1
WHOSkiddingWhO 1 point ago +2 / -1

This brings up the possibility of a sailor who didn't like his commander and set him up for ridicule.

The Stars and stripes article mentioned that somebody had to go back and get corrective training.

0
WHOSkiddingWhO 0 points ago +1 / -1

So if they won't reveal anything about Seth Rich, why are people say they are worried about revealing something about Seth Rich.

And did you read the Indictment? There's a lot of info there. Like it would pretty hard for Seth Rich to transfer the file to WikiLeaks if he was already dead when that file was transferred to WikiLeaks.

2
WHOSkiddingWhO 2 points ago +3 / -1

A guy in Germany made a fake map and posted to Facebook.

Why exactly are you claiming that's legit?

The original claim was

"The U.S. Army raided the Frankfurt office of the Spanish election software company Scytl to seize their servers"

That why the US Army was asked.

Louie Gohmert pushed this and then walked it back a bit. Sidney Powell and others ran with this.

But it all traced back tsome random in Germany with a fake electoral map.

1
WHOSkiddingWhO 1 point ago +3 / -2

That is a different question.

The question I'm asking is can the sitting POTUS be indicted and prosecuted and since 1973 the DOJ has said The answer is no. You cannot indite a sitting president.

https://www.justice.gov/file/146241-0/dl

-1
WHOSkiddingWhO -1 points ago +1 / -2

You're just speculating because someone once speculated (incorrectly IMO) that these cases in PACER involve military intelligence.

Someone claimed the "470" that Q mentioned was military intelligence.

But an early Q drop goes into great detail that 470 is the number of investigators in the DOJ office of IG. Q said they were working with Huber.

So I think this trail is off the main path.

0
WHOSkiddingWhO 0 points ago +7 / -7

The DOJ has had a policy since Watergate that says a president can not go on trial while he is president.

So since he is going on trial, it seems he therefore he is not president.

-1
WHOSkiddingWhO -1 points ago +1 / -2

Military Intelligence is not involved in pursuing crimes even military ones.

Period

They are not MPs.

Their job involves supporting military operations. The only way they would be involved in law enforcement might be if their counter intelligence role turned up something connected to military personnel.

They are not involved in domestic Indictments. If they turned up something connected to a regular civilain they would turn it over to the FBI.

-7
WHOSkiddingWhO -7 points ago +7 / -14

He's about to go on criminal trial on Monday.

How does that play into the devolution claim?

EDIT I don't think folks are getting my reference.

The DOJ has a long standing policy since 1973 that the President cannot be indicted.

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

Basically the Office of Legal Counsel which is the how like the law firm of the DOJ looked into this question during Watergate and issued this legal opinion.

For these reasons we believe that the Constitution requires recognition of a presidential immunity from indictment and criminal prosecution while the President is in office.

So this seems like a contradiction in the Devolution theory. Since Trump has been indicted and facing both state and federal indictments, how can he still be the sitting president?

Some folks say well he is not the President, but the Commander in Chief. However, the Constitution says the President is the Commander in Chief.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

This plus things like Biden pulling us out of Aghanistan seems like a high hurdle to the Devolution theory for me

-1
WHOSkiddingWhO -1 points ago +1 / -2

I assumed that everyone knows that they promoted this idea without ever fully saying Seth Rich gave them anything.

So my point is if they had proof Seth Rich gave them the DNC emails why haven't they actually said that.

Particularly after WikiLeaks was cited in a federal Indictment that explains who stole the emails and gave them to WikiLeaks and when.

And that it was part of a broader cyber campaign that also released emails from the DCCC and John Podesta and lots of other places Seth Rich had no access to.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/grand-jury-indicts-12-russian-intelligence-officers-hacking-offenses-related-2016-election

10
WHOSkiddingWhO 10 points ago +12 / -2

It literally started with some German guy on Facebook. There's no military source for it. That electoral map is fake. It's from 270 to win. Anyone can make a map there.

I just made one based purely on color. Starting with CA I made the bottom half red and the top blue

https://www.270towin.com/maps/Z2gz0

That turns out to be a very close election.

The US Army issued a statement that they never seized a server in Germany.

-4
WHOSkiddingWhO -4 points ago +5 / -9

This is not comms at all.

The Navy just wanted to show how expert marksmen they are

They can hit a target even when the scope is reversed!!!

1
WHOSkiddingWhO 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is one of those guys on Twitter who claim to be experts and insiders on everything?

0
WHOSkiddingWhO 0 points ago +1 / -1

Why would he say Seth Rich. His case is not a out that at all.

And what has kept him from providing proof these last 8 years?

2
WHOSkiddingWhO 2 points ago +2 / -0

That started with Avenatti?

Where did he say that I just searched for it but couldn't find anything

1
WHOSkiddingWhO 1 point ago +1 / -0

You claimed without evidence

THEY

did something

and without evidence you are claiming

THEY are gunning for something again

So who is THEY?

You're the one making these claims. Surely you have something to back this up

1
WHOSkiddingWhO 1 point ago +1 / -0

Police are not part of the prosecutors office. either.

They are in fact law enforcement.

Military Intelligence is not.

Would those who help foreign entities be civilians any longer ?

No.

The ISIS terrorist who killed 8 in NYC in 2017? Civilian court.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/sayfullo-saipov-be-sentenced-life-prison-2017-truck-attack-isis

The Walkers? Said to be the most damaging spies ever? Civilian court.

The son was still.in the Navy and arrested onboard his ship. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1985/05/26/spy-suspect-turned-over-to-the-fbi/033174e2-a59e-4a20-81a0-77316021ec56/

1
WHOSkiddingWhO 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm sure a second huge container ship nearly slamming into a bridge

Who said this happened?

1
WHOSkiddingWhO 1 point ago +1 / -0

That happens in NYC already.

Tugs helped steady this ship.

This ship fixed the issue and is already in port in Virginia

https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/details/9461893

1
WHOSkiddingWhO 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh stop.

They brought down the Key bridge, and now they're gunning for the Verrazzano.

You have no evidence of this.

The ship outside the Verrazano has already been fixed and it's already well down the Atlantic

2
WHOSkiddingWhO 2 points ago +2 / -0

Section 702 of the FISA act is up for reauthorization.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›