14
BigMikesDingALing 14 points ago +14 / -0

I always though "No deals" applied to pedos and satanists within this cabal. The true evil ones. I never thought "no deals" applied to top level whistleblowers who wisely wanted to jump ship.

1
BigMikesDingALing 1 point ago +1 / -0

Here is my theory after thinking a long time about this:

What if Trump had his own sniper that day and this is the person who actually took out the assassin or possible assassins? If that were the case, it would explain why he was grazed in the ear. He did get lucky by turning his head and they really did almost kill him. That part wasn't staged for dramatic effect. However, Trump having a sniper who wasn't tied to the deep state Secret Service would give Trump a puncher's chance.

If such a sniper were there that day, he may have not had access to Secret service radio comms, and would thus need to spot the shooter(s) himself. It would explain why the shooter(s) were able to get shots off, with one grazing Trump. Maybe this was the dark figure on the water tower.

2
BigMikesDingALing 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is a dead end being intentionally being pushed as a distraction. Obama’s supposed biological father was from Kenya. If the Kamala thing had any merit, it would have applied to Obama. Natural born means born in the United States, regardless of where your parents are from. Anyone saying otherwise is making it up. A quick google search can easily prove this.

1
BigMikesDingALing 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh geeze. Onama, according the official story, had a father born in Kenya. Give it up! This is a distraction

The supreme court has since refuted Minor vs. Happersett several different times

3
BigMikesDingALing 3 points ago +3 / -0

If he had class, he should have passed it to somebody else. LeChoke always needs everything to be about him

1
BigMikesDingALing 1 point ago +1 / -0

It looks very much like the side photo of crooks to me. They keep feeding us his 16 year old photo for a reason. He looked nothing like that at 20

9
BigMikesDingALing 9 points ago +9 / -0

I’ve been convinced for years that they don’t even bother to conduct a poll. They just type in whatever result they want and claim it is true. Thats why nobody can ever get any internal info about methods used in the poll anymore. There never actually was a poll

2
BigMikesDingALing 2 points ago +3 / -1

Im convinced that’s why this is being pushed so hard. For some reason everyone is jumping on this and refuses to accept reality. It’s been pushed constantly for three days and is a total distraction.

10
BigMikesDingALing 10 points ago +10 / -0

Yes and no. I think Obama is middle management. He is in charge in the same way a hospital administrator is in charge of the nursing staff. He directs the democrats and coordinates with alphabet agencies at the ground level. However, he ultimately answers to a CEO and board of directors.

1
BigMikesDingALing 1 point ago +1 / -0

I do not understand why everybody is so stuck on this. All you have to do is look it up. She is eligible.

Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.

Then when I bring this up, the response is “The 14th amendment shouldn’t be recognized”. Yeah, good luck with that.

9
BigMikesDingALing 9 points ago +9 / -0

The quote was “"There is a difference between the sitting president and continuity of government and the responsibility we have."

Meaning, there is a difference between

  1. Protecting a sitting president and the continuity of government that goes along with it, versus
  2. The responsibility we have to protect Trump

Cheatle is saying that because Trump isn’t president, we aren’t under the highest obligation to protect him. He isn’t a priority. And this is exactly what the congressman questioning her was trying to get her to admit.

The implication being that they would never use this logic to justify lax protection for say, Barack Obama. It points to a double standard and lack of caring about protecting Trump’s life

5
BigMikesDingALing 5 points ago +5 / -0

I’m not saying Trump is not still in charge in some way. I think he probably is. I’m just saying this isn’t what Cheatle is stating in the clip. She is saying “Trump isn’t president, so we don’t have to provide him security like he is president.” She is just being coy in how she states it. This is exactly what the congressman wanted her to admit, that they provided less than their best effort that day because they felt they didn’t have to.

Exit: it’s still an important clip because if Trump really is CiC and Cheatle knows it, he just got her to perjure herself

55
BigMikesDingALing 55 points ago +55 / -0

He asks, "If he had been the sitting president, would he have had the same security he had on July 13th or would it be beefed up?"

She answered, "There is a difference between the sitting president and continuity of government and the responsibility we have."

She is essentially saying that because Trump is not president, the continuity of government necessity is not in place and so that lowers the responsibility of the secret service.

He responds, "OK, so he did not. There wasn't a full CAT team, etc..."

They are both agreeing that Trump did not have full protection because Trump isn't president. He is implying that posture is negligent and ridiculous. She is trying her best to dance around the fact that Trump wasn't provided adequate security by hiding behind continuity of government protocols only applying to a sitting president.

So she is indicating literally the opposite of what is being implied in this post. Everyone just heard "continuity of government" and didn't actually listen to what was being said in this clip.

You are being downvoted because people want to believe they hear something that isn't present in this clip.

4
BigMikesDingALing 4 points ago +4 / -0

There is video and multiple angles of law enforcement searching the white van. Fox news did a boots on the ground report on it. Fox reported the white van had explosives and NO AGENCY has refuted this report. It's not like some little kid on the internet posted rumors of a white van. It is WELL DOCUMENTED. They interviewed eyewitnesses in the neighborhood. The police confirmed this was in connection to the Trump shooting. I have no idea why certain people keep pushing that this white van didn't exist.

I keep posting this source and getting resistance because I don't have 20 other news sources confirming it. It is a full report from Fox News containing video of the actual freaking van. I don't know what more people want. We are lucky we got even one clear, detailed report on this topic, because clearly they want it memory holed.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/police-comb-through-thomas-matthew-crooks-van-hid-explosives-video-shows

3
BigMikesDingALing 3 points ago +3 / -0

Bill and Hillary endorsing Kamala is the kiss of death. It was done for optics. Do not be fooled into thinking Kamala is running. Next, Kamala will "voluntarily" step aside so the optics are that Hillary is doing everyone a favor by stepping in.

1
BigMikesDingALing 1 point ago +1 / -0

The point would be to come back after 7 or so years of being discredited by the media, and now, after an assassination attempt.

2
BigMikesDingALing 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think one of the reasons for Q was to expose media lies. I think if Q came back and into the open it would further that exposure, especially after years of "Oanon conspiracy theorist" talk.To your question, I would answer "Yes. we do need Q to come back, in order to expose the lie Q was first pointing us to.

4
BigMikesDingALing 4 points ago +4 / -0

If Trump is re-elected and Q comes back shortly after, I think it would be monumental Perhaps the very reason Q was envisioned in the first place. I think the answer to your question of "Why would they come back?" is that this is exactly the time for them coming back.

3
BigMikesDingALing 3 points ago +3 / -0

I agree with you. It doesn't feel like we have heard Q's final message.

3
BigMikesDingALing 3 points ago +3 / -0

I think people in the media who are supposed to be on our side, including Don Jr. are unknowingly contributing to this bullshit. They are doing so by repeating over and over how much this shot "should have been a layup". I do not believe this to be true. It is a layup in a calm environment on the range. It is a tough shot when the whole world is watching and everything is on the line.

Top golfers miss three foot puts in big tournaments. NBA players who are 90% free throw shooters miss 2 free throws with the game on the line in the NBA finals. No shot under that amount of pressure is easy. Continuing with that bullshit narrative is feeding this crap and it is starting to piss me off. They missed the shot. Simple as that.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›