There's a reason why Pompeo isn't in Trump's new admin
Actually, I would think there are several reasons, but as to what they are, you and I are only speculating. Unless you are part of Trump's inner circle. Then, I take it all back.
Schiff wouldn't have been given access to anything at Langley without the approval of someone VERY HIGH UP
What you are asserting here is that you understand the inner workings of the intelligence community in general and the inner workings of the C_A expertly and well. Are you a former agent? have a parent or a brother etc who is or was an agent? At what level?
Otherwise, you're just projecting the idea: "Hey, I know how it works, because I'm smart."
Secret organizations, and intelligence.... that's a very cloudy world, as far as I know. O'Keefe says "covertly continued working out of a (air quotes) small room in Langley". Covertly means secretly. Secretly. You think that somehow, Schiff, as the CHAIR, of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence would NOT be able to have access to all sorts of things, places and facilities in Langley?
And, then putting aside the question of whether a sting operation was involved or not. ("I caught them all")...
All of this is besides the point. Different folks have different perspectives on Pompeo. I recognize that.
But the point here is that O'Keefe NEVER made the assertions or accusations towards Pompeo that certain X.com accounts and others are saying he did. It's pure baloney.
Rejecting baloney from the DS propaganda machine and embracing baloney from 'inflooencers' because they are on 'our side'.... Contradictory proposition, imo.
You don't have to be part of Trump's inner circle to see just how much of a backstabber Pompeo is. Q said double meanings, Trust Kansas likely never meant Pompeo to begin with.
No, Schiff would not have a personal SCIF anywhere other than within Congress; he would not have access to that room without someone giving him access.
Again, he may not have made it against Pompeo, but again, you can put two and two together. The fact that Pompeo also testified to the J6 committee doesn't sit well with anyone either.
The fact that you're kissing Pompeo's ass makes me question you, for real.
The minute he testified against Trump, he was the enemy.
You don't have to be part of Trump's inner circle to see just how much of a backstabber Pompeo is.
I never said that. I said, unless you are part of Trump's inner circle, you do not know the actual reasons why Trump did not include Pompeo in Trump Admin #2. (I think there are several likely reasons, but I'm not pretending that I actually know.)
Trust Kansas likely never meant Pompeo to begin with.
This is unequivocally wrong from several angles. Q confirmed in a picture of Pompeo that he was "Kansas". (It was a picture of hands holding a card with a checklist and an anon queried: "Is this potus? I thought Potus does not wear a wedding ring like this?" (paraphrased) and Q confirmed "Kansas". The picture is of Pompeo's hands.
If you check the Q drops, it's unequivocal.
The angle that "Oh, Q said Trust Kansas but Q never (or likely never) meant Pompeo" is just fanciful thinking attempting to avoid the issue of what Q meant. In my view, this approach is firmly grounded in a willingness to just run with what feels an emotionally satisfying "Oh, I can hate this guy because now he's an enemy" as opposed to actually applying some very serious critical thinking that includes working through the implications of the idea that we're in an information war, and that Trump team is waging narrative war against a very dark enemy.
It might be comforting to choose that path, but it's not constructive. In my opinion.
"Trust Kansas" ~ Q
Whether this is disinfo or not you're free to speculate, but it is exceedingly clear to serious anons that Kansas refers to Pompeo.
The fact that you're kissing Pompeo's ass makes me question you, for real.
Question away. My track record here speaks for itself. (Cannot say the same about you... but...)
What's telling to me is that you are willing to take your beliefs, theories and ideas and parade them as if they are facts. That's intellectually dishonest.
It appears that you don't seem to care that false information was presented here and spread, simply because it dovetails into your personal animus towards Pompeo.
The argument about Pompeo belongs in a separate post and conversation.
I accept your passion for Maga and for supporting Trump. We share that. But we make more progress against the matrix and the programming that the Cabal has been pursuing in our societies for decades now by applying rigorous standards to how we deal with information, highlighting truth, than by leaning in to groupthink and emotionally driven analysis.
Actually, I would think there are several reasons, but as to what they are, you and I are only speculating. Unless you are part of Trump's inner circle. Then, I take it all back.
What you are asserting here is that you understand the inner workings of the intelligence community in general and the inner workings of the C_A expertly and well. Are you a former agent? have a parent or a brother etc who is or was an agent? At what level?
Otherwise, you're just projecting the idea: "Hey, I know how it works, because I'm smart."
Secret organizations, and intelligence.... that's a very cloudy world, as far as I know. O'Keefe says "covertly continued working out of a (air quotes) small room in Langley". Covertly means secretly. Secretly. You think that somehow, Schiff, as the CHAIR, of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence would NOT be able to have access to all sorts of things, places and facilities in Langley?
And, then putting aside the question of whether a sting operation was involved or not. ("I caught them all")...
All of this is besides the point. Different folks have different perspectives on Pompeo. I recognize that.
But the point here is that O'Keefe NEVER made the assertions or accusations towards Pompeo that certain X.com accounts and others are saying he did. It's pure baloney.
Rejecting baloney from the DS propaganda machine and embracing baloney from 'inflooencers' because they are on 'our side'.... Contradictory proposition, imo.
You don't have to be part of Trump's inner circle to see just how much of a backstabber Pompeo is. Q said double meanings, Trust Kansas likely never meant Pompeo to begin with.
No, Schiff would not have a personal SCIF anywhere other than within Congress; he would not have access to that room without someone giving him access.
Again, he may not have made it against Pompeo, but again, you can put two and two together. The fact that Pompeo also testified to the J6 committee doesn't sit well with anyone either.
The fact that you're kissing Pompeo's ass makes me question you, for real.
The minute he testified against Trump, he was the enemy.
I never said that. I said, unless you are part of Trump's inner circle, you do not know the actual reasons why Trump did not include Pompeo in Trump Admin #2. (I think there are several likely reasons, but I'm not pretending that I actually know.)
This is unequivocally wrong from several angles. Q confirmed in a picture of Pompeo that he was "Kansas". (It was a picture of hands holding a card with a checklist and an anon queried: "Is this potus? I thought Potus does not wear a wedding ring like this?" (paraphrased) and Q confirmed "Kansas". The picture is of Pompeo's hands.
If you check the Q drops, it's unequivocal.
The angle that "Oh, Q said Trust Kansas but Q never (or likely never) meant Pompeo" is just fanciful thinking attempting to avoid the issue of what Q meant. In my view, this approach is firmly grounded in a willingness to just run with what feels an emotionally satisfying "Oh, I can hate this guy because now he's an enemy" as opposed to actually applying some very serious critical thinking that includes working through the implications of the idea that we're in an information war, and that Trump team is waging narrative war against a very dark enemy.
It might be comforting to choose that path, but it's not constructive. In my opinion.
"Trust Kansas" ~ Q
Whether this is disinfo or not you're free to speculate, but it is exceedingly clear to serious anons that Kansas refers to Pompeo.
Question away. My track record here speaks for itself. (Cannot say the same about you... but...)
What's telling to me is that you are willing to take your beliefs, theories and ideas and parade them as if they are facts. That's intellectually dishonest.
It appears that you don't seem to care that false information was presented here and spread, simply because it dovetails into your personal animus towards Pompeo.
The argument about Pompeo belongs in a separate post and conversation.
I accept your passion for Maga and for supporting Trump. We share that. But we make more progress against the matrix and the programming that the Cabal has been pursuing in our societies for decades now by applying rigorous standards to how we deal with information, highlighting truth, than by leaning in to groupthink and emotionally driven analysis.
I mean, according to Q.