something in between gets you red lined.

If the SCOTUS rules in favor of the plaintiff on the PA case, that starts the avalanche.

The mood I've been getting on Facebook tends to confirm this. A lot less push back than I'd expected for the posts I've been making. Of course it's always hard for me to gauge how censored I am over there, and whether or not everybody's just got you blocked or something. Regardless, I expected more opposition to my views expressed there, the mood seems rather quiet.

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: crankyoldman

Oh cranky
.
How busted are they?
Dare I say?
Do you think team trump.....

.....has it all?

chortle chortle

originally posted by: Justoneman
Yes all that stuff needs safeguards. I say that should mean paper ballots and voting boxes in by 1 hour after polls close. There will be no allowing one thing late since they like to wait till the final count and pull out boxes full of 'votes' for the D's time after time.

I fully expect this to be ordered by the federal government backed up by the Supreme Court, to disallow/ban the use of these voting machines for any federal elections (not sure if they can legally ban their use for local elections), based purely on the fact that they are owned by the Chinese.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

There won't be a lot of pushback from regular folks, not even folks who wanted Biden or anyone but Trump which is more accurate. Most of them secretly believe Biden won through cheating. So what can they say?

I do notice a ton of really rabid and obnoxious trolls hitting the comments sections of lot of my favorite blogs though. They are out in force and increasingly shrill. They don't deny fraud; they're just flagrantly derogatory.

originally posted by: pianopraze
Ok, I have to ageee.

This is a Boom!

The FB fact check on that video is hilarious btw... they say those aren’t “suitcases”, lol. Also claims that the ballots went through the opening and verification process even though 14 hours of video proves otherwise. They also claim that no one told the workers, observers and press to go home - apparently they just simultaneously and collectively decided to leave on their own and let the counting go on unobserved.

I guess they are hoping we all don’t remember the “water main break” claim from that night. We were ALL told everyone was told to go home.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I hope they all double down and run themselves straight into the ground with it. These clowns have been lying to us for decades. I won't miss that when it's gone.

I wouldn't be surprised if most MSM don't need viewers because 3 letter agency is picking up the tab.

NO way a REAL business could take the hit they have taken without trying to fix it nor would pick their political ideals over money. There history if 3 letter agencies being tightly intertwined with media , Hollywood, and other public type industries that are ideal for propaganda . The fact they have chosen political ideals over making profit is very telling and if they go down don't expect the new ones to not be run by the same people.

Yeah, there is no way these news networks could survive without assistance. I have been saying this for a while, the liberals, progressives, whatever you want to call them, simply don't care about preserving anything of their own. Pushing an agenda is more important to them than staying in business, or you know, having stores in their cities to shop at. They simply don't care or, which is obviously the case, they don't need to worry about any of it. They v could have 3 viewers and as long as they are playing for the right side, they will be kept alive and kicking.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
Ku or not, that is still happening.

Ok, I've been waiting patiently to see if I can figure out what KU/Ku means, but no such luck.

So, anyone?

a reply to: tanstaafl

Same here. I’ve just assumed that you’re not supposed to write the letter Q for some reason?

originally posted by: Justoneman
We are a REPUBLIC. Once you allow that thought to permeate, will you understand what you are trying to grasp.

Republics vote by states/counties/cities. Not by overall popularity.

That is just one difference.

We are not just a Republic - we are a Constitutional Republic - the difference being, even those who are our elected representatives have a very limited power, restricted by the Constitution.

In a dumbocracy, those same representatives could, once elected, enact whatever law they wanted. Here, they are very limited (even though they constantly enact laws that violate those limitations, but that is the problem that needs fixing).

I think this one picture just about says it all.



BOOM!

originally posted by: PokeyJoe
I think this one picture just about says it all.

BOOM!

that is fantastic!! do you have a clearer image i want spread that around

originally posted by: FinallyFree72

originally posted by: pianopraze
Ok, I have to ageee.

This is a Boom!

The FB fact check on that video is hilarious btw... they say those aren’t “suitcases”, lol. Also claims that the ballots went through the opening and verification process even though 14 hours of video proves otherwise. They also claim that no one told the workers, observers and press to go home - apparently they just simultaneously and collectively decided to leave on their own and let the counting go on unobserved.

I guess they are hoping we all don’t remember the “water main break” claim from that night. We were ALL told everyone was told to go home.

That video will be like the video of tower 7 going down. Say it with me everyone “not a controlled demolition”

Now, in regards to the ballots in suitcase video....Gather round and say it with me everyone “These people are following Standard Operating Procedures”

Very good! Here’s a cookie 🍪 🤮

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

If you throw a link to 600.3 up here I'd take a look at it, but what I was supposing from reading the other sections was that the AG has authority to appoint a special agent or counsel for just about any reason

Direct link to 28 CFR § 600.3 - Qualifications of the Special Counsel.

At the link below, you will find seperate links out to the different subsections of 28 C.F.R. § 600.

The title of each section

28 CFR Part 600 - GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

I'll admit, I am NOT a lawyer, but I have taken a few law classes. They are a pain in the ass, but informative, no less.

These statutes, for the most part, are what I consider a plain-speak type of statute.

This is incomparison to other statutes, epecially spending an appropriations bills, where the language of the bill requires extensive cross referencing to other bills or statutes. 28 C.F.R. § 600 is not like that. Again, comparatively, plain-speak law.

I have a busy day lined up, so won't have much time to post. I'm also approaching from the POV, as a laymen, that I could be compleely wrong on this. Case law also makes a difference, where applicable, and I don't know if there is any applicable case law that could potentially be applied WRT what Barr has done, in it's defense, or against it.