Cates:
When he came down the golden escalator in 2015 to directly oppose this international Shadow Cabal & it's IIC, Donald Trump became the target of at least half a dozen foreign national intelligence services all working in conjunction with each other.
But to make it look LEGAL, what they were about to do to Trump, the US IC had to create a LEGAL PREDICATE allowing the FBI to get a FISA warrant. But this was only a cover story for what was really going on.
This international intelligence conglomerate [IIC] not only handpicks the candidates, funds their campaigns & rigs the elections in their favor, they also target all viable opposition to their candidates for intelligence operations.
We have to all stop thinking of the HRC 2016 campaign as a 'private political entity' because that's not what it really was.
It was an extension of the IIC & massive advantages at it's disposal to use against it's political opposition.
& made FULL USE of it.
In fact, all Shadow Cabal political campaigns are extensions of an international intelligence conglomerate.
Not just in the US. In the UK, in Italy, Germany, Canada, France, Australia and NZ.
And they been for decades.
The candidates are carefully selected by this international intelligence conglomerate. Some are actually born and raised to become the leaders of these nations.
The narrative that a 'private' political campaign hired a 'private' political messaging shop in Fusion GPS who hired a 'retired' UK intelligence operative to create a opposition research dossier linking Trump & associates to the Putin government is a cover story.
That's not what happened.
All the FVEY's intel agencies are inextricably linked together. That's the first thing you have to get firmly fixed in your head.
The Hillary Clinton campaign had at its disposal something the Trump campaign didn't: the intelligence agencies of more than 5 Western nations.
It doesn't matter that the law prevents US Intel agencies from directly spying on/targeting Americans for domestic intel collection.
We have our allies do it for us.
Pay CAREFUL ATTENTION to what I am about to tell you.
Almost ALL the assumptions we've been making about the RussiaGate Hoax for going on 7 years now were wrong.
That in isolation, the HRC campaign paid private political operatives to create Russia Hoaxes to smear & investigate Trump's campaign and then his Presidency.
That's not correct.
What have I been saying for going on 6 years now?
"Once a spook, always a spook."
Q came right out and told everybody in this drop back on March 3, 2019 that the Steele Dossier was a UK off-the-books unofficial intelligence operation by a foreign FVEY intelligence service.
"Retired" spooks in private practice are used in unofficial intelligence operations all the time.
Everybody gets plausible deniability.
Nunes has TOLD YOU for going on over 6 years now that the intelligence provided to the FBI was... ""not through normal collection, gathering, and reporting/oversight re: (FVEY).""
What does Q add into that?
"Did the dossier provide the 'bulk data' anchor for the spy campaign?
What entity paid for the 'research' dossier?
Opposition candidate?
What US Ally completed the collection of false data?
Why was it important to use sources within the UK vs. US?
How do you circumvent US LAW?"
Q strongly hints at what the answer is here. Pay attention. I've placed a red box around the hints.
Ask yourself a very simple, logical, question.
What is a FISA warrant/application?
Is it a highly confidential [safeguarded] product of the UNITED STATES GOV?
If a product of the US GOV _ how did UK/AUS know what was listed inside of the package?
Think call to POTUS to prevent DECLAS [sources & methods].
If the US GOV requests UK/AUS [+2] to spy [+ campaign insertion] on an AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRE_NOMINEE + POTUS ELECT, is there a CHAIN OF COMMAND to APPROVE such AUTH?
Paper trail of the CHAIN OF COMMAND & umbrella spy metadata?
If not tasked & targeted under FVEY - what legal authority existed to engage the targeting?
Think Nunes' statement "not through normal collection, gathering, and reporting/oversight re: (FVEY)."
Did the dossier provide the 'bulk data' anchor for the spy campaign?
What entity paid for the 'research' dossier?
Opposition candidate?
What US Ally completed the collection of false data?
Why was it important to use sources within the UK vs. US?
How do you circumvent US LAW?
What other 'anchors' were provided to FISC in order to gain the warrant?
[DECLAS will show].
Was the 'other' data (collection/process) worse than the dossier?
Why didn't FISC require 'in room' presentations of the data prior to 'sign off'?
Who signed apps 1-4?
Who traveled to UK/AUS post election of POTUS?
Why were SECURITY PRIV removed from select 'formerly active' individuals?
Treason-Sedition-Corruption at the highest levels of GOV (WW).
How do you repair a bridge without closing it down?
Q
What's the chain of command the US federal gov't for using illegally gathered/disseminated FVEY intel to launch multiple coup attempts against a sitting President?
If there was no legal chain of command, then how'd it get accomplished?
People who ask the right questions get closer to finding the answers than people who don't.
Define treason.
Would the US civ IC using illegally gathered intelligence from FVEY allies to spy on a presidential campaign, and then a sitting President in office, qualify as treason?
Remember what @DevinNunes has said from the very beginning of this:
He got to look at the document that was used to predicate the opening of the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign.
WHAT did Nunes say about that document?
If the intel was unofficial channels, where'd it come from?
Just for laughs, I fed that Q drop into ChatGPT, and it said:
It appears that you are asking a series of rhetorical questions related to the FISA warrant and the alleged surveillance of a presidential nominee and a POTUS-elect. The questions suggest that the FISA warrant application is a highly confidential product of the US government and that it is not clear how UK/AUS knew about its contents. The questions also raise concerns about the legality of the surveillance and the chain of command involved in authorizing it. The questions further suggest that the dossier provided the "bulk data" anchor for the spy campaign and that an opposition candidate and a US ally were involved in collecting false data. The questions also raise concerns about the removal of security privileges from certain individuals and suggest that there may have been treason, sedition, and corruption at the highest levels of government. The questions do not provide answers but rather suggest that further investigation and declassification may be necessary to fully understand the situation.
Very good, AI. Very good.
https://truthsocial.com/@BrianCates/posts/109926879710221417
Oh how they hat that "He came down the Golden Escalator"