I hope so. I saw them called "depositions" though. Depositions are usually held behind closed doors, but the Oversight Committee hasn't said one way or the other yet.
I hope so! I am almost 100% positive that at least portions will be behind closed doors because of the discussions of classified information that will certainly come up. If they televise the rest I'll be ok with that, though it will probably not be live. All of the parent agencies will want to make sure there is no classified info released to the public first.
If I had to guess, I think we will only get transcripts with redactions. It is after all the govt, and they tend to be a-holes.
My only hope is that since the republicans allowed the dems to put in an amendment requiring Bondi to release a bunch of stuff Epstein-related, maybe there is a concession for release of the depositions as well.
Kek - my "e" key is sticking again and it made me type "deepositions". Sounds like a good word to describe depositions of the deep state. My keyboard is learning...
I've been thinking for years, to truly 'Q proof', Q's first post is the end. The Hillary shit will probably drop on an exact Delta..so every time a year went by and we saw nothing matching this 10/30, 10/31 thing you kinda knew that wasn't 'the year of the storm'....but now....
wonder if their is betting going on who rolls on the team of evil psychopaths first? We have come this far, hopefully something is live streamed for the public. These closed door things need to stop. These Judges need to remove themselves if they are implicit too.
if they start rolling on each other will there be anyone left to be able to Judge? Will there be any of these large Churches left after the quake of this?
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to testify on October 9th, 2025
I wonder if there is a US legal provision for when a body double testifies under oath. I wonder if it matters if the original is dead, in witpro, on the lam, or in prison.
There've been quite a few court proceedings going on recently using doubles. For example, I'm fairly certain Derek Fauvin was a body double, although I don't remember if he testified under oath. I'd bet my life that the past 4 years was just a long movie called "The Mask Part 2", or "Weekend at Bidens", you pick.
I'm fairly certain this "Body Double for 'history'" swap happens quite often, both in the recent past and for centuries (at least). There are recent documented cases of using a double for official proceedings for the Elite, including testifying in court.
We live in the Matrix. "History," is a Show, and always has been. Whatever the truth is, I'd bet everything that the former Secretary of State Hitlery will not been testifying, no matter what "History" records.
That is an association fallacy. I never stated nor implied that they were all replaced, but that some have been replaced is documented. That it has been done often in history is also documented. This provides you with two "conspiracy theory" options:
They use body doubles to create a false history.
They don't use body doubles to create false histories and they are lying about it.
The 'all' in "They have all been replaced' narrative" is hyperbole, intended to emphasize what I personally consider the more extreme levels of nonsense (imo) connected with the topic.
The concept of use of a body double (e.g. decoy) is certainly not radical. However, looking at the two examples you provide, the first one seems very clearly to be a 'stand in' for the queen, and not someone who is/was touted as being the queen deceptively in order to mislead the greater public.
Even then, with someone as high profile as the queen, I'd be surprised if her entourage did not include someone who could, in certain circumstances, step in as a 'pretend', in situations of high risk, etc.
But, pretty much all the narratives I've seen around the topic as it relates to anons, truthers, etc, have nothing to do with such examples. Joe Biden is not Joe Biden, being a great example. What we're talking about is mass deception of the public, supposedly for righteous and benevolent reasons. Me? I don't subscribe to this.
You cited another example, of the controversy around Gu Kailai. Very believable that the CCP could swap in a fake to conduct a trial in hometown China. But again, this example bears very little resemblance to the vast majority of the "joe Biden is not Joe Biden, Hillary is in Gitmo" narratives. At least the ones I am talking about.
Two extremely explainable examples that bear very little resemblance to the "Joe Biden is not Joe Biden" set of narratives (if you know what I mean - I'm using literary license here) don't really stack up as a record of what 'they' do. In my opinion.
There are other options. Doubles used as decoys for security or strategic reasons. Such as (if it ever happened) a double of Churchhill being used to deceive the German intelligence during ww2.
We live in the Matrix. "History," is a Show, and always has been
I think we probably differ in our view of history, and indeed, what either of us means when we refer to 'the matrix'.
And, I don't find your binary offering of "It's either A or B" convincing, or satisfying. Binary offerings often come across as fundamentalist exaggerations touting beliefs rather than logical propositions. Aka not wanting to consider more nuanced views, alternative perspectives that don't align with other certain closely held core beliefs.
(Not trying to psychoanalyze you here, fren. Just trying to explain why personally, I don't find the A or B proposition here convincing.)
In either case, I've already stated I'll take your bet. But, I I do hope that the part about 'betting everything' is, ahem, hyperbole. Dramatic expression intended to emphasize the sense of conviction you have regarding what you believe to be true. I hope it is, anyway.
the first one seems very clearly to be a 'stand in' for the queen, and not someone who is/was touted as being the queen deceptively in order to mislead the greater public.
From the article:
Now, however, they are permitted to resume their duties - and it turns out that the Queen Elizabeth II actually uses someone to step in for important events when she is unable to, something which was previously unknown.
For decades this body double acted as the Queen in an official capacity, and the public didn't know about it. Doing the Queens duties is far from a mere "stand in". Doing the Queens duties for decades is exactly intentions to be "deceptive" and "misleading the greater public". This deception went on until 2022. I suggest if not for Q it would have never been disclosed.
The second example is even more egregious regarding deception. And those are only two recent examples. History records more. Those are the ones recorded as fact. The number of believed to be likelybecause of supporting evidence is many, many times more.
the narratives I've seen around the topic as it relates to anons, truthers, etc, have nothing to do with such examples.
"Reasonable doubts" are not the same thing as "proof." I suggest "proof" is a verb, not a noun (bear with me). Proof means "there is enough evidence to meet some level of proof by my estimation." It is an action of choice, based on evidence, employing the process of reason (a verb).
Within the reasoning process there are different levels of proof. In lawfare, these different levels are called "the burden of proof." The lowest level of "proof" is called "Some evidence." That means that there exists at least one reasonable doubt, AKA "there is some contrary evidence that can't be discounted through the process of reason." At the other end of the spectrum is "Beyond a reasonable doubt." That means that there is no evidence that exists contrary to the proposition that can be considered meaningful after the process of reason has been applied to it. At each level, and for each person, they have to decide for themselves if there is enough evidence.
By themselves, most people fail in the process of reason. In groups, if the members are truly independent, they tend to do better (though far from perfect). In the process of reason there are two components; logic and axioms. Coming to false conclusions usually isn't a function of faulty logic. Almost all people are logical (eventually). Where they fail is in their assumptions (axioms). People generally don't recognize or appreciate the details of their assumptions, or even that they have made those assumptions, rather they unconsciously take their assumptions as truth and call it a day.
Biden is an excellent example. The amount of reasonable evidence that supports Biden as not Biden is substantial. Here is one example (of dozens); the earlobes.
There is clear uncontroversial evidence that the ears of the person called Biden in 2019 are not the same ears of Vice President Biden 2016. The explanation for that change, the story, is that Biden had plastic surgery and that that was why his ears were so drastically different. That belief relies on that story being true, sufficiently complete, and that the surgery was the cause of the drastic ear change.
Maybe those assumptions are true, maybe they are not. There are three different assumptions listed there (there are probably others), all must be true for the conclusion to be possibly true through the process of logic. Anyone who believes that all of those axioms are truth without further investigation is not reasonable. That doesn't mean that those assumptions are false, but most people don't even think of those things as assumptions. It's media reports citing doctors reports, two of the most trusted institutions, so it must be true.
Yet I can provide substantial evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the media says things that are false constantly. I can provide substantial evidence that doctors, indeed, the entire medical establishment says things that are false constantly. Sometimes these false statements are unintentional omissions, some are provably intentional omissions, some are provably intentional lies (purposefully false statements of fact). Not only do these institutions lie, they lie about similar things to this topic to create false narratives. As a well known example of provable lies from both institutions is the JFK "lone gunman" story. Only now, 80 years later, is that narrative, previously pushed constantly by both institutions, finally proving false. Not only do these institutions lie, I can show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the media is designed, from day one, to create such false narratives for Rockefeller/Rothschild/C_A/MI6/etc.. I can also show that doctor's training, numerous individual medical professionals, and the medical establishment itself is designed to kill people and steal all their property for Rockefeller, Rothschild, etc..
Anyone who insists that the media reports of plastic surgery is sufficient evidence is unreasonable (not using reason), instead believing (assuming) a known liar is telling you the truth about a controversial topic. All the other pieces of evidence that I've seen "for Biden is the real Biden" relies on similar assumptions. That doesn't mean the assumptions are true or false. I am saying that most people don't realize what their assumptions are, what their foundational axioms are, who they are relying on, what a deeper investigation shows, and they don't ask themselves the most important question, why they believe what they believe.
In the case of Biden, like I said, there are numerous issues, the earlobe issue is only one and I haven't even really gotten into it. By itself it is far from sufficient. But it is, by itself, even with the minimal suggestions of supporting evidence (much more than I've described), a reasonable doubt. With investigation into all of the reasonable evidence, anyone who can make definitive claims "for Biden" is not a reasonable person (not properly employing the process of reason).
What we're talking about is mass deception of the public, supposedly for righteous and benevolent reasons. Me? I don't subscribe to this.
Enjoy the Show.
Q
What makes a movie GOOD?
GREAT actors?
Q
What do you think those Q posts mean?
You cited another example, of the controversy around Gu Kailai
The first example (the Queen) was relating to the use of long term large scale deception. The second (Gu Kailai) was the use of a double for testifying in court, the main topic of my first post. They were selected for those purposes. I could find others more to your liking if you prefer.
I don't find your binary offering of "It's either A or B" convincing, or satisfying.
You suggest my "binary offering" is insufficient, but instead of addressing why you think it was unconvincing, you created a not-that-veiled psychoanalysis as ad hominem. If you want to be convincing, be direct in your protest.
As for my capabilities of reason, and how complete The Matrix really is, I suggest you read my report.
This is a really great response. I hoped to get to replying today, but sadly I won't. But this is the sort of response that makes engaging GAW worthwhile.
You suggest my "binary offering" is insufficient, but instead of addressing why you think it was unconvincing, you created a not-that-veiled psychoanalysis as ad hominem. If you want to be convincing, be direct in your protest.
As for my capabilities of reason, and how complete The Matrix really is, I suggest you read my report.
Hmmm. To be quite frank, this feels quite argumentative. I mean, I have absolutely ZERO interest in either convincing you to adopt any specific view on either this matter. I approach this as engaging for discussion, not to prove my capabilities of reason', nor to challenge or deny yours.
I'm not interested in winning an argument. I'm interesting in the open exchange of ideas, and approaches to those ideas, ideally in an effort to a) gather more <ahem> evidence aka data input to augment what I have already gathered b) expanding my perspective and c) hopefully doing the same for the other party in the engagement, assuming they have an interest in that.
At a minimum, the engagement doesn't really require c) for it to be beneficial for me (and to further my aims of being more effective in the war and making a contribution), but I find the best results - the proverbial win-win - happens when a, b, and c are all in there.
If you want to be convincing,
Yeah, nah, I do NOT want to be convincing. The world and the information war-space is rife with people obsessed with 'being convincing'. It often speaks, in my experience, of people being identified with their beliefs and views, as if somehow, they either 'know the truth' and require some sort of validation from others by them also accepting 'the truth'.
I'm not saying this is you; I'm saying, in general, that I have found that overall approach to be unproductive and ultimately ineffective.
But also, if you feel compelled to be convincing, I don't judge you on that. You may have very good reasons that compel you to want to do that. (I can think offhand of many scenarios where one might very appropriately feel compelled to try to convince someone of something. "Don't fricken' drive! You've been drinking, you're drunk. Don't do it!!!" just being a very mundane but real example.
People should convince themselves. They should consciously, and morally, set up their own preferred threshold of what convinces them, and then invite information and perspectives in that can engage with that threshold. I think most of us here would accept the premise that you cannot force people to think or accept an idea they do not want to.
Anyway, convince, persuade: all these are good, but in my opinion, ultimately, people need to convince themselves.
But, I also know that my perspective (held view) in a wide variety of matters is not perfect. So, I'm keen to engage, hopefully to learn, hopefully to teach by sharing or at least facilitating the expansion of thinking. But I don't have a bone in the fight. I'm not interested in winning an argument.
I have always found your comments to be potent and insightful. Which is why, frankly, I began my response with "all due respect" and 'not a fan of...'. I think the topic at hand might be worth exploring more, BUT I'm more keen on understanding how you think. If I can expand my view by being open to trying to see more from your perspective, how good is that?
I noticed that your report was created three years ago, and assuming that you uploaded it when you registered the site, you just passed your three-year anniversary.
Congratulations. Seriously. Even a glance at the report shows your evident passion and fervent dedication to what you are doing.
I hope that future discussions we have might be of much mutual benefit. (Even though I have not gone into the actual details of exploring the examples your gave and the base topic in general. Maybe what I've written here simply helps to illuminate 'approach' aka the frameworks you and I are working with.
wwg1wga is not just a slogan. Thank your for your continued efforts and presence on the board. FI
There were a couple of points that for me are a highlight of this response. Plus also some further information that shows you've paid more attention to this than I have, and that further information / articulation is helpful. I hope I can respond in a constructive way.
Two or more highlight points included these:
"Reasonable doubts" are not the same thing as "proof." I suggest "proof" is a verb, not a noun (bear with me). Proof means "there is enough evidence to meet some level of proof by my estimation." It is an action of choice, based on evidence, employing the process of reason (a verb).
Linguist here, so actually 'proof' is a noun, the verb being 'prove', but your point is very well taken. This set of axioms are constantly in my ind as I engage with theories, ideas and conclusions that folks present here at GAW or elsewhere.
In other (my) words: evidence is not proof, and proof (something being proved) is a matter of the accumulated evidence meeting a specific (often personally chosen) threshold. The factor of choice here is absolutely critical. And, its one that far too many people seem willing to ignore or otherwise overlook in the entire engagement process.
To me, choice entails responsibility. Make your choice, but then be responsible for that choice, and acknowledge your role in deciding what you choose to believe, or accept as a standard, etc.
For me, this is the ethical foundation that is key and critical for me when I approach information and the beliefs I derive from that information.
employing the process of reason (a verb). Within the reasoning process there are different levels of proof.
You give a great description of this 'process of reason', one which resonates powerfully with my own thinking on the matter, although I feel like you articulate it particularly well, better than I could, which I chalk up to perhaps a greater of level of 'study' in the area. Case in point:
In the process of reason there are two components; logic and axioms. Coming to false conclusions usually isn't a function of faulty logic. Almost all people are logical (eventually). Where they fail is in their assumptions (axioms). People generally don't recognize or appreciate the details of their assumptions, or even that they have made those assumptions, rather they unconsciously take their assumptions as truth and call it a day.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
Whew. How often I want to raise this point with people when they present their thinking or rather, conclusions on any of the various topics that get raised here. Of particular note to me is this: "Coming to false conclusions usually isn't a function of faulty logic." I can immediately see how this is often very true. The issue is not so much the logic, as the axioms.
In particular, the failure of people 'to recognize or appreciate the details of their assumptions' seems to me to be something I constantly encounter in discussions. And especially 'or even that they have made those assumptions'.
Failure to recognize, acknowledge or take responsibility for one's assumptions feels like an ethical failure to me. To me, it harkens back to the issue of responsibility; people constantly fail to take responsibility for their thinking, their choices, and the beliefs they attach to. Which is one reason why some people become so defensive of their beliefs; they are self-identified to the belief itself, rather than understanding it as an expression of their volition, their capacity to act, their agency. In doing so, they dis empower themselves.
Biden is an excellent example.
I'm glad you raised this. One of the key issues I have with the Biden isn't Biden narrative is the APPROACH (aka methodology) that I've observed many, if not most people, taking.
And, I'll iterate a point I wrote earlier but edited: for me, the HOW of the engagement with information is far, far more critical than the mere WHAT. because ethically, the process involves choice and responsibility. To me, it has to be an ethical engagement. Without that, it's devoid of constructive meaning. Am I being responsible for my choices? Am I recognizing that I make choices, and am therefore ethically obliged to take responsibility for them?
Like a fundamentalist in <chosen religious view or doctrine> who refuses to recognize his own role in choosing what he decides to believe, and instead places all the 'responsibility' on an external being or object. "Why do you believe that?" "Because its in the Bible. Its the truth. The Literal truth!!!!"
Instead of recognizing that what I consider to be the truth the Bible is telling me is MY belief (my interpretation), and therefore my choice, one that I need to recognize AND be ethically responsible for. Which also requires a capacity to recognize, 'Hey, I might be wrong'. The issue is not lack of conviction. It's about lack of responsibility. I recognize that I might be wrong about my views, BUT I choose to believe them, and hold them as my views, because they seem the best, most suitable, and most aligned with truth TO ME.
In other words, humility becomes a factor here. Not being identified with one's belief allows one to consider alternatives, and also to be open to learning.
In too many cases, I have observed people jumping on to the 'Biden is not Biden' narrative with approaches that lack, in the extreme, a rigorous approach based on reason and intellectual clarity. Confirmation Bias. Again and again. Then, a full investment in the belief, and incredulity that anyone might have a different perspective.
As an example, I have never seen a fully forensic, anatomical analysis offered by a professional in the business. Someone who has professionally and clinically studied the human anatomy, including what changes occur or can occur in the aging process. It has always (by and large) been laymen giving their opinions based on.... very often, a bias.
Coupled then with a few other issues, including the morality of public deception, the need (or rather my belief in the need) for the 'White Hats' to do things by the book, law and order, etc., aka questions of ethics, etc, I have always, and still do, find myself falling (erring?) on the side of: in the face of not finding compelling arguments, I'll go with MY biases, which I prefer, based on the entirety of my ontological and ethical world view.
There have been a few instances (far too few) when someone has made what I think are good and reasonable arguments to counter my chosen explanation (view), and those instances give me great opportunities to expand my thinking and consider alternative possibilities. Which I relish. Because (I think) I'm quite devoted to acquiring the most effective truth perspective I can.
One example is Bubble_bursts view on the topic. He is, as I understand it, in the Fake Biden (Fake <persons>) camp (if you'll allow me to put a binary framework on the issue, i.e. a person being in one of two camps), which was contrary to my view, but his arguments were good, presented well and logically developed well, with reason. I came away being more amenable to the fundamental proposition, even if my own view wasn't shifted too much. But it was expanded. Heck, I'm certainly, most certainly, still - gathering evidence -.
And, until I find the evidence I've found reaches my own internal threshold, I'm a skeptic. And, that is a position I've chosen, because it both ethically feels right and also because it feels most effective.
Which is an important factor for me. How can I show up most effective in this information war? How can I make the best contribution I can?
I'll put aside your actual argument here, but while commenting that you offer a compelling approach, and to me, that provides greater inspiration to consider alternatives. My reasons for my beliefs do not include any reliance whatsoever on 'the media' or their narratives, so I won't comment on that aspect, except to say that I think we're in agreement that the media lies, and also that I am quite inclined to the perspective that media and medicine are both fields that have been profoundly corrupted. I am also quite sympathetic to the view that we can trace that corruption back to, certainly in part, if not wholly, the "Rockefeller/Rothschild/C_A/MI6/etc" Cabal.
Just one comment here: I have not felt so compelled to research into that area: the intricate details of the "Rockefeller/Rothschild/C_A/MI6/etc" Cabal. It's a dark world, and I'm not all that keen on diving into darkness, for a number of reasons. What I have found along my journey has been enough to convince me of certain core beliefs and if you will, axioms, to the extent that feel enough to propel me to be more effective in what I want to do.
But that's largely because of how I see my own role in things. For those that specialize more in those very important (overall) investigative areas, I have a lot of respect, and I hope, appreciation.
I am saying that most people don't realize what their assumptions are, what their foundational axioms are, who they are relying on, what a deeper investigation shows, and they don't ask themselves the most important question, why they believe what they believe.
Again, strong agreement with this statement.
On top of all this, you make some good counter-arguments re: public deception, and although I think those finer points could be further discussed, my primary concern in responding is to articulate the value I feel your approach is offering, not to mention the very similar way we conceive (as far as I can see) the very core issues of: evidence, proof, logic and axioms, choice and failures to see these for what they are (and how choice is a factor).
For now, I'll wrap up.
You suggest my "binary offering" is insufficient, but instead of addressing why you think it was unconvincing
Well, hang on now. It seems like you are objectifying the matter by putting it into passive voice (which linguistically removes the active agent). What I actually wrote was:
I don't find your binary offering of "It's either A or B" convincing, or satisfying
For me, the core thing here is 'I don't find....'. It's directly related to MY subjective standards, and passes no 'objective' judgment on whether the framework you offering is 'sufficient', unless its to say, it is 'insufficient for me, to persuade me that its something I should adopt'.
To my mind, that's important. I'm attempting to communicate something about my perspective, and what works for me. Not to pass some sort of objective judgement that negates my own choices and subjective agency.
why you think it was unconvincing
See? I did not say passively, "it is unconvincing". I stated that I (personally) found it unconvincing. Perhaps the fault is with me, and not with your framework. BUT, even if so, I'm not just going to adopt something because someone argues it better than me.
Why did I find the framework unconvincing? To be frank, I did offer some explanation:
Binary offerings often come across (to me. Should have emphasized this perhaps, 'to me') as fundamentalist exaggerations touting beliefs rather than logical propositions.
Why unconvincing specifically? If I had to analyze it, its because it hinges on the axioms: 1. They are using body doubles (in ways and volumes that are defined in a way that you appear comfortable with (ie. see as evident and clear) and 2. They are lying about using body doubles (i.e. creating false narratives that say they are using body doubles (again, in the way that appears well-defined for you).
I'm not objecting to these axioms, but they are outside of the conjectures or theories that I currently find compelling. I'm not saying they are wrong. I can respect that you have come to your conclusions for reasons (and evidence) that you find compelling. But I think I would have to be a fool to just accept, well, Joe finds them compelling, so they must be right! I'll adopt them!
It's a little disheartening to have gone thru all this waking people up and then not getting a reward of the baddies actually being them in panic and terror but having a fake double 'arrested' for show. lol. If you follow some accounts you'd believe literally everyone you see in Government is some sort of mask wearing actor which means the whole thing is silly to begin with. What gives me pause is Q went on and on about doing things by the book, it must be done to the rule of law...I hardly doubt Jim Carey pretending to be Sleepy Joe would be legal even under COG.
After (during) 8 years of Q, I've seen theories come and theories go, I've seen all sorts of nonsense and all sorts of passionately held perspectives, a very wide spectrum indeed.
As things have unfolded, many, many of those theories have just fallen away and their relevance to what is unfolding often seems (feels) distant.
People are strange beings. We have emotional needs, intellectual needs, and the need to see accomplishment. Navigating all of that, while attempting to make real progress, requires above all else, balance. At least, so it seems to me.
Some interpretations of the Q message (board) appear to me to be lacking in various forms of balance, and for those reasons, I find myself not gravitating towards them. They might spike interest for a time, but very few really have staying power.
I put the mask-wearing fake/false/replaced 'person' theories (if you listen to some, they are not theories, but self-evident facts!) in that basket. There may be some measure of truth there (as there is in almost any perspective) but the way that some grasp it appears to me like a person coming into the roulette room at the casino, and putting all their hard earned cash on No. 7 to win. Or even just splitting up their chips, on this or that etc.
I don't find that sort of approach to be all that productive, personally. But I guess some do.
It must be done by the book.
And, there's the real kicker. It has to be done properly.
The DS has shills masking as Patriots too. They will grab the wackiest theories and state them as Q posting them, then you can go literally into the Q drops and see Q denounce exactly what they are talking about. But they know people only read headlines and not dig into the information. For instance, my MAGA normie friends were sending me clips of Trump "aimlessly walking around the roof of the White House" saying he's lost his goddamn mind....not realizing if they just watched the full video he was up there touring the renovations he's paying for.
“It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If ‘is’ means is and never has been, that’s one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.”
I was just thinking...for once, we might actually see some democRats asking some hardball questions during these hearings seeing as they will be having to question republicans too. I might make a little extra popcorn for this.
Listen very carefully (again).
Note past (2) years.
Note next (6) years.
You were told what was going to happen.
You were told what battles we face.
Strategic.
Pre_planned.
Patriots in control.
Q
great reminder Joys1D! the six years seems like waking up the people years, fighting in the trenches and using memes like drones, and now’s advancing forward time, like D-Day
Hopefully, this is more than a dog and pony show. And, how many of these people will actually show up? I'm waiting for military tribunals then I'll get excited.
If Trump "caught them all" and Trump "has it all", then the answers to all of the questions that will be asked are already known and documented.
So, this is a perjury trap. If they tell the truth, they lose. If they lie, they lose. Taking the 5th doesn't help them either. All they can do is run.
If Barr and/or Sessions, either one, is a white hat, then it seems that this is how the evidence gets into 'court'. As testimony before Congress.
It's about time they've been called in to explain some things. My question is why are they spread out so much? Should have scheduled them one day after the other. I don't give a rats behind if they have previous plans, make them cancel them, this is more important. They're not going to need whatever money they will get doing speaking gigs where they are going, kek.
Wow it’s like a line up of who I’d like to hear testify. If all goes as planned it’s going to be fascinating to hear. If the DS has anything left in the chamber, they’ll be using it this Fall.
These people all lie for a living. It's nice to see them called in like this, but the grilling has to be coordinated carefully, like a psychological operation.
Can’t they all just plead the fifth like all the other people who are interviewed who done wrongdoings? Is this actual court appearances or is it just in front of Congress?
I was disappointed to learn it’s about Epstein and not Russia collusion. Every one of these people being subpoenaed played a big role in that. Of course, the Clintons are involved in both.
Theater is about to have a big month. Lots of sound bytes for primary election commercials. No arrests. The system protects itself the same way it always does. A good show for the masses. No real longterm repercussions for the Club.
Looks like both wife and I have to cancel our b'day plans !
You both may be getting the best birthday gift ever! 🎉✨
Me too!!
Happy birthday to you all! 🎉
is it going to be public hearing or behind closed doors?
It will be exactly as it needs to be for the Great Awakening at the right time.
Not sure. My guess is Public.
I hope so. I saw them called "depositions" though. Depositions are usually held behind closed doors, but the Oversight Committee hasn't said one way or the other yet.
Guess we'll see fren...
I hope so! I am almost 100% positive that at least portions will be behind closed doors because of the discussions of classified information that will certainly come up. If they televise the rest I'll be ok with that, though it will probably not be live. All of the parent agencies will want to make sure there is no classified info released to the public first.
If I had to guess, I think we will only get transcripts with redactions. It is after all the govt, and they tend to be a-holes.
My only hope is that since the republicans allowed the dems to put in an amendment requiring Bondi to release a bunch of stuff Epstein-related, maybe there is a concession for release of the depositions as well.
Kek - my "e" key is sticking again and it made me type "deepositions". Sounds like a good word to describe depositions of the deep state. My keyboard is learning...
I'm hoping because of the High Level Treason it will be public... citizens will be screaming to witness!
Closed door
Hey fren!
WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLl...BREAKFAST IN BED IS NOT A BAD IDEA!!!!!....JUST MAKE SURE THE COMPUTER IS TURNED ON!!!!
Now, if you are watching it or not, that is up to you!!!!!!!! ENJOY the B'Day!!!!
Marriage comes first! Keep your plans :) Always.
Deltas getting closer to Q post #1
https://qalerts.app/?n=1
u/#q1
Yes! Yes! Yes!
OKAY...J1D...THIS IS AN ORDER...DO NOT STROKE OUT....THIS board needs you to keep A VERY CLEAR HEAD...CAPICHE'!!!!!!!
I'm having a nice Cabernet' right now and it's going down faster than I can drink it!!!!!!
Cin Cin eagle! 🍷🤌
Always the WISE GUY or WISE LADY!!!!!!👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
The next time Oct 30th falls on a monday will be in 2028
I've been thinking for years, to truly 'Q proof', Q's first post is the end. The Hillary shit will probably drop on an exact Delta..so every time a year went by and we saw nothing matching this 10/30, 10/31 thing you kinda knew that wasn't 'the year of the storm'....but now....
Can't wait to hear from Mr. Sessions.
u/#q3371
Me, too qa!
[Next week] [Next week] [Next week] Suicide weekend? Q
u/#q700
u/#pepepopcorn
wonder if their is betting going on who rolls on the team of evil psychopaths first? We have come this far, hopefully something is live streamed for the public. These closed door things need to stop. These Judges need to remove themselves if they are implicit too.
if they start rolling on each other will there be anyone left to be able to Judge? Will there be any of these large Churches left after the quake of this?
patience is a virtue.
Yes, it is fren!
3x Next Week
Notice: Sessions is wearing his Q tie! 💥
Kek
I wonder if there is a US legal provision for when a body double testifies under oath. I wonder if it matters if the original is dead, in witpro, on the lam, or in prison.
There've been quite a few court proceedings going on recently using doubles. For example, I'm fairly certain Derek Fauvin was a body double, although I don't remember if he testified under oath. I'd bet my life that the past 4 years was just a long movie called "The Mask Part 2", or "Weekend at Bidens", you pick.
I'm fairly certain this "Body Double for 'history'" swap happens quite often, both in the recent past and for centuries (at least). There are recent documented cases of using a double for official proceedings for the Elite, including testifying in court.
We live in the Matrix. "History," is a Show, and always has been. Whatever the truth is, I'd bet everything that the former Secretary of State Hitlery will not been testifying, no matter what "History" records.
All due respect, not a fan of the 'They have all been replaced' narratives.
Anyhow, I'll take your bet. Let's check back here mid-October.
That is an association fallacy. I never stated nor implied that they were all replaced, but that some have been replaced is documented. That it has been done often in history is also documented. This provides you with two "conspiracy theory" options:
Both are "conspiracy theories." Pick your poison.
The 'all' in "They have all been replaced' narrative" is hyperbole, intended to emphasize what I personally consider the more extreme levels of nonsense (imo) connected with the topic.
The concept of use of a body double (e.g. decoy) is certainly not radical. However, looking at the two examples you provide, the first one seems very clearly to be a 'stand in' for the queen, and not someone who is/was touted as being the queen deceptively in order to mislead the greater public.
Even then, with someone as high profile as the queen, I'd be surprised if her entourage did not include someone who could, in certain circumstances, step in as a 'pretend', in situations of high risk, etc.
But, pretty much all the narratives I've seen around the topic as it relates to anons, truthers, etc, have nothing to do with such examples. Joe Biden is not Joe Biden, being a great example. What we're talking about is mass deception of the public, supposedly for righteous and benevolent reasons. Me? I don't subscribe to this.
You cited another example, of the controversy around Gu Kailai. Very believable that the CCP could swap in a fake to conduct a trial in hometown China. But again, this example bears very little resemblance to the vast majority of the "joe Biden is not Joe Biden, Hillary is in Gitmo" narratives. At least the ones I am talking about.
Two extremely explainable examples that bear very little resemblance to the "Joe Biden is not Joe Biden" set of narratives (if you know what I mean - I'm using literary license here) don't really stack up as a record of what 'they' do. In my opinion.
There are other options. Doubles used as decoys for security or strategic reasons. Such as (if it ever happened) a double of Churchhill being used to deceive the German intelligence during ww2.
I think we probably differ in our view of history, and indeed, what either of us means when we refer to 'the matrix'.
And, I don't find your binary offering of "It's either A or B" convincing, or satisfying. Binary offerings often come across as fundamentalist exaggerations touting beliefs rather than logical propositions. Aka not wanting to consider more nuanced views, alternative perspectives that don't align with other certain closely held core beliefs.
(Not trying to psychoanalyze you here, fren. Just trying to explain why personally, I don't find the A or B proposition here convincing.)
In either case, I've already stated I'll take your bet. But, I I do hope that the part about 'betting everything' is, ahem, hyperbole. Dramatic expression intended to emphasize the sense of conviction you have regarding what you believe to be true. I hope it is, anyway.
Either way, let's check back here mid-October?
From the article:
For decades this body double acted as the Queen in an official capacity, and the public didn't know about it. Doing the Queens duties is far from a mere "stand in". Doing the Queens duties for decades is exactly intentions to be "deceptive" and "misleading the greater public". This deception went on until 2022. I suggest if not for Q it would have never been disclosed.
The second example is even more egregious regarding deception. And those are only two recent examples. History records more. Those are the ones recorded as fact. The number of believed to be likely because of supporting evidence is many, many times more.
"Reasonable doubts" are not the same thing as "proof." I suggest "proof" is a verb, not a noun (bear with me). Proof means "there is enough evidence to meet some level of proof by my estimation." It is an action of choice, based on evidence, employing the process of reason (a verb).
Within the reasoning process there are different levels of proof. In lawfare, these different levels are called "the burden of proof." The lowest level of "proof" is called "Some evidence." That means that there exists at least one reasonable doubt, AKA "there is some contrary evidence that can't be discounted through the process of reason." At the other end of the spectrum is "Beyond a reasonable doubt." That means that there is no evidence that exists contrary to the proposition that can be considered meaningful after the process of reason has been applied to it. At each level, and for each person, they have to decide for themselves if there is enough evidence.
By themselves, most people fail in the process of reason. In groups, if the members are truly independent, they tend to do better (though far from perfect). In the process of reason there are two components; logic and axioms. Coming to false conclusions usually isn't a function of faulty logic. Almost all people are logical (eventually). Where they fail is in their assumptions (axioms). People generally don't recognize or appreciate the details of their assumptions, or even that they have made those assumptions, rather they unconsciously take their assumptions as truth and call it a day.
Biden is an excellent example. The amount of reasonable evidence that supports Biden as not Biden is substantial. Here is one example (of dozens); the earlobes.
There is clear uncontroversial evidence that the ears of the person called Biden in 2019 are not the same ears of Vice President Biden 2016. The explanation for that change, the story, is that Biden had plastic surgery and that that was why his ears were so drastically different. That belief relies on that story being true, sufficiently complete, and that the surgery was the cause of the drastic ear change.
Maybe those assumptions are true, maybe they are not. There are three different assumptions listed there (there are probably others), all must be true for the conclusion to be possibly true through the process of logic. Anyone who believes that all of those axioms are truth without further investigation is not reasonable. That doesn't mean that those assumptions are false, but most people don't even think of those things as assumptions. It's media reports citing doctors reports, two of the most trusted institutions, so it must be true.
Yet I can provide substantial evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the media says things that are false constantly. I can provide substantial evidence that doctors, indeed, the entire medical establishment says things that are false constantly. Sometimes these false statements are unintentional omissions, some are provably intentional omissions, some are provably intentional lies (purposefully false statements of fact). Not only do these institutions lie, they lie about similar things to this topic to create false narratives. As a well known example of provable lies from both institutions is the JFK "lone gunman" story. Only now, 80 years later, is that narrative, previously pushed constantly by both institutions, finally proving false. Not only do these institutions lie, I can show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the media is designed, from day one, to create such false narratives for Rockefeller/Rothschild/C_A/MI6/etc.. I can also show that doctor's training, numerous individual medical professionals, and the medical establishment itself is designed to kill people and steal all their property for Rockefeller, Rothschild, etc..
Anyone who insists that the media reports of plastic surgery is sufficient evidence is unreasonable (not using reason), instead believing (assuming) a known liar is telling you the truth about a controversial topic. All the other pieces of evidence that I've seen "for Biden is the real Biden" relies on similar assumptions. That doesn't mean the assumptions are true or false. I am saying that most people don't realize what their assumptions are, what their foundational axioms are, who they are relying on, what a deeper investigation shows, and they don't ask themselves the most important question, why they believe what they believe.
In the case of Biden, like I said, there are numerous issues, the earlobe issue is only one and I haven't even really gotten into it. By itself it is far from sufficient. But it is, by itself, even with the minimal suggestions of supporting evidence (much more than I've described), a reasonable doubt. With investigation into all of the reasonable evidence, anyone who can make definitive claims "for Biden" is not a reasonable person (not properly employing the process of reason).
What do you think those Q posts mean?
The first example (the Queen) was relating to the use of long term large scale deception. The second (Gu Kailai) was the use of a double for testifying in court, the main topic of my first post. They were selected for those purposes. I could find others more to your liking if you prefer.
You suggest my "binary offering" is insufficient, but instead of addressing why you think it was unconvincing, you created a not-that-veiled psychoanalysis as ad hominem. If you want to be convincing, be direct in your protest.
As for my capabilities of reason, and how complete The Matrix really is, I suggest you read my report.
This is a really great response. I hoped to get to replying today, but sadly I won't. But this is the sort of response that makes engaging GAW worthwhile.
The wrap up:
Hmmm. To be quite frank, this feels quite argumentative. I mean, I have absolutely ZERO interest in either convincing you to adopt any specific view on either this matter. I approach this as engaging for discussion, not to prove my capabilities of reason', nor to challenge or deny yours.
I'm not interested in winning an argument. I'm interesting in the open exchange of ideas, and approaches to those ideas, ideally in an effort to a) gather more <ahem> evidence aka data input to augment what I have already gathered b) expanding my perspective and c) hopefully doing the same for the other party in the engagement, assuming they have an interest in that.
At a minimum, the engagement doesn't really require c) for it to be beneficial for me (and to further my aims of being more effective in the war and making a contribution), but I find the best results - the proverbial win-win - happens when a, b, and c are all in there.
Yeah, nah, I do NOT want to be convincing. The world and the information war-space is rife with people obsessed with 'being convincing'. It often speaks, in my experience, of people being identified with their beliefs and views, as if somehow, they either 'know the truth' and require some sort of validation from others by them also accepting 'the truth'.
I'm not saying this is you; I'm saying, in general, that I have found that overall approach to be unproductive and ultimately ineffective.
But also, if you feel compelled to be convincing, I don't judge you on that. You may have very good reasons that compel you to want to do that. (I can think offhand of many scenarios where one might very appropriately feel compelled to try to convince someone of something. "Don't fricken' drive! You've been drinking, you're drunk. Don't do it!!!" just being a very mundane but real example.
People should convince themselves. They should consciously, and morally, set up their own preferred threshold of what convinces them, and then invite information and perspectives in that can engage with that threshold. I think most of us here would accept the premise that you cannot force people to think or accept an idea they do not want to.
Anyway, convince, persuade: all these are good, but in my opinion, ultimately, people need to convince themselves.
But, I also know that my perspective (held view) in a wide variety of matters is not perfect. So, I'm keen to engage, hopefully to learn, hopefully to teach by sharing or at least facilitating the expansion of thinking. But I don't have a bone in the fight. I'm not interested in winning an argument.
I have always found your comments to be potent and insightful. Which is why, frankly, I began my response with "all due respect" and 'not a fan of...'. I think the topic at hand might be worth exploring more, BUT I'm more keen on understanding how you think. If I can expand my view by being open to trying to see more from your perspective, how good is that?
I noticed that your report was created three years ago, and assuming that you uploaded it when you registered the site, you just passed your three-year anniversary.
Congratulations. Seriously. Even a glance at the report shows your evident passion and fervent dedication to what you are doing.
I hope that future discussions we have might be of much mutual benefit. (Even though I have not gone into the actual details of exploring the examples your gave and the base topic in general. Maybe what I've written here simply helps to illuminate 'approach' aka the frameworks you and I are working with.
wwg1wga is not just a slogan. Thank your for your continued efforts and presence on the board. FI
There were a couple of points that for me are a highlight of this response. Plus also some further information that shows you've paid more attention to this than I have, and that further information / articulation is helpful. I hope I can respond in a constructive way.
Two or more highlight points included these:
Linguist here, so actually 'proof' is a noun, the verb being 'prove', but your point is very well taken. This set of axioms are constantly in my ind as I engage with theories, ideas and conclusions that folks present here at GAW or elsewhere.
In other (my) words: evidence is not proof, and proof (something being proved) is a matter of the accumulated evidence meeting a specific (often personally chosen) threshold. The factor of choice here is absolutely critical. And, its one that far too many people seem willing to ignore or otherwise overlook in the entire engagement process.
To me, choice entails responsibility. Make your choice, but then be responsible for that choice, and acknowledge your role in deciding what you choose to believe, or accept as a standard, etc.
For me, this is the ethical foundation that is key and critical for me when I approach information and the beliefs I derive from that information.
You give a great description of this 'process of reason', one which resonates powerfully with my own thinking on the matter, although I feel like you articulate it particularly well, better than I could, which I chalk up to perhaps a greater of level of 'study' in the area. Case in point:
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
Whew. How often I want to raise this point with people when they present their thinking or rather, conclusions on any of the various topics that get raised here. Of particular note to me is this: "Coming to false conclusions usually isn't a function of faulty logic." I can immediately see how this is often very true. The issue is not so much the logic, as the axioms.
In particular, the failure of people 'to recognize or appreciate the details of their assumptions' seems to me to be something I constantly encounter in discussions. And especially 'or even that they have made those assumptions'.
Failure to recognize, acknowledge or take responsibility for one's assumptions feels like an ethical failure to me. To me, it harkens back to the issue of responsibility; people constantly fail to take responsibility for their thinking, their choices, and the beliefs they attach to. Which is one reason why some people become so defensive of their beliefs; they are self-identified to the belief itself, rather than understanding it as an expression of their volition, their capacity to act, their agency. In doing so, they dis empower themselves.
I'm glad you raised this. One of the key issues I have with the Biden isn't Biden narrative is the APPROACH (aka methodology) that I've observed many, if not most people, taking.
And, I'll iterate a point I wrote earlier but edited: for me, the HOW of the engagement with information is far, far more critical than the mere WHAT. because ethically, the process involves choice and responsibility. To me, it has to be an ethical engagement. Without that, it's devoid of constructive meaning. Am I being responsible for my choices? Am I recognizing that I make choices, and am therefore ethically obliged to take responsibility for them?
Like a fundamentalist in <chosen religious view or doctrine> who refuses to recognize his own role in choosing what he decides to believe, and instead places all the 'responsibility' on an external being or object. "Why do you believe that?" "Because its in the Bible. Its the truth. The Literal truth!!!!"
Instead of recognizing that what I consider to be the truth the Bible is telling me is MY belief (my interpretation), and therefore my choice, one that I need to recognize AND be ethically responsible for. Which also requires a capacity to recognize, 'Hey, I might be wrong'. The issue is not lack of conviction. It's about lack of responsibility. I recognize that I might be wrong about my views, BUT I choose to believe them, and hold them as my views, because they seem the best, most suitable, and most aligned with truth TO ME.
In other words, humility becomes a factor here. Not being identified with one's belief allows one to consider alternatives, and also to be open to learning.
In too many cases, I have observed people jumping on to the 'Biden is not Biden' narrative with approaches that lack, in the extreme, a rigorous approach based on reason and intellectual clarity. Confirmation Bias. Again and again. Then, a full investment in the belief, and incredulity that anyone might have a different perspective.
As an example, I have never seen a fully forensic, anatomical analysis offered by a professional in the business. Someone who has professionally and clinically studied the human anatomy, including what changes occur or can occur in the aging process. It has always (by and large) been laymen giving their opinions based on.... very often, a bias.
Coupled then with a few other issues, including the morality of public deception, the need (or rather my belief in the need) for the 'White Hats' to do things by the book, law and order, etc., aka questions of ethics, etc, I have always, and still do, find myself falling (erring?) on the side of: in the face of not finding compelling arguments, I'll go with MY biases, which I prefer, based on the entirety of my ontological and ethical world view.
There have been a few instances (far too few) when someone has made what I think are good and reasonable arguments to counter my chosen explanation (view), and those instances give me great opportunities to expand my thinking and consider alternative possibilities. Which I relish. Because (I think) I'm quite devoted to acquiring the most effective truth perspective I can.
One example is Bubble_bursts view on the topic. He is, as I understand it, in the Fake Biden (Fake <persons>) camp (if you'll allow me to put a binary framework on the issue, i.e. a person being in one of two camps), which was contrary to my view, but his arguments were good, presented well and logically developed well, with reason. I came away being more amenable to the fundamental proposition, even if my own view wasn't shifted too much. But it was expanded. Heck, I'm certainly, most certainly, still - gathering evidence -.
And, until I find the evidence I've found reaches my own internal threshold, I'm a skeptic. And, that is a position I've chosen, because it both ethically feels right and also because it feels most effective.
Which is an important factor for me. How can I show up most effective in this information war? How can I make the best contribution I can?
I'll put aside your actual argument here, but while commenting that you offer a compelling approach, and to me, that provides greater inspiration to consider alternatives. My reasons for my beliefs do not include any reliance whatsoever on 'the media' or their narratives, so I won't comment on that aspect, except to say that I think we're in agreement that the media lies, and also that I am quite inclined to the perspective that media and medicine are both fields that have been profoundly corrupted. I am also quite sympathetic to the view that we can trace that corruption back to, certainly in part, if not wholly, the "Rockefeller/Rothschild/C_A/MI6/etc" Cabal.
Just one comment here: I have not felt so compelled to research into that area: the intricate details of the "Rockefeller/Rothschild/C_A/MI6/etc" Cabal. It's a dark world, and I'm not all that keen on diving into darkness, for a number of reasons. What I have found along my journey has been enough to convince me of certain core beliefs and if you will, axioms, to the extent that feel enough to propel me to be more effective in what I want to do.
But that's largely because of how I see my own role in things. For those that specialize more in those very important (overall) investigative areas, I have a lot of respect, and I hope, appreciation.
Again, strong agreement with this statement.
On top of all this, you make some good counter-arguments re: public deception, and although I think those finer points could be further discussed, my primary concern in responding is to articulate the value I feel your approach is offering, not to mention the very similar way we conceive (as far as I can see) the very core issues of: evidence, proof, logic and axioms, choice and failures to see these for what they are (and how choice is a factor).
For now, I'll wrap up.
Well, hang on now. It seems like you are objectifying the matter by putting it into passive voice (which linguistically removes the active agent). What I actually wrote was:
For me, the core thing here is 'I don't find....'. It's directly related to MY subjective standards, and passes no 'objective' judgment on whether the framework you offering is 'sufficient', unless its to say, it is 'insufficient for me, to persuade me that its something I should adopt'.
To my mind, that's important. I'm attempting to communicate something about my perspective, and what works for me. Not to pass some sort of objective judgement that negates my own choices and subjective agency.
See? I did not say passively, "it is unconvincing". I stated that I (personally) found it unconvincing. Perhaps the fault is with me, and not with your framework. BUT, even if so, I'm not just going to adopt something because someone argues it better than me.
Why did I find the framework unconvincing? To be frank, I did offer some explanation:
Why unconvincing specifically? If I had to analyze it, its because it hinges on the axioms: 1. They are using body doubles (in ways and volumes that are defined in a way that you appear comfortable with (ie. see as evident and clear) and 2. They are lying about using body doubles (i.e. creating false narratives that say they are using body doubles (again, in the way that appears well-defined for you).
I'm not objecting to these axioms, but they are outside of the conjectures or theories that I currently find compelling. I'm not saying they are wrong. I can respect that you have come to your conclusions for reasons (and evidence) that you find compelling. But I think I would have to be a fool to just accept, well, Joe finds them compelling, so they must be right! I'll adopt them!
(Cont)
It's a little disheartening to have gone thru all this waking people up and then not getting a reward of the baddies actually being them in panic and terror but having a fake double 'arrested' for show. lol. If you follow some accounts you'd believe literally everyone you see in Government is some sort of mask wearing actor which means the whole thing is silly to begin with. What gives me pause is Q went on and on about doing things by the book, it must be done to the rule of law...I hardly doubt Jim Carey pretending to be Sleepy Joe would be legal even under COG.
After (during) 8 years of Q, I've seen theories come and theories go, I've seen all sorts of nonsense and all sorts of passionately held perspectives, a very wide spectrum indeed.
As things have unfolded, many, many of those theories have just fallen away and their relevance to what is unfolding often seems (feels) distant.
People are strange beings. We have emotional needs, intellectual needs, and the need to see accomplishment. Navigating all of that, while attempting to make real progress, requires above all else, balance. At least, so it seems to me.
Some interpretations of the Q message (board) appear to me to be lacking in various forms of balance, and for those reasons, I find myself not gravitating towards them. They might spike interest for a time, but very few really have staying power.
I put the mask-wearing fake/false/replaced 'person' theories (if you listen to some, they are not theories, but self-evident facts!) in that basket. There may be some measure of truth there (as there is in almost any perspective) but the way that some grasp it appears to me like a person coming into the roulette room at the casino, and putting all their hard earned cash on No. 7 to win. Or even just splitting up their chips, on this or that etc.
I don't find that sort of approach to be all that productive, personally. But I guess some do.
And, there's the real kicker. It has to be done properly.
The DS has shills masking as Patriots too. They will grab the wackiest theories and state them as Q posting them, then you can go literally into the Q drops and see Q denounce exactly what they are talking about. But they know people only read headlines and not dig into the information. For instance, my MAGA normie friends were sending me clips of Trump "aimlessly walking around the roof of the White House" saying he's lost his goddamn mind....not realizing if they just watched the full video he was up there touring the renovations he's paying for.
Are we going to see Drop 1 in action?
u/#q1
Hope so!
Bill is starting to get memory issues right around October 1st.
Yep!
“It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If ‘is’ means is and never has been, that’s one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.”
Morning covfefe kek!
Slowly sips Coca Cola
https://truthsocial.com/@01010001/114976930500927610
Bill Barr what a disgrace. I guess a treasonous little weasel never changes. I really had hoped he switched sides, but nope.
I was just thinking...for once, we might actually see some democRats asking some hardball questions during these hearings seeing as they will be having to question republicans too. I might make a little extra popcorn for this.
YES! Caught in a web of evil of their own making.🕸️
great post! still a few complainers out there saying arrests need to happen now— they aren’t paying attention to the schedule!
Absolutely Malachi!
Listen very carefully (again). Note past (2) years. Note next (6) years. You were told what was going to happen. You were told what battles we face. Strategic. Pre_planned. Patriots in control. Q
u/#q3387
great reminder Joys1D! the six years seems like waking up the people years, fighting in the trenches and using memes like drones, and now’s advancing forward time, like D-Day
Great analogy...Digital Warriors! 🪖
Hopefully, this is more than a dog and pony show. And, how many of these people will actually show up? I'm waiting for military tribunals then I'll get excited.
We are going to heat the phrase" I invoke my 5th Amendment right at this time" on a loop.
...and "I don't recall"..🤬
If Trump "caught them all" and Trump "has it all", then the answers to all of the questions that will be asked are already known and documented.
So, this is a perjury trap. If they tell the truth, they lose. If they lie, they lose. Taking the 5th doesn't help them either. All they can do is run.
If Barr and/or Sessions, either one, is a white hat, then it seems that this is how the evidence gets into 'court'. As testimony before Congress.
It's about time they've been called in to explain some things. My question is why are they spread out so much? Should have scheduled them one day after the other. I don't give a rats behind if they have previous plans, make them cancel them, this is more important. They're not going to need whatever money they will get doing speaking gigs where they are going, kek.
Absolutely...timing!
Hmmm... When will Podesta be forced to testify?
Great question...hope he's dead. ⚖️
We haven't witnessed his arrest yet. That was mentioned in the 1st or 2nd Q post.
Awesome Joy, u/#seriouspopcorn
Love Moss & Popcorn cat!
u/#catpopcorn
August will be a hot month indeed!
Wow it’s like a line up of who I’d like to hear testify. If all goes as planned it’s going to be fascinating to hear. If the DS has anything left in the chamber, they’ll be using it this Fall.
What happens if they refuse to show up to testify?
Military pickup??
Military Uber.. LOL
Kek!
I would like this to be televised please.
Jail like Trump's 2
Sounds like a storm!
Is this Ezra guy sauced on these things happening somewhere? Or just pulling stuff out of thin air hopium?
Here ya go. All the best dishes come with sauce.
https://oversight.house.gov/release/chairman-comer-subpoenas-bill-and-hillary-clinton-former-u-s-attorneys-general-and-fbi-directors-and-records-related-to-jeffrey-epstein/
I did end up finding it last night but thank you for the second helping!
These people all lie for a living. It's nice to see them called in like this, but the grilling has to be coordinated carefully, like a psychological operation.
Well I’ve heard once that the month of august is hot… 🤷♀️
What happens if they don’t show up
It's All Coming Together:
I don't recall
I plead the 5th
Oops, evidence destroyed
Case dismissed
Prove me wrong - PLEASE!
Can’t they all just plead the fifth like all the other people who are interviewed who done wrongdoings? Is this actual court appearances or is it just in front of Congress?
Sure, they can plead the fifth if they want. They do not have to incriminate themselves.
This is before congress (well, actually, a Congressional Committee).
Pleading the fifth won't look very good. And that's the real point here. Exposure, to the American public, and beyond.
Also, note: these depositions (by subpoena) are in relation to the Jeffrey Epstein thing. That's gonna be fun.
I was disappointed to learn it’s about Epstein and not Russia collusion. Every one of these people being subpoenaed played a big role in that. Of course, the Clintons are involved in both.
Theater is about to have a big month. Lots of sound bytes for primary election commercials. No arrests. The system protects itself the same way it always does. A good show for the masses. No real longterm repercussions for the Club.