3
special1ntere5t 3 points ago +3 / -0

He has a legal lease so they have to buy him out of it. I have always wondered if the media torrent about him and Epstein was a whipping boy type set up for Charles. Kinda like he took the flak in lieu of Charles, kinda a protect the heir look what we can do to you if you don’t bend the knee to the DS - to keep the queen and the royals in line? I think that was why Diana was killed - she was arguably their biggest “star” and the DS took her out as an object lesson - if we can take her out and tell anyone whatever we want then we can get all of you. Charles was publicly reported as being a “playboy” back in the day so I would not be surprised at all if he was in the orbit of Epstein and his network and it would make sense for any media storm to not burn him directly straight away but to go after his brother as an example of what will happen if he or his mother didn’t toe the line? Th he e Queen bent the knee to GEOTUS and th DS did not like that at all. I wondered if there was an agreement between her and Trump that Charles wouldn’t take the throne in favor of William but when she passed Charles reneged on it and went ahead with the public coronation. I think he’s broke (possibly the Queen forfeited the duchy of Lancaster which funds the monarchy if she bent the knee) which meant that when he took the throne he got the baubles and title but no money - as the duchy of Cornwall (which has more knee than Lancaster iirc) passed to William. William was in charge of the coronation and everyone seemed to defer to him. Even before she dies the Queen was treating William as her hand and 2IC rather than Charles. Also there’s been a lot of sly stories in the media taking shots at William and Catherine that have Charles fingerprints all over, they reek of his MO over the years. Also Charles has not moved against Harry the idiot in the us with his meddling in US politics and trying to break the 1st amendment with the aspen institute which kinda implies he’s ok with it.

1
special1ntere5t 1 point ago +1 / -0

His linked in says he was 17.5 years in USAF and was working as a private pilot of G650 international for Qualcomm having previously been a private pilot for Walmart??? “Was previously an instructor for flying VVIP Instruct and evaluate crews in worldwide VVIP transport, aeromedical evacuation, logistical airlift and operational support missions providing airlift for key Congressional, State Department, White House, DoD and Foreign leaders.” https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-prussak-49972589

2
special1ntere5t 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ok a bit more digging - why is he reported as captain when in the congressional records he was recommended on March 7 2006 for promotion to Major??? https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2006-03-07/html/CREC-2006-03-07-pt1-PgS1852-2.htm

2
special1ntere5t 2 points ago +2 / -0

Found this about him https://www.travis.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2000561771/

His squadron “ officially transitioned from a c5 flight to a c17 flight” 👀

2
special1ntere5t 2 points ago +2 / -0

That kinda rang bells for me too tbh.

3
special1ntere5t 3 points ago +3 / -0

I find it interesting that they’ve now gone for Al Fayed with the jimmy saville approach when they did nothing while he was alive? When he was alive he was speaking out widely about his son’s death and Diana’s. Why not expose these allegations then? Discredit him when he was so outspoken? Also Al Fayed was pretty much PNG to the establishment in the Uk, he was refused citizenship in 1994 years before his son was involved with Diana, so the Uk DS seemingly had no love for him. He was linked to Adnan Khashoggi the arms dealer and reportedly he failed the “good character” test for citizenship because of his involvement in paying MPs to ask questions in the House of Commons.

1
special1ntere5t 1 point ago +1 / -0

Absolutely. But the pattern I’ve seen all along with things is I kinda pay attention to stuff that the main media absolutely plasters wall to wall coverage of. They don’t do for anything that helps WH objectives. It’s not a bad rule of thumb to have to give a side eye to anything that the media is in lockstep about or seems to blanket cover. There’s usually an agenda link somewhere

5
special1ntere5t 5 points ago +5 / -0

Yep have to say although I was baptized catholic I no longer view it as my church. I still believe in god and Jesus but I cut out the middlemen and go direct iykwim

3
special1ntere5t 3 points ago +3 / -0

Lmao well I think they do lurk here but this article was from about 2014/15 iirc from something like Forbes or similar ? It was a profile of Keith schilling I think but I may be wrong on that. Looking back I kinda wonder if it was a precursor to MAGA because it was Harper he announced he was running…

17
special1ntere5t 17 points ago +17 / -0

Well considering the IC have lied repeatedly to him when he was in office I don’t blame him. He probably has better intel from his own set up. I read an article years ago, before he announced he was running, about trumps commercial intel gathering capabilities. Have never been able to find it since, it may have been a feature on his head of security Keith? The article said that he had an intel gathering set up equivalent to a small nation state and was exceptionally good at gathering intel on those he did business with…

8
special1ntere5t 8 points ago +8 / -0

Lol well they’re all red commies so rouge works as well 😂

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›