BMX Bandit said:

---

Did Q say Don Jr indictment was coming/pulled?

The quote above isn't enough to say Q predicted this.

(Though will need much more than Prosobiec as source)

---

See Q drops 3036 and 3060.

Have things to do today as company is coming but having read over half of Kramer's deposition, a few observations.

Kramer was a pawn who was used, in my view. He's also not that bright. Steele and Simpson are directing him to talk to all of these news outlets after McCain had already met with Comey and given him the dossier and Kramer had confirmed with both of them that it had happened. It would seem to me that if Kramer really thought the publication of the dossier could result in "people being killed," why in the hell would they want him to talk with all of these reporters? Including Carl Bernstein and then a slime rag like Buzzfeed, for heaven's sakes.

As to Buzzfeed, Bensinger is meeting with Kramer in Kramer's office. Kramer has 16 pieces, not the 17th piece, of the dossier at that point. Bensinger asks if he could take pictures of the pages on his phone. Kramer tells him no, but then leaves him alone in the room with his phone and the dossier for 20-30 minutes? And then pretends to be shocked to discover Bensinger had in fact taken photos when BuzzFeed published them? Just stupid.

Also, it has now been over two years that all of these news organizations have had this information, not the mention the FBI, CIA and Team Mueller and still no verification. That's a massive amount of resources being thrown at this to have so little result.

Will be interesting to read how Steele comes across in his deposition. He'll either sound like a complete dodo bird, stuck in the Cold War seeing a Russian spy behind every tree, or a guy who is genuinely confused why no one has been able to verify his crackerjack work, or both.

One last thing that struck me as very very odd. At one point, Steele shows Kramer a page with Steele's supposed Russian sources and Kramer recognizes the names. Kramer is an academic working in think tanks, not a spook. If he recognized the names, they are well-known people and not deep undercover sources, in my view.

I suppose it's possible that some head of a Russian intelligence service, for example, is a double agent but I doubt it. The reason I doubt it is that Kramer says Steele anxiously wants to get his hands on an alleged videotape that shows Trump in a compromising position in a Moscow hotel but doesn't know how. That doesn't indicate his "sources" are that high up in Russian intelligence community.

Thx

will25u said:

---

benchmark said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

The number of POTUS tweets/Q posts within a 1 minute delta is significant. I took two statistics courses in grad school, but no longer have occasion to crunch numbers. However, it seems highly improbable that's POTUS and Q would post nearly at the same time over the course of two years.

---

So, out of 1,000 Q-posts ... about how many are we talking about here?

---

I don't know statistics, so have no idea how one would figure it out... BUT.

Since Oct. 28, 2017
Q posts - 3075
DJT Tweets - 4789
Within a minute posts - ~20

The within a minute posts are with Q posting first and Trump posting within a minute of Q's post.

---

This is what counts as proof? I see this brought up all the time....Q posts right before Trump! 20/3075 times....or about 1/2 a percent of the time. It sure would take some serious analysis to figure out the most likely time for Trump to post and then get it right .5% of the time (sarcasm)

Quote:

---

Kramer said he expressed concern with photographs being taken: "I said to him that even though I'm a bit of a Luddite, I don't understand technology, I always worry that things electronically like that could inadvertently be spread around, and I said that that would not be good."

Bensinger replied that "he was a slow reader, he wanted to read it."

Kramer then walked out of the room for half an hour, leaving Bensinger alone with his camera phone and the unverified material: "I said, you know, I got a phone call to make, and I had to go to the bathroom, so I'll let you be because I don't read well when people are looking at me breathing down my neck, and so I left him to read for 20, 30 minutes."

It was during this time that Kramer said Bensinger photographed all 35 pages of the dossier. Kramer claimed Bensinger never told him about publishing the dossier and that he didn't know photos had been taken of it until BuzzFeed published it. He said if he'd known BuzzFeed would publish the dossier then he never would've shown it to Bensinger.

---

Link: Washington Examiner

What a bunch of hooey. Discredits everything else in the Kramer testimony.

PrimeTime09 said:

---

This is what counts as proof? I see this brought up all the time....Q posts right before Trump! 20/3075 times....or about 1/2 a percent of the time. It sure would take some serious analysis to figure out the most likely time for Trump to post and then get it right .5% of the time (sarcasm)

---

We have a friendly poker game every Sat night ... and he's invited. LOL

benchmark said:

---

PrimeTime09 said:

---

This is what counts as proof? I see this brought up all the time....Q posts right before Trump! 20/3075 times....or about 1/2 a percent of the time. It sure would take some serious analysis to figure out the most likely time for Trump to post and then get it right .5% of the time (sarcasm)

---

We have a friendly poker game every Sat night ... and he's invited. LOL

---

Enlighten me.

ETA: Just realized you may have not directed that towards me.

PrimeTime09 said:

---

will25u said:

---

benchmark said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

The number of POTUS tweets/Q posts within a 1 minute delta is significant. I took two statistics courses in grad school, but no longer have occasion to crunch numbers. However, it seems highly improbable that's POTUS and Q would post nearly at the same time over the course of two years.

---

So, out of 1,000 Q-posts ... about how many are we talking about here?

---

I don't know statistics, so have no idea how one would figure it out... BUT.

Since Oct. 28, 2017
Q posts - 3075
DJT Tweets - 4789
Within a minute posts - ~20

The within a minute posts are with Q posting first and Trump posting within a minute of Q's post.

---

This is what counts as proof? I see this brought up all the time....Q posts right before Trump! 20/3075 times....or about 1/2 a percent of the time. It sure would take some serious analysis to figure out the most likely time for Trump to post and then get it right .5% of the time (sarcasm)

---

I am sure it is not that simple. What is the base chance that two random people who have tweeted and posted those amount of times would have even managed it 1 time? Much less 20 times.

There are 724,320 minutes between Oct 28, 2017 and now. Which means there is a 1/235 chance that Q posted in a specific minute. And a 1/151 chance Trump tweeted. Not sure where to go from there to find out the probability that both would tweet in the same minute. And then multiply by 20?

ETA - I don't know if I am on the right path or not.

BTY, beginning at the bottom of Page 80 & including the beginning of Page 81, Kramer says:

Quote:

---

"Well, I am one of the Republicans who signed two letters saying that Mr. Trump was unit to be president."

---

will25u said:

---

PrimeTime09 said:

---

will25u said:

---

benchmark said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

The number of POTUS tweets/Q posts within a 1 minute delta is significant. I took two statistics courses in grad school, but no longer have occasion to crunch numbers. However, it seems highly improbable that's POTUS and Q would post nearly at the same time over the course of two years.

---

So, out of 1,000 Q-posts ... about how many are we talking about here?

---

I don't know statistics, so have no idea how one would figure it out... BUT.

Since Oct. 28, 2017
Q posts - 3075
DJT Tweets - 4789
Within a minute posts - ~20

The within a minute posts are with Q posting first and Trump posting within a minute of Q's post.

---

This is what counts as proof? I see this brought up all the time....Q posts right before Trump! 20/3075 times....or about 1/2 a percent of the time. It sure would take some serious analysis to figure out the most likely time for Trump to post and then get it right .5% of the time (sarcasm)

---

I am sure it is not that simple. What is the base chance that two random people who have tweeted and posted those amount of times would have even managed it 1 time? Much less 20 times.

There are 724,320 minutes between Oct 28, 2017 and now. Which means there is a 1/235 chance that Q posted in a specific minute. And a 1/151 chance Trump tweeted. Not sure where to go from there to find out the probability that both would tweet in the same minute. And then multiply by 20?

ETA - I don't know if I am on the right path or not.

---

It's not that complicated. You're ignoring the fact that it's not random...."Q" would be trying to post just prior to Trump tweeting...which if you look at when Trump tweets (I haven't) there are certainly very strong correlations (He's presumably awake, it's during the morning/evening news, weekdays). It wouldn't be hard to have a .5% success rate...either way I doubt I'll convince you of anything. I just think it's hilarious that this is considered a "strong proof."

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/434054-the-damning-proof-of-innocence-that-fbi-likely-withheld-in-russian-probe

Quote:

---

The damning proof of innocence that FBI likely withheld in Russian probe

---

Good read. Page & Papadopoulos both provided exculpatory evidence to Halper before any FISA was issued wherein they claimed innocence of any collusion with Russian officials, plus Page sent a letter to Comey protesting that he had never met with any sanctioned Russian officials...& according to officials who have read the FISA application, no details concerning the latter statements/events were included in the application.

http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/15/strzok-testimony-suggests-steele-dossier-help-launch-fbis-trump-investigation/

More questions arising concerning what role Gaeta played prior to the opening of Crossfire Hurricane on July 29, 2016. I guess we won't know until his transcript is released...if it is, I am guessing there will be redacted portions.

PrimeTime09 said:

---

Quote:

---

This is what counts as proof? I see this brought up all the time....Q posts right before Trump! 20/3075 times....or about 1/2 a percent of the time. It sure would take some serious analysis to figure out the most likely time for Trump to post and then get it right .5% of the time (sarcasm)

---

---

Wrong thread. Take it to your crybaby thread.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

PrimeTime09 said:

---

Quote:

---

This is what counts as proof? I see this brought up all the time....Q posts right before Trump! 20/3075 times....or about 1/2 a percent of the time. It sure would take some serious analysis to figure out the most likely time for Trump to post and then get it right .5% of the time (sarcasm)

---

---

Wrong thread. Take it to your crybaby thread.

---

I'm not the one who brought it up, bubba.

Quote:

---

More questions arising concerning what role Gaeta played prior to the opening of Crossfire Hurricane on July 29, 2016. I guess we won't know until his transcript is released...if it is, I am guessing there will be redacted portions.

---

Want to bet Steele and/or Simpson had previous ties to Gaeta?

This is what makes it all so confusing. Steele and Simpson were running around like chickens with their heads cut off telling any one and every one they could about this stupid dossier, including multiple contacts with/through the FBI and CIA.

For a former spook like Steele, you pass info up the chain of command and wait. You don't go running to the press to complain they aren't acting fast enough.

This is a great read. Brian Cates(@drawandstrike) has a great mind(so I think) in regards to this Mueller SC.

Thanks for posting...here's the unroll for easy reading.

And LOL that Buzzfeed.....BUZZFEED....screwed the pooch on their plan. That is just awesome.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1106517320795635712.html

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

More questions arising concerning what role Gaeta played prior to the opening of Crossfire Hurricane on July 29, 2016. I guess we won't know until his transcript is released...if it is, I am guessing there will be redacted portions.

---

Want to bet Steele and/or Simpson had previous ties to Gaeta?

This is what makes it all so confusing. Steele and Simpson were running around like chickens with their heads cut off telling any one and every one they could about this stupid dossier, including multiple contacts with/through the FBI and CIA.

For a former spook like Steele, you pass info up the chain of command and wait. You don't go running to the press to complain they aren't acting fast enough.

---

Another thing about Gaeta - he was stationed at the US Embassy in Rome. Link University also had a Rome campus where occasionally FBI personnel would lecture via the US Embassy. Perhaps Gaeta was familiar with the Link campus. Who do we know who was affiliated with this Link campus? Mifsud.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/key-russian-contact-in-the-collusion-narrative-tied-to-western-intelligence-instead_2548079.html

Quote:

---

Another thing about Gaeta - he was stationed at the US Embassy in Rome. Link University also had a Rome campus where occasionally FBI personnel would lecture via the US Embassy. Perhaps Gaeta was familiar with the Link campus. Who do we know who was affiliated with this Link campus? Mifsud.

---

And no one knows where Mifsud is, except maybe Papadopoulus. And I think you are correct. These folks all ran in the same circles, even if they had different (overt and covert) roles to play.

But back to Kramer. I had to laugh and roll my eyes at the description of how he was supposed to recognize Steele at Heathrow. Carrying a Financial Times newspaper and wearing a blue coat. It was freaking November, everyone would have coats on and many would likely also be carrying the Times. Just had that ooooh-double-naught-spy touch.

aggiehawg said:

---

I had to laugh and roll my eyes at the description of how he was supposed to recognize Steele at Heathrow. Carrying a Financial Times newspaper and wearing a blue coat. It was freaking November, everyone would have coats on and many would likely also be carrying the Times. Just had that ooooh-double-naught-spy touch.

---

Hell, I'VE even worn a blue coat while carrying the Financial Times at Heathrow in November.

So you're Steele!

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

I had to laugh and roll my eyes at the description of how he was supposed to recognize Steele at Heathrow. Carrying a Financial Times newspaper and wearing a blue coat. It was freaking November, everyone would have coats on and many would likely also be carrying the Times. Just had that ooooh-double-naught-spy touch.

---

Hell, I'VE even worn a blue coat while carrying the Financial Times at Heathrow in November.

---

Exactly.

Interesting.

Quote:

---

In an effort to bolster the Steele dossier, Fusion GPS, the firm that commissioned the infamous report, tapped one of its contractors to investigate a Russian businessman accused of hacking Democrats' computer systems.

But that contractor, a Russia expert named Edward Baumgartner, came back with something that was perhaps disappointing to Fusion GPS. According to an internal Fusion GPS report obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation, Baumgartner's Russian sources painted the Russian, Aleksej Gubarev, in largely positive terms. Unlikely, the sources claimed, had Gubarev taken part in the hacking operation, as former British spy Christopher Steele claimed in his dossier.

---

Quote:

---

"Our interviews of people familiar with Gubarev paint a picture of a relatively well-known person in the IT sector with an entirely positive reputation as a successful self-made entrepreneur," reads the five-page report, which was provided as evidence in a lawsuit that Gubarev filed against BuzzFeed News.

"Our sources were uncertain about Gubarev's alleged ties to the hacking and collection of compromising material on Trump. Their lack of certainty is entirely understandable given the highly secretive nature of intelligence work, on the one hand, and the technical difficulty of establishing someone's potential ties to hacking."

---

LINK

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

I had to laugh and roll my eyes at the description of how he was supposed to recognize Steele at Heathrow. Carrying a Financial Times newspaper and wearing a blue coat. It was freaking November, everyone would have coats on and many would likely also be carrying the Times. Just had that ooooh-double-naught-spy touch.

---

Hell, I'VE even worn a blue coat while carrying the Financial Times at Heathrow in November.

---

Well, that explains a lot!

Well, crap! They only released a few pages of Steele's deposition.

LINK

drcrinum said:

---

BTY, beginning at the bottom of Page 80 & including the beginning of Page 81, Kramer says:

Quote:

---

"Well, I am one of the Republicans who signed two letters saying that Mr. Trump was unit to be president."

---

---

I don't want to catch a ban for what I really want to say, but I don't miss McCain at all!

I believe that last reference was after Adm. Rogers shut down the NSA contractor queries (possibly Nellie Ohr or associates?) and FISA warrants had to be obtained to keep snooping.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I believe that last reference was after Adm. Rogers shut down the NSA contractor queries (possibly Nellie Ohr or associates?) and FISA warrants had to be obtained to keep snooping.

---

That's how I read it too...funny that Strzok used a term very close to wire tapping.

I think he was just contrasting the ability to search vast troves of captured data with the now old fashioned necessity to target and listen in on specific persons' conversations and even use human assets.

Prognightmare said:

---

I don't want to catch a ban for what I really want to say, but I don't miss McCain at all!

---

Yet, we had to vote for him in 2008 and Romney in 2012 ...still trying to get the taste out of my mouth..

Agreed