She believed that in the event if Biden and Harris failed to be inaugurated on 20th of January she would become acting President as Trump's and Pence's terms expire and she is the first in the line of succession after Pence. But her stolen laptop contains proofs of crimes that make her ineligible to serve as President (like giving aid to enemies of the US as per 14th amendment). So then it would be Grassley or Pompeo who become President in that scenario.
Comments (27)
sorted by:
Grassley certified fraudulent votes
He may have done so with the full knowledge and blessing of the Trump team. He would have immunity if he voted to certify in order to lull real traitors into doing the same.
Moves and countermoves. We don't know how many of the people who showed themselves to be "traitors" are double agent good guys. So, I fight my instinct to assume and try to leave room for the possibility. Bad guys will be fully exposed in the near future.
TRUST GRASSLEY
Q
You toe a line. Imagine a line drawn on the floor. Everyone lines up shoulder to shoulder with their toes on the line.
Kansas!
Yes that was my point that Pompeo is in line behind Grassley. Grassley voted to certify fraudulent votes so he my suffer the same fate as Pelosi. I also am aware that Q posted TRUST GRASSLEY. Perhaps this was misinformation to make DS believe he was a firewall in the event it came down to this. It is the only time to my knowledge that Q used all caps when indicating to trust someone. Obviously pure conjecture on my part. Thx for the reply.
Theories are good! Thanks for sharing Patriot!
I dont really understand the laptops allegedly stolen from the capitol;
If we "have it all" because we / Patriots control the NSA & other 18 Military Intel Agencies; why do we need any physical computers or servers?
What for?
NSA allegedly has the ability to intercept literally ALL comms in the WORLD bc they tap directly into internet backbones.
Here's an excellent & fascinating article about this. https://theintercept.com/2018/06/25/att-internet-nsa-spy-hubs/
If this is true; why do we need to bother with hunks of plastic, metal & silicon? Who cares?
Can anyone explain?
Not dooming, just asking a valid Question......
Maybe it's less about what we have and more about what she doesn't have.
Meaning deny her use of her laptop; harm her ability to work because she's scrambling getting a new computer to conduct her treason from?
Basically, it would surprise me if she had tons of documents, notes, etc. Collected and organized on her computer. Even with backups you never notice what tools you take for granted until they are gone.
Yep. I just figured that out; it's not about US getting it, it's about taking it away from her, and denying her the ability to use it.....not enough coffee yet, LOL.
Rather she probably had a lot of compromat there. Maybe she had dirt on Pence and thus controlled him, but now she doesn't...
Ahhhh.....ok, I see......gotcha. And if she did have blackmail materials, it's very much a double-edged sword; you gotta be VERY careful what you do with it.
You can't exactly make copies of it & stash It everywhere, or you risk losing it, and your control along with it.
Likewise, if it gets discovered, YOU (the holder of the data) gets screwed.
Point is; you are right; there's probably stuff on that laptop that is her only copy, so it's not so much about US getting it, but taking it away from HER.
NOW I get it....... Thanks Fren!! (Are we Anons here, I guess? LOL)
My thoughts are that we were told a long time ago that they have it all, but that was before last years impeachment, so since the plan began there are a few years worth of new crimes to be able to get her on.
If like Weiner, and it would seem Hunter Biden, Nancy Pants has a blackmail folder of crimes against kids on them it becomes very cut and dry to prosecute, and as the panic spreads around D.C. more and more desperate attempts are being made to stop Trump, more and more treasonous acts are being carried out - Bye Felicia time!
If everyone was arrested 3 years ago then it would have been long winded and drawn out to prosecute - Now should be able to have a military tribunal and execution carried out within 2 weeks
No, I don't think you understand; We have a total of 18 Intelligence Agencies. It was 17 (kek!) up until very recently, but the Space Force now has an intel dept., bringing America's total to 18 separate & distinct Intelligence Agencies.
Old-school, physical spying & intelligence gathering is very difficult and risky.
Intercepting physical mail, stealing or accessing computers, servers, etc; that's insanely difficult and inefficient.
ALL of the intel agencies rely almost exclusively on DIGITAL / SIGNALS INTELLIGENCE: listening in on and intercepting phone calls, emails, chats, instant mesages, EVERYTHING.
They ruthlessly exploit the fact that EVERYTHING TODAY IS DIGITAL, INTERNET CONNECTED, HAS MICROPHONES, SPEAKERS, WIFI, BLUETOOTH, BUILT RIGHT IN.
The intel agencies no longer need to implant physical listening devices, intercept / steal physical mail, packages, or anything of the sort.
Example; if you are an intel agency in DC, why would you bother trying to gain physical access to the office of a target in San Diego, 3,000+ miles away? You have to physically send someone; put them on a plane, get them a place to stay & work out of, etc. That individual must take great pains to enter the target office undetected, plant a listening device, hope it works and remains undiscovered, etc.
Why do that when you can hack into the targets smart phone, or simply digitally intercept all comms emanating from that device?
Why physically plant a bug / listening device, when you could digitally access the target's ipad, laptop, or smart TV, from anywhere in the world?
You do know that virtually ALL TV's these days have internet access, speakers & microphones built in, right?
My point is; if the NSA and 18 other agencies can electronically / digitally intercept and access everything that is on any computer, cell phone, etc; why bother actually grabbing the physical devices?
I just don't understand, or maybe my understanding is all messed up.
I think you ought to re-read the article I posted above.
I agree with everything you say about gathering info, but the best way I can explain my thoughts are with the DNC Russia Hack. It has been proven it couldn’t have been a hack because of the data transfer rate, had to be a physical transfer. Because the intelligence agencies are corrupted (military is the only way) this is still not known, and Seth Rich still waits for justice. If you have the laptop it can be used directly without having to go through the agencies - who still cannot be trusted
Or maybe it’s to troll her ?
That's a very good point too.
Thank you!
Can evidence gathered by NSA without a warrant be used in court?
I'm very far from an expert on this, OK? So keep that in mind & please do double-check me on this.
Here's my understanding, kinda random & scattered as it comes to me;
Q keeps mentioning "FISA" Such as "FISA brings down the house" and making similar statements.
I always took that to mean 2 things;
Remember; this is going to be 100% military; UCMJ, court martials, military tribunals, etc. I read somewhere recently that yes; (I think in relation to laptops stolen from capitol, allegedly by good guys); yes, evidentiary standards are much looser or at least substantively different for military trials vs. civilian.
JMHO, but hopefully we can get judges & other people to say "u know, fuck warrants & shit; this is a literal act of war, treason & sedition and an active coup; we're using these tools we have at our disposals."
The left has just made shit up as they go along, for so fucking long, it's long past due for US to do it & use it against them.
Hope that helps a bit.....LOL.... :-)
I think she realized that she can't get Donald and is now heartbroken. Perhaps she got in trouble with Melania?
She has just discovered that in jail she will not have access to booze. Imagining having blood running through her veins rather than alcohol, lizard slime, and adrenochrome must be terrifying.
I don't get how that would prevent her from serving. She would have to be convicted of a crime first - not just an accusation.