I just read that according to the below source, his security detail cost American taxpayers $2,000,000.00 per month! (Two million dollars per mo.)
NewsNation obtained sensitive but unclassified documents that show the cost of protecting Pompeo and one of his aides ballooned in 2021 from nearly $700,000 to more than $2 million each month. About 90% of those public dollars go to Pompeo’s security.
That $2 million mostly covers “vehicle and travel costs for Pompeo’s security agents and his own extensive travel for paid speeches and public events,” according to the documents obtained by NewsNation.
It’s not uncommon for former officials to go on book tours or travel for paid speeches, retired Diplomatic Service Agent Mark Hipp said. But when there’s a credible threat, announcing when and where you’ll be somewhere puts lives at risk, he added.
“There’s a stark difference between a national security mission that’s important for us and then a discretionary trip,” Hipp said. “In all things, especially if there’s a threat from a state sponsor, you’d have to be concerned.”
That’s particularly true when the trip is for personal gain, Hipp said.
Pompeo nets about six figures per speech.
“Most secretaries if not all pretty much do this stuff,” Hipp said. “It’s to what extreme they do it.”
Below is a look at just some of Pompeo’s domestic travels from April to July of 2022. Many of the appearances were announced ahead of time, a factor that Hipp said makes security’s job more complicated.
NewsNation learned that before this year, Congress limited how much it spent on security for former state department officials to $15 million annually. After Pompeo’s detail nearly doubled that amount, Congress rewrote its budget, this year providing as much as $30 million.
Pompeo, according to data obtained by investigators at News Nation, travels continually to speak and be a guest at places all over the world for which he is paid (according to them) about $100k per appearance. Here's a snippet from his 2022 travel calendar:
From March 5 - June 28 he attended 23 functions, each paying him for his appearance.
23x $100,000 = $2,300,000.00 received by Pompeo over 115 days.
$2,300,000.00 divided by 115 days = $20,000.00 PER DAY!
He gets to make $20,000.00 PER DAY, while the taxpayers paid for $67k per day in security!
HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN? And, why is he in such demand?
Senate Majority leader Thune is similar to Pompeo, I think. Evangelical Christians — a lot of conservatives support Israel as part of their theology. the 1948 creation of the state of modern Israel is as solid to many just as Q posts have markers that have meaning here at GAW. Daniel chapter 9 verses 24-27 talks of Seventy Sevens and the interpretation is kind of wild.
Another example of evangelical proofs.
Example: Mark Twain visited the land around Jerusalem in the 1800s. When he arrived there, the Jewish prayer for the day was something like “God hear us, have mercy.”. Mark Twain = Samuel (he hears God) Clemens (Mercy, clemency). ____ Jonathan Cahn on utube talks about this stuff and how Trump is like one of the kings in ancient Israel.
Well said. Included is Ezekiel 36, Zechariah 31, Isaiah 53, etc. All prophecy to be fulfilled for God’s remnant of Israel. Gentiles, the church, will not be in the earth to witness it, of course, because we’re looking for Christ, not antichrist (the rapture).
thanks for sharing those chapters, I have not read those chapters from his perspective , I have friends who have this perspective of God protecting Gentile followers by taking them up to Heaven , and a few who think God’s protection will be through 7 years. It is important to be ready.
Has there actually been an 'official' announcement of this? All I have seen is simply based on reports by MSM organs from anonymous sources 'familiar with the matter', as they usually say about just about anything.
His security detail may have been removed, but I don't know that this is "official".
Trump was on video, during an EO signing blitz in his office, when asked about this. He said, “SSS security doesn’t last forever”. As to the risk to Pompeo he said, “There’s risks to everything.”
However, I think it needs to be emphasized that the revoking of the security details is evidence or proof that Pompeo is dirty. Some people are asserting that, which I think it patently ridiculous, myself. At some point, security details have to be removed. Leaping to say, "Look! His security was removed! That's proof that DJT thinks Pompeo is a dirty deepstate scumbag traitor!!!" is idiotic. IMO.
Also, the security was maintained during the Biden era, JUST LIKE so many critical and important EOs that Trump put in to place, and which Biden mysteriously refused to rescind. Funny that, right?
Yeah, I think it’s possible Pompeo is dirty and his detail was removed for the same reason as Fauci. I also think it’s possible he’s not dirty, but it has to look like he has been so the other clowns stay paranoid about who they can and can’t trust.
Time to kick all of them off the gravy train. Give them what they need to do the job, and when their done serving the country, they can be like the rest of us. If they need security, they can rely on the 2A, just like us.
I've long wondered why people/groups pay people like this so much for a speech. What do they expect to get out of it, especially when the person is not in the government, and doesn't seem to have any power to do anything the person/group paying for the speech might want.
Thank God ! No more having to hear “he was playing a role BS “ he is a traitor and always has been and I believe he was also involved in the attempts on DJT as well ! Thank God pence and now this faggott buddy of Obama’s has been exposed , for good ,, more to come and can’t wait ! Just like pence, this evil one hid behind the cross tweeting out scriptures ! I hope he hangs ! I missed this dance disgrace, whst a cringe !!!!
I think it would be more accurate that he asked or advised Trump not to release all the files.
And again, can we assume that this is 'shady'?
If we're following Q and have understood the plan, it seems pretty darn obvious that timing is everything. Admin #1 > Fake Biden Admin > Admin #2. Look at how the hammer is dropping everywhere as of Jan 20. Can we be certain that releasing all the JFK files during the first administration would have been optimal?
The files not being released, in conjunction with RFK joining Team Trump, in conjunction with complete and full disclosure now - this certainly has a LOT more impact than (in my view) it would have had in 2020 or 2029, etc.
Narrative warfare.
As I understand it, DJT has stated that Pompeo advised him to not release all the files (many were in fact released). But in and of itself, I don't think that I can consider that 'shady'. Timing.
It's interesting, also, that pretty much you cannot remember off the top of your head, shady stuff Pompeo has done. Compare with Clinton, Schiff, McConnel, Vindman, heck, even Whatshername Cassidy Hutchinson. Easy to recall what any of these folks have done that is not only shady, but even criminal in some cases.
There has been a lot of talk and a lot of doubt and aspersions cast at Pompeo by the influencers both in our camp and also by the Globalist leftists. But concrete, verified factual information seems pretty sparse. For that reason, I take all the noise being fired at Pompeo, and also those firing that noise, to be a powerful indicator.
Q said Trust Kansas numerous times, and very clearly indicated that they were referring to Pompeo (its all int he drops). Was that disinfo? Could be. But personally, I'm wary of folks who assert their beliefs and opinions as if fact.
Maybe Pompeo isn't dirty but also not great. Maybe Trump used him to perfection to achieve his goals. But the aspersions being cast on Pompeo deserve examination both for and against, imo.
I remember you and I speaking about this . You figured him out a lot sooner then many . But hey we all know now thsts all that counts ;) hopfully he will not be able to do any more damage . This one was dangerous to our cause , the Benedict Arnold’s usually ate !
Actually, per 3 anti-Trump journalists at Yahoo news. That's what Carlson based his story on (unless he has other sources he has not mentioned). That story came from them.
If I remember correctly, the video clip I saw of Tucker (talking about Pompeo wanting to drone strike Assange), he was speaking as if he got that info directly from a source. Sorry I don't remember when/where exactly Tucker mentioned that though (seems like it was a year or so ago). I don't think Pompeo was the focus of that particular Tucker show/interview - it just came up during the show.
I really watching that directly, and then went to research the topic, and found that the story was originally pushed via the three anti-Trump journalists at yahoo. (I dug a little into them, it was clear what their persuasion was.)
I don't recall Tucker mentioning any other source. In an interview when asked about this, Pompeo states that this would be illegal by American laws, and he never violated the law (i.e. anything illegal) as CIA director, (but hey, what else would he do but deny it?)
Tucker's assertions seemed to be corroborated by Assange himself, but its still a fact that the story was pushed/broke by Anti-Trump journos.
one issue I have is that so many frogs seem just willing to rag on someone and call them a dirty rotten traitor, and pass summary judgment without (apparently) practicing even a level of objectivity or research.
I was thinking about this more today after Yesterday's post, and it really came to me, I'd rather be wrong for the right reasons, than be right for the wrong reasons.
To me, the jury is still out about Pompeo. So much smoke and mirrors everywhere, everywhere. It's the nature of the 5G war. I think its possible that he may have been a patriotic actor with his own quirks (strongly held religious views) that DJT and Team Q were really able to use during DJT #1, but whose limitations caught up with him.
Tucker considers him a criminal, apparently, but Pompeo's track record with the DJT administration is pretty hard to fault, on the surface of it.
And, if Q the operation was real, then one has to wonder why DJT would put Pompeo at CIA for a year, unless it was to prep the way for NOW.
There are other factors that make me lean towards Pompeo being a bad guy though, such as Pompeo (reportedly - also per Tucker) being the one who convinced Pres. Trump not to release the JFK docs during Trump's 1st admin, Pompeo most certainly didn't "clean up" the CIA (as he was tasked to do in Trump's 1st administration), Trump revoking Pompeo's security detail this week, Trump not appointing Pompeo to serve in this administration in any capacity and proclaiming that Pompeo won't be getting a position in this term 3 months ago (as if Pompeo was never under consideration), etc. Just some things to consider.
There are other factors that make me lean towards Pompeo being a bad guy though, such as
This is what I like. You're offering an argument, with a list of reasons, and then framing it as a "leaning towards". Fundamentally, arguments by frogs that go: "Look! He's dirty! See? This, this this! he should be destroyed and buried!!!!"I find really only push me in the other direction. kek.
If I reflect internally, I can recognize that I have a bias that Pompeo is good. Primarily grounded in the numerous "Trust Pompeo" statements by Q. Then, I try to look at all the things that say to me that Pompeo is a good guy. Then, I try to consider counter-arguments to all the things that some people say "show/proove" that Pompeo is dirty rotten scum.
ie.e With the things that say to me Pompeo is good fundamentally, these are the length of his stay and accomplishments of his working with DJT in Admin #1. I try to reason if it makes sense that this could have been the situation if he was a "dirty, rotten traitorous scumbag secretly serving the Cabal and DS". So far, they don't.
Anyway, I look at the various arguments others present, such as your list above, and then try to see if there are other possible alternative reasonable or rational explanations (other than Mike is dirty DS scum). I do often find them.
For example, removal of Pompeo's security. Some frogs things this is hard and fast proof that Pompeo is dirty as. Which I think is a ridiculous standpoint. It's not proof. Circumstantial evidence, possibly, yes, but might there be other reasons why Pompeo's security was terminated at this time? Threat no longer existing? Part of cutting off unnecessary government expenses? I think its possible to come up with such counter-arguments to most of the points you have raised.
Not to say that counter-arguments prove one way or the other. I'm just trying to maintain a balanced and reasoned evaluation of the factors. In a situation where we simply cannot KNOW, I think its important to consider the plethora of factors and considerations, and try to weigh up the balance to see which one makes the most sense, and why.
For example, the timing in the security thing, however, DOES seem .... interesting, it is perhaps noteworthy, it is perhaps not. But I cannot see it as 'proof' that Pompeo is bad, or indeed proof of anything other than DJT did in fact remove the security detail. It just isn't, and frogs pretending it is are engaged in self-delusion, imo.
However, through some of the discussions with frogs here, I'm naturally examining more and more info around Pompeo, and that is leading me to consider alternatives to my basic preliminary belief that Pompeo was anything other than a patriotic asset to Trump.
Currently, I'm contemplating that "Trust Kansas" was part of the Q drops because, during DJT #1, Kansas was an important part of the team accomplishing certain goals, specifically related to TERM ONE, and in the time and era of the Q drops, this was a necessary statement to reinforce to anons that there IS a plan in place and that things are proceeding as per what we want. i.e. It instilled faith.
But along with this idea, I'm contemplating that Pompeo is flawed, a flawed instrument useful for the purposes of TERM ONE but not useful or appropriate to the purposes of TERM TWO, aka where are now, hammer drops and actual flushing of the swamp. I.e. he's partially a hawk, who doesn't really jive with the real spirit of Maga, which is not actually Pompeo's rather fundamentalist religious outlook.
I guess that's the view I'm now considering, which still resists the idea that he's literally "a bad guy". Compare and contrast with Bolton, who its obvious is scum. Compare and contrast with Fauci, likewise. Consider anything Trump or Flynn, for example, have said about Pompeo. The most we have is Tucker, and I don't think Tucker is free of his own biases. Yet.
In other words, Pompeo was perhaps a decent enough instrument for the objectives of Term One, but simply not up to scratch for Term Two. And so, naturally put aside.
That's kind of what I'm toying with now. But reviewing the actual data, (eg the clip you linked and I'm assuming will be worth viewing) - and there is a massive amount of it out there - and processing it via reasoning and taking into account for prejudices, limitations of knowing etc, well, these are reasons I just cannot jump on the bandwagon of some frogs who seem to think THEY KNOW! that Pompeo is dirty.
I think I wrote elsewhere, I'd rather be wrong for the right reasons, than right for the wrong reasons. If there is one thing the last 7 years, and especially the last 4 years has impressed upon me, is that I'm swimming in an ocean where the power of narratives and beliefs and psychological pushes (internal and external) are a virtual storm, and making my way through all the mental and narrative and psychological chaos requires the hardest application of reasoning, counter-arguments and self-evaluation I can muster.
This is why when frogs come out with hard-line absolute and emotionally driven (imo) conviction in their belief that X is dirty, Y is great, I generally ignore that out of hand.
I feel like I've kept my head afloat. But (full disclosure) I get hotly irritated by frogs who I think simply hoist up their sail and catch the wind that they think must be right and then invest their own beliefs with the podium status of 'fact' without observably applying what I consider to be reasoning, recognition of limitations on knowing.
Honestly acknowledging one's beliefs and being responsible for them means (to me) something one might describe as both intellectual and moral honesty. I don't rally care if Pompeo is dirty. What I care about is, am I honestly, reasonably, reviewing my own opinions and beliefs around him.
I look forward to learning more about the reality of Pompeo as time goes on. Maybe. Either way, we're back with DJT where he should be, and the stage being set, the hammer of justice and restoration is swinging. Big time.
Cause for celebration and gratitude, whichever way you cut it.
What a thoughtful reply - thank you! Like you, I tend to look at data points and weigh them out, seeing which way the evidence or ‘data points’ stack up the strongest.
But even with that, we are limited as to which ‘data points’ we’re able to see/access. Much is still hidden from even the best diggers, IMO.
When evaluating a situation from a hypothesis-based standpoint, it gets muddy whenever one sees conflicting data points. For example, if I were to make a hypothesis that “Trump got rid of all the bad guys who were in his first administration” then one would conclude that people like Pence, Comey, Fauci, and Birx were good.
Therefore, lumping Pompeo into a group of people who Trump left in place through the end of his first term, to me, does not equate to “Pompeo was good,” simply because there’s plenty of contradicting evidence of other established baddies who meet that same criteria. In my mind, that ‘data point’ (someone is a good guy because Trump didn’t get him of them while in office the first time) becomes negated when too many contradictions challenge or negate that hypothesis. Make sense? :-)
“Trump got rid of all the bad guys who were in his first administration”
I think that's a rather broad hypothesis to take. I'd prefer to look at each one, case by case.
For example, Fauci and Birx were both establishment figures, put in place a long time before Trump came on the seen. It make sense to keep them around as part of the exposure operation, the pushing to the spotlight, etc, where removing them might simply have made rooting out the corrupt foundations a more difficult or elongated process.
There is plenty to convict Fauci and Birx, and I don't think serious researchers should have any doubts about them.
Pence, Pompeo were put in place by Trump. They were not establishment figures in the sense of being part of that deep state bureaucracy that Fauci and Birx were, so on that point, there's an immediate distinction.
I still find the arguments against Pence wholly unconvincing, recent policy positions by Pence notwithstanding. That's a different discussion.
Comey is an interesting case. Some folks over at Badlands, specifically (formerly) Just Human, Burning Bright have raised some very interesting takes on Comey. They put Comey in place as one of the Original Gang including Trump, Guiliani, Mueller, etc, that took down the East Coast Mafia in the 80's and 90's.
Comey has certainly played (if that is what it is) the part of a great HEEL (cf: Kayfabe; face vs heel) that all of Maga loved to despise, with Trump himself playing the part of FACE. Was Comey an underground operator, an undercover agent that led Obama Admin to put him in place at the FBI?
We have to remember, a lot of the truth is in fact deep, deep, spy vs spy stuff going back decades and decades. It's all been covert warfare, with the general population ignorant of the reality. That's the reality that Q exposed big time, triggering the Great Awakening. The spy-vs-spy stuff is in fact intergral to that.
Comey re-opening the Hillary emails file just weeks prior to the election was a BIG thing. Sure, sure, "nothing here that a normal prosecutor would persue" is a great heel line, perfect for getting the hate from Maga and (maybe) love from the Leftists. In that sense, on one level, it preserved his position (if such it was) as a no-good DS scumbag, BUT the fact is, the damage was done. his re-opening the Hillary Case could have been completely avoided, and as I understand it, Team Killary essentially blames Comey for scuttling their 2016 election.
Surface level is FULL of narrative warfare. One has to dig a bit deeper to get to closer to reality. So in my case, Comey? For me, jury out, but leaning towards white hat in disguise. And to re-emphasize this point: the HEEL vs FACE dynamic in Kayfabe seems to have been absolutely RIFE during 2016 - 2024.
There's an excellent podcast on this specific dimension or lens through which one can consider the Trump Operation - I highly recommend it as food for thought.
The kayfabe lens is one that I think illuminates the idea of narrative warfare (a key part of 5G warfare) in ways that nothing else quite does, and it aligns very powerfully with Q drops, the idea of "learn our comms" and "playbook known", and the history of Donald Trump.
lumping Pompeo into a group of people who Trump left in place through the end of his first term, to me, does not equate to “Pompeo was good,”
No definitively not. Nothing as crude as that is even worthy considering, imo.
(someone is a good guy because Trump didn’t get rid of them while in office the first time)
Well, we're probably in agreement, because that's never an argument or position I would take. To me, it's way too superficial.
With regards to Pompeo, some salient factors for me are:
Trump appointed him; first to CIA and then to SoS. He was head at CIA when the Q operation began, and its tempting to think that somehow, he was 'rigging' the situation at the CIA in preparation for the current time, but that's really just speculation. Would it make sense for Trump and Q team to put a closet Cabalist as chief of the CIA at the start of Trump Admin #1? I don't know.
His long stint as Sec of State (again, appointed by Trump) and the accomplishments the Admin #1 achieved in terms of the Abraham Accords.
In other words, merely 'not being gotten rid of during Admin #1' is not an argument I think one could ever seriously use. Rather, the How the person got where they were, what happened under them, etc, these are far more important. An undercover black hat might play along as a good guy, but it would be very rare for them to cooperate in something that so seriously destroys or undermines the black hat agenda, which the Abraham Accords absolutely do.
And, if Pompeo was a black hat, so then what was he waiting for? Did he actually hamstring Trump while playing along as a good guy? So far, I've not seen evidence to that effect, but then, I haven't seriously dug into it, either.
In my mind, that ‘data point’ (someone is a good guy because Trump didn’t get him of them while in office the first time) becomes negated when too many contradictions challenge or negate that hypothesis. Make sense? :-)
Sure. makes sense, although I stress again that "someone is good because....first time" is not something I'd consider a data point. It's not a fact. It's an evaluation or opinion, AND it's not one that I myself would use, personally.
To emphasize this point: Steve Bannon's stint in the White House was notably short - 8 months. Now, narrative layer, all the Marxist propaganda tried to make it look like he was out of favor and blah, blah blah. Here's even a wikipedia entry:
In 2016, Bannon became the chief executive officer of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and was appointed chief strategist and senior counselor to the president following Trump's election. He left the position eight months later and rejoined Breitbart. In January 2018, after his criticism of Trump's children was reported in Michael Wolff's book Fire and Fury, he was disavowed by Trump and subsequently left Breitbart.
'Criticizing Trump's children' is an easy way to be 'disavowed' and create distance from the central Trump Team, providing great cover if indeed Bannon is/was an operation in alignment with MAGA agenda.
My evaluation of Bannon is that he very strategically, and in complete coordination with Team Trump (by Team Trump, I don't mean those externally with Trump, but rather the team of real white hats and movers who Donald Trump is front man for and representative of) moved out of the 'Trump inner circle' at a designed time, in order to set up and establish the Warroom operation as a key, 'conservative yet alternative' mobilization - not Conservative Inc (Controlled oppo) but also not outer alternative, like the Q operation.
Warroom bridged the middle ground, by reaching out to 'normie' conservative and tea party-type thinkers and people, while being decidedly NOT establishment con (i.e. Fox, etc) but also distancing himself from Q very clearly, (Kek, "there are no conspiracies but there are no coincidences" - I mean, that's like saying, hey "Q/qanon is garbage" out loud, and whispering "but q is actually right!")
If Bannon was not part of the less than ten, then I think he was still very close to the plan and was a deliberate deployment to reach out to a segment of the population that the White Hats knew would not be able to attach to Q.
So, in this case, "early leaving the white house = bad guy/dodgy guy" makes zero sense to me. Doesn't work. Rather, Bannon's early departure is another data point that supports or aligns with the idea that he's a good guy operator, specifically and strategically deployed. And remember, Bannon was CEO of the Trump 2016 campaign and Chief Strategist at the DJT White House up until a few months before the Q operation was deployed. Coincidentally?
One last point: I think of data points as either verifiable or recognized facts - and as something quite different from evaluations, opinions, hypotheses, etc. But I'm not certain if this is how someone trained in maths or computational work sees it.
"A data point is a discrete unit of information. In a general sense, any single fact is a data point. The term data point is roughly equivalent to datum, the singular form of data"
I guess if I was to model how I think about stuff, its this:
Data points (discrete units of 'fact' - putting aside whether they are 'real' or simply told to us (lies/distortions))
Narratives (the stories that actors/agents are telling about data points)
Lenses (the perspective or context through which one looks at data points and narratives)
So far, that's the three core elements I think one has to consider when formulating "beliefs", if we define a belief as "things one accepts as true".
Anyway.... Thanks for the stimulating discussing. It's interesting to learn how other frens approach their thinking and working through the stuff we do.
I mean, for how long do officials no longer working in the government get protection?
Myself, I cannot simply make statements of fact based on something I believe, or something I suspect, etc. At a minimum, I think one has to consider other potential explanations, including those that do not necessarily confirm my belief or bias.
I just read that according to the below source, his security detail cost American taxpayers $2,000,000.00 per month! (Two million dollars per mo.)
NewsNation obtained sensitive but unclassified documents that show the cost of protecting Pompeo and one of his aides ballooned in 2021 from nearly $700,000 to more than $2 million each month. About 90% of those public dollars go to Pompeo’s security.
That $2 million mostly covers “vehicle and travel costs for Pompeo’s security agents and his own extensive travel for paid speeches and public events,” according to the documents obtained by NewsNation.
It’s not uncommon for former officials to go on book tours or travel for paid speeches, retired Diplomatic Service Agent Mark Hipp said. But when there’s a credible threat, announcing when and where you’ll be somewhere puts lives at risk, he added.
“There’s a stark difference between a national security mission that’s important for us and then a discretionary trip,” Hipp said. “In all things, especially if there’s a threat from a state sponsor, you’d have to be concerned.”
That’s particularly true when the trip is for personal gain, Hipp said.
Pompeo nets about six figures per speech.
“Most secretaries if not all pretty much do this stuff,” Hipp said. “It’s to what extreme they do it.”
Below is a look at just some of Pompeo’s domestic travels from April to July of 2022. Many of the appearances were announced ahead of time, a factor that Hipp said makes security’s job more complicated.
NewsNation learned that before this year, Congress limited how much it spent on security for former state department officials to $15 million annually. After Pompeo’s detail nearly doubled that amount, Congress rewrote its budget, this year providing as much as $30 million.
Source: https://www.newsnationnow.com/investigation/pompeos-security-detail-costs-taxpayers-millions-month/
Pompeo, according to data obtained by investigators at News Nation, travels continually to speak and be a guest at places all over the world for which he is paid (according to them) about $100k per appearance. Here's a snippet from his 2022 travel calendar:
From March 5 - June 28 he attended 23 functions, each paying him for his appearance.
23x $100,000 = $2,300,000.00 received by Pompeo over 115 days.
$2,300,000.00 divided by 115 days = $20,000.00 PER DAY!
He gets to make $20,000.00 PER DAY, while the taxpayers paid for $67k per day in security!
HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN? And, why is he in such demand?
Source: https://www.newsnationnow.com/investigation/pompeos-security-detail-costs-taxpayers-millions-month/
Senate Majority leader Thune is similar to Pompeo, I think. Evangelical Christians — a lot of conservatives support Israel as part of their theology. the 1948 creation of the state of modern Israel is as solid to many just as Q posts have markers that have meaning here at GAW. Daniel chapter 9 verses 24-27 talks of Seventy Sevens and the interpretation is kind of wild.
Another example of evangelical proofs.
Example: Mark Twain visited the land around Jerusalem in the 1800s. When he arrived there, the Jewish prayer for the day was something like “God hear us, have mercy.”. Mark Twain = Samuel (he hears God) Clemens (Mercy, clemency). ____ Jonathan Cahn on utube talks about this stuff and how Trump is like one of the kings in ancient Israel.
Well said. Included is Ezekiel 36, Zechariah 31, Isaiah 53, etc. All prophecy to be fulfilled for God’s remnant of Israel. Gentiles, the church, will not be in the earth to witness it, of course, because we’re looking for Christ, not antichrist (the rapture).
thanks for sharing those chapters, I have not read those chapters from his perspective , I have friends who have this perspective of God protecting Gentile followers by taking them up to Heaven , and a few who think God’s protection will be through 7 years. It is important to be ready.
revoked and no more.
Has there actually been an 'official' announcement of this? All I have seen is simply based on reports by MSM organs from anonymous sources 'familiar with the matter', as they usually say about just about anything.
His security detail may have been removed, but I don't know that this is "official".
Trump was on video, during an EO signing blitz in his office, when asked about this. He said, “SSS security doesn’t last forever”. As to the risk to Pompeo he said, “There’s risks to everything.”
https://youtu.be/ttMxYsRlVaY?si=v0cIIMXopdunsGBh
Any time stamp with that, fren?
Edit: 17:11
17:20
Yep, thanks. Found it by going through the whole clip. hehe
Doesn’t look like it. Bolton confirmed he lost his but I’m not seeing anything for Pompeo.
Right? Me either. It seems that in no way has this been publicly confirmed, either from Pompeo or from team DJT.
Edit: Trump appears to confirm in a roundabout statement. https://youtu.be/ttMxYsRlVaY?si=FHycHJirpkvGlg_C&t=1031
However, I think it needs to be emphasized that the revoking of the security details is evidence or proof that Pompeo is dirty. Some people are asserting that, which I think it patently ridiculous, myself. At some point, security details have to be removed. Leaping to say, "Look! His security was removed! That's proof that DJT thinks Pompeo is a dirty deepstate scumbag traitor!!!" is idiotic. IMO.
Also, the security was maintained during the Biden era, JUST LIKE so many critical and important EOs that Trump put in to place, and which Biden mysteriously refused to rescind. Funny that, right?
Yeah, I think it’s possible Pompeo is dirty and his detail was removed for the same reason as Fauci. I also think it’s possible he’s not dirty, but it has to look like he has been so the other clowns stay paranoid about who they can and can’t trust.
Time to kick all of them off the gravy train. Give them what they need to do the job, and when their done serving the country, they can be like the rest of us. If they need security, they can rely on the 2A, just like us.
I've long wondered why people/groups pay people like this so much for a speech. What do they expect to get out of it, especially when the person is not in the government, and doesn't seem to have any power to do anything the person/group paying for the speech might want.
Thank God ! No more having to hear “he was playing a role BS “ he is a traitor and always has been and I believe he was also involved in the attempts on DJT as well ! Thank God pence and now this faggott buddy of Obama’s has been exposed , for good ,, more to come and can’t wait ! Just like pence, this evil one hid behind the cross tweeting out scriptures ! I hope he hangs ! I missed this dance disgrace, whst a cringe !!!!
Used to think he was good also. I was wrong.
People didn’t immediately cast him aside when he would do shady stuff because Q said ‘trust Kansas’.
What shady stuff did he do? I mean, that we know for a fact? Because there are plenty of accusations. But nothing like that from Trump.
Consider what Trump has said about Bolton. Has he ever said anything similar at all about Pompeo? Not that I've seen.
I actually can’t remember off the top of my head. I know he told Trump to not release the JFK files.
I think it would be more accurate that he asked or advised Trump not to release all the files.
And again, can we assume that this is 'shady'?
If we're following Q and have understood the plan, it seems pretty darn obvious that timing is everything. Admin #1 > Fake Biden Admin > Admin #2. Look at how the hammer is dropping everywhere as of Jan 20. Can we be certain that releasing all the JFK files during the first administration would have been optimal?
The files not being released, in conjunction with RFK joining Team Trump, in conjunction with complete and full disclosure now - this certainly has a LOT more impact than (in my view) it would have had in 2020 or 2029, etc.
Narrative warfare.
As I understand it, DJT has stated that Pompeo advised him to not release all the files (many were in fact released). But in and of itself, I don't think that I can consider that 'shady'. Timing.
It's interesting, also, that pretty much you cannot remember off the top of your head, shady stuff Pompeo has done. Compare with Clinton, Schiff, McConnel, Vindman, heck, even Whatshername Cassidy Hutchinson. Easy to recall what any of these folks have done that is not only shady, but even criminal in some cases.
There has been a lot of talk and a lot of doubt and aspersions cast at Pompeo by the influencers both in our camp and also by the Globalist leftists. But concrete, verified factual information seems pretty sparse. For that reason, I take all the noise being fired at Pompeo, and also those firing that noise, to be a powerful indicator.
Q said Trust Kansas numerous times, and very clearly indicated that they were referring to Pompeo (its all int he drops). Was that disinfo? Could be. But personally, I'm wary of folks who assert their beliefs and opinions as if fact.
Maybe Pompeo isn't dirty but also not great. Maybe Trump used him to perfection to achieve his goals. But the aspersions being cast on Pompeo deserve examination both for and against, imo.
Oh. Is that why?
I remember you and I speaking about this . You figured him out a lot sooner then many . But hey we all know now thsts all that counts ;) hopfully he will not be able to do any more damage . This one was dangerous to our cause , the Benedict Arnold’s usually ate !
No more mistakes like this hopefully.
I was always confused about him. Wanted to believe he was a WH, but there was always something that didn't sit right, and some anons had him pegged.
Maybe that was the plan to expose him - give him enough responsibility and rope to hang himself.
I was confused about him for long time.
Kansas aligns with Mars on the debtclock map.
And let's not memory hole that Pompeo was also the one who wanted to 'drone' Assange too (per Tucker Carlson).
Actually, per 3 anti-Trump journalists at Yahoo news. That's what Carlson based his story on (unless he has other sources he has not mentioned). That story came from them.
If I remember correctly, the video clip I saw of Tucker (talking about Pompeo wanting to drone strike Assange), he was speaking as if he got that info directly from a source. Sorry I don't remember when/where exactly Tucker mentioned that though (seems like it was a year or so ago). I don't think Pompeo was the focus of that particular Tucker show/interview - it just came up during the show.
I really watching that directly, and then went to research the topic, and found that the story was originally pushed via the three anti-Trump journalists at yahoo. (I dug a little into them, it was clear what their persuasion was.)
I don't recall Tucker mentioning any other source. In an interview when asked about this, Pompeo states that this would be illegal by American laws, and he never violated the law (i.e. anything illegal) as CIA director, (but hey, what else would he do but deny it?)
Tucker's assertions seemed to be corroborated by Assange himself, but its still a fact that the story was pushed/broke by Anti-Trump journos.
one issue I have is that so many frogs seem just willing to rag on someone and call them a dirty rotten traitor, and pass summary judgment without (apparently) practicing even a level of objectivity or research.
I was thinking about this more today after Yesterday's post, and it really came to me, I'd rather be wrong for the right reasons, than be right for the wrong reasons.
To me, the jury is still out about Pompeo. So much smoke and mirrors everywhere, everywhere. It's the nature of the 5G war. I think its possible that he may have been a patriotic actor with his own quirks (strongly held religious views) that DJT and Team Q were really able to use during DJT #1, but whose limitations caught up with him.
Tucker considers him a criminal, apparently, but Pompeo's track record with the DJT administration is pretty hard to fault, on the surface of it.
And, if Q the operation was real, then one has to wonder why DJT would put Pompeo at CIA for a year, unless it was to prep the way for NOW.
Hmmm...
I get what you're saying. I found the video clip of Tucker bashing Pompeo here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxB1CcXiLY0
There are other factors that make me lean towards Pompeo being a bad guy though, such as Pompeo (reportedly - also per Tucker) being the one who convinced Pres. Trump not to release the JFK docs during Trump's 1st admin, Pompeo most certainly didn't "clean up" the CIA (as he was tasked to do in Trump's 1st administration), Trump revoking Pompeo's security detail this week, Trump not appointing Pompeo to serve in this administration in any capacity and proclaiming that Pompeo won't be getting a position in this term 3 months ago (as if Pompeo was never under consideration), etc. Just some things to consider.
Hey, thank you Redpill!!! I'll check it out.
This is what I like. You're offering an argument, with a list of reasons, and then framing it as a "leaning towards". Fundamentally, arguments by frogs that go: "Look! He's dirty! See? This, this this! he should be destroyed and buried!!!!"I find really only push me in the other direction. kek.
If I reflect internally, I can recognize that I have a bias that Pompeo is good. Primarily grounded in the numerous "Trust Pompeo" statements by Q. Then, I try to look at all the things that say to me that Pompeo is a good guy. Then, I try to consider counter-arguments to all the things that some people say "show/proove" that Pompeo is dirty rotten scum.
ie.e With the things that say to me Pompeo is good fundamentally, these are the length of his stay and accomplishments of his working with DJT in Admin #1. I try to reason if it makes sense that this could have been the situation if he was a "dirty, rotten traitorous scumbag secretly serving the Cabal and DS". So far, they don't.
Anyway, I look at the various arguments others present, such as your list above, and then try to see if there are other possible alternative reasonable or rational explanations (other than Mike is dirty DS scum). I do often find them.
For example, removal of Pompeo's security. Some frogs things this is hard and fast proof that Pompeo is dirty as. Which I think is a ridiculous standpoint. It's not proof. Circumstantial evidence, possibly, yes, but might there be other reasons why Pompeo's security was terminated at this time? Threat no longer existing? Part of cutting off unnecessary government expenses? I think its possible to come up with such counter-arguments to most of the points you have raised.
Not to say that counter-arguments prove one way or the other. I'm just trying to maintain a balanced and reasoned evaluation of the factors. In a situation where we simply cannot KNOW, I think its important to consider the plethora of factors and considerations, and try to weigh up the balance to see which one makes the most sense, and why.
For example, the timing in the security thing, however, DOES seem .... interesting, it is perhaps noteworthy, it is perhaps not. But I cannot see it as 'proof' that Pompeo is bad, or indeed proof of anything other than DJT did in fact remove the security detail. It just isn't, and frogs pretending it is are engaged in self-delusion, imo.
However, through some of the discussions with frogs here, I'm naturally examining more and more info around Pompeo, and that is leading me to consider alternatives to my basic preliminary belief that Pompeo was anything other than a patriotic asset to Trump.
Currently, I'm contemplating that "Trust Kansas" was part of the Q drops because, during DJT #1, Kansas was an important part of the team accomplishing certain goals, specifically related to TERM ONE, and in the time and era of the Q drops, this was a necessary statement to reinforce to anons that there IS a plan in place and that things are proceeding as per what we want. i.e. It instilled faith.
But along with this idea, I'm contemplating that Pompeo is flawed, a flawed instrument useful for the purposes of TERM ONE but not useful or appropriate to the purposes of TERM TWO, aka where are now, hammer drops and actual flushing of the swamp. I.e. he's partially a hawk, who doesn't really jive with the real spirit of Maga, which is not actually Pompeo's rather fundamentalist religious outlook.
I guess that's the view I'm now considering, which still resists the idea that he's literally "a bad guy". Compare and contrast with Bolton, who its obvious is scum. Compare and contrast with Fauci, likewise. Consider anything Trump or Flynn, for example, have said about Pompeo. The most we have is Tucker, and I don't think Tucker is free of his own biases. Yet.
In other words, Pompeo was perhaps a decent enough instrument for the objectives of Term One, but simply not up to scratch for Term Two. And so, naturally put aside.
That's kind of what I'm toying with now. But reviewing the actual data, (eg the clip you linked and I'm assuming will be worth viewing) - and there is a massive amount of it out there - and processing it via reasoning and taking into account for prejudices, limitations of knowing etc, well, these are reasons I just cannot jump on the bandwagon of some frogs who seem to think THEY KNOW! that Pompeo is dirty.
I think I wrote elsewhere, I'd rather be wrong for the right reasons, than right for the wrong reasons. If there is one thing the last 7 years, and especially the last 4 years has impressed upon me, is that I'm swimming in an ocean where the power of narratives and beliefs and psychological pushes (internal and external) are a virtual storm, and making my way through all the mental and narrative and psychological chaos requires the hardest application of reasoning, counter-arguments and self-evaluation I can muster.
This is why when frogs come out with hard-line absolute and emotionally driven (imo) conviction in their belief that X is dirty, Y is great, I generally ignore that out of hand.
I feel like I've kept my head afloat. But (full disclosure) I get hotly irritated by frogs who I think simply hoist up their sail and catch the wind that they think must be right and then invest their own beliefs with the podium status of 'fact' without observably applying what I consider to be reasoning, recognition of limitations on knowing.
Honestly acknowledging one's beliefs and being responsible for them means (to me) something one might describe as both intellectual and moral honesty. I don't rally care if Pompeo is dirty. What I care about is, am I honestly, reasonably, reviewing my own opinions and beliefs around him.
I look forward to learning more about the reality of Pompeo as time goes on. Maybe. Either way, we're back with DJT where he should be, and the stage being set, the hammer of justice and restoration is swinging. Big time.
Cause for celebration and gratitude, whichever way you cut it.
What a thoughtful reply - thank you! Like you, I tend to look at data points and weigh them out, seeing which way the evidence or ‘data points’ stack up the strongest.
But even with that, we are limited as to which ‘data points’ we’re able to see/access. Much is still hidden from even the best diggers, IMO.
When evaluating a situation from a hypothesis-based standpoint, it gets muddy whenever one sees conflicting data points. For example, if I were to make a hypothesis that “Trump got rid of all the bad guys who were in his first administration” then one would conclude that people like Pence, Comey, Fauci, and Birx were good.
Therefore, lumping Pompeo into a group of people who Trump left in place through the end of his first term, to me, does not equate to “Pompeo was good,” simply because there’s plenty of contradicting evidence of other established baddies who meet that same criteria. In my mind, that ‘data point’ (someone is a good guy because Trump didn’t get him of them while in office the first time) becomes negated when too many contradictions challenge or negate that hypothesis. Make sense? :-)
I think that's a rather broad hypothesis to take. I'd prefer to look at each one, case by case.
For example, Fauci and Birx were both establishment figures, put in place a long time before Trump came on the seen. It make sense to keep them around as part of the exposure operation, the pushing to the spotlight, etc, where removing them might simply have made rooting out the corrupt foundations a more difficult or elongated process.
There is plenty to convict Fauci and Birx, and I don't think serious researchers should have any doubts about them.
Pence, Pompeo were put in place by Trump. They were not establishment figures in the sense of being part of that deep state bureaucracy that Fauci and Birx were, so on that point, there's an immediate distinction.
I still find the arguments against Pence wholly unconvincing, recent policy positions by Pence notwithstanding. That's a different discussion.
Comey is an interesting case. Some folks over at Badlands, specifically (formerly) Just Human, Burning Bright have raised some very interesting takes on Comey. They put Comey in place as one of the Original Gang including Trump, Guiliani, Mueller, etc, that took down the East Coast Mafia in the 80's and 90's.
Comey has certainly played (if that is what it is) the part of a great HEEL (cf: Kayfabe; face vs heel) that all of Maga loved to despise, with Trump himself playing the part of FACE. Was Comey an underground operator, an undercover agent that led Obama Admin to put him in place at the FBI?
We have to remember, a lot of the truth is in fact deep, deep, spy vs spy stuff going back decades and decades. It's all been covert warfare, with the general population ignorant of the reality. That's the reality that Q exposed big time, triggering the Great Awakening. The spy-vs-spy stuff is in fact intergral to that.
Comey re-opening the Hillary emails file just weeks prior to the election was a BIG thing. Sure, sure, "nothing here that a normal prosecutor would persue" is a great heel line, perfect for getting the hate from Maga and (maybe) love from the Leftists. In that sense, on one level, it preserved his position (if such it was) as a no-good DS scumbag, BUT the fact is, the damage was done. his re-opening the Hillary Case could have been completely avoided, and as I understand it, Team Killary essentially blames Comey for scuttling their 2016 election.
Surface level is FULL of narrative warfare. One has to dig a bit deeper to get to closer to reality. So in my case, Comey? For me, jury out, but leaning towards white hat in disguise. And to re-emphasize this point: the HEEL vs FACE dynamic in Kayfabe seems to have been absolutely RIFE during 2016 - 2024.
There's an excellent podcast on this specific dimension or lens through which one can consider the Trump Operation - I highly recommend it as food for thought.
The Book of Trump: Chapter 1 Kayfabe (90 minutes)
https://rumble.com/v66brfv-the-book-of-trump-debut-episode-730-pm-et-.html
The kayfabe lens is one that I think illuminates the idea of narrative warfare (a key part of 5G warfare) in ways that nothing else quite does, and it aligns very powerfully with Q drops, the idea of "learn our comms" and "playbook known", and the history of Donald Trump.
No definitively not. Nothing as crude as that is even worthy considering, imo.
Well, we're probably in agreement, because that's never an argument or position I would take. To me, it's way too superficial.
With regards to Pompeo, some salient factors for me are:
Trump appointed him; first to CIA and then to SoS. He was head at CIA when the Q operation began, and its tempting to think that somehow, he was 'rigging' the situation at the CIA in preparation for the current time, but that's really just speculation. Would it make sense for Trump and Q team to put a closet Cabalist as chief of the CIA at the start of Trump Admin #1? I don't know.
His long stint as Sec of State (again, appointed by Trump) and the accomplishments the Admin #1 achieved in terms of the Abraham Accords.
In other words, merely 'not being gotten rid of during Admin #1' is not an argument I think one could ever seriously use. Rather, the How the person got where they were, what happened under them, etc, these are far more important. An undercover black hat might play along as a good guy, but it would be very rare for them to cooperate in something that so seriously destroys or undermines the black hat agenda, which the Abraham Accords absolutely do.
And, if Pompeo was a black hat, so then what was he waiting for? Did he actually hamstring Trump while playing along as a good guy? So far, I've not seen evidence to that effect, but then, I haven't seriously dug into it, either.
Sure. makes sense, although I stress again that "someone is good because....first time" is not something I'd consider a data point. It's not a fact. It's an evaluation or opinion, AND it's not one that I myself would use, personally.
To emphasize this point: Steve Bannon's stint in the White House was notably short - 8 months. Now, narrative layer, all the Marxist propaganda tried to make it look like he was out of favor and blah, blah blah. Here's even a wikipedia entry:
'Criticizing Trump's children' is an easy way to be 'disavowed' and create distance from the central Trump Team, providing great cover if indeed Bannon is/was an operation in alignment with MAGA agenda.
My evaluation of Bannon is that he very strategically, and in complete coordination with Team Trump (by Team Trump, I don't mean those externally with Trump, but rather the team of real white hats and movers who Donald Trump is front man for and representative of) moved out of the 'Trump inner circle' at a designed time, in order to set up and establish the Warroom operation as a key, 'conservative yet alternative' mobilization - not Conservative Inc (Controlled oppo) but also not outer alternative, like the Q operation.
Warroom bridged the middle ground, by reaching out to 'normie' conservative and tea party-type thinkers and people, while being decidedly NOT establishment con (i.e. Fox, etc) but also distancing himself from Q very clearly, (Kek, "there are no conspiracies but there are no coincidences" - I mean, that's like saying, hey "Q/qanon is garbage" out loud, and whispering "but q is actually right!")
If Bannon was not part of the less than ten, then I think he was still very close to the plan and was a deliberate deployment to reach out to a segment of the population that the White Hats knew would not be able to attach to Q.
So, in this case, "early leaving the white house = bad guy/dodgy guy" makes zero sense to me. Doesn't work. Rather, Bannon's early departure is another data point that supports or aligns with the idea that he's a good guy operator, specifically and strategically deployed. And remember, Bannon was CEO of the Trump 2016 campaign and Chief Strategist at the DJT White House up until a few months before the Q operation was deployed. Coincidentally?
One last point: I think of data points as either verifiable or recognized facts - and as something quite different from evaluations, opinions, hypotheses, etc. But I'm not certain if this is how someone trained in maths or computational work sees it.
"A data point is a discrete unit of information. In a general sense, any single fact is a data point. The term data point is roughly equivalent to datum, the singular form of data"
I guess if I was to model how I think about stuff, its this:
Data points (discrete units of 'fact' - putting aside whether they are 'real' or simply told to us (lies/distortions))
Narratives (the stories that actors/agents are telling about data points)
Lenses (the perspective or context through which one looks at data points and narratives)
So far, that's the three core elements I think one has to consider when formulating "beliefs", if we define a belief as "things one accepts as true".
Anyway.... Thanks for the stimulating discussing. It's interesting to learn how other frens approach their thinking and working through the stuff we do.
Trump removing Pompeo security is a loud statement.
Possibly. But also possibly not.
I mean, for how long do officials no longer working in the government get protection?
Myself, I cannot simply make statements of fact based on something I believe, or something I suspect, etc. At a minimum, I think one has to consider other potential explanations, including those that do not necessarily confirm my belief or bias.
And there he is with the 'Dancing Israelis'. I wonder how much covert funding he got from AIPAC/Mossad? Hmmm.
Don't know but a lot.
Hope for his sake he made some true friends along the way. But if he was a traitor, then lets have the wheels of justice grind his ass.
Want to bet that when he has to pay for security it won’t cost 2 million per month.
So then, how should "Trust Kansas" be interpreted?
You asked the wrong person. I am just a brain-dead. LOL
That's because his already hung
Most likely but I cannot tell about this one.
WOW!!!!!
Signal received, D5. No more "security for Fauci" either.
Never trusted him anyway
You are smart.