NOTICE THE DATES!!!!!

Dec 22, 2017!!

And here is where the ENTIRE thing was all shown to us, but in "Q" code:

Knowing what we all know now, you can read the entire scheme of SPYGATE and understand what happened.



Later someone deciphered the code and filled in the blanks of the players that we dropped

Im not very bright, can you decipher for me?

Posted excerpts on the Flynn thread but read this Federalist article about another failing of Covington, Burling lawyers and Flynn's potential for Congressional immunity and what that meant.

LINK

Holler at me if you still have questions after reading.

aggiehawg said:

---

Posted excerpts on the Flynn thread but read this Federalist article about another failing of Covington, Burling lawyers and Flynn's potential for Congressional immunity and what that meant.

LINK

Holler at me if you still have questions after reading.

---

I understand about the addition failing of Covington & Burling, but it sounds like had Flynn testified before Congress circa April 2017, he likely never would have fallen under Mueller's thumb.

drcrinum said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Posted excerpts on the Flynn thread but read this Federalist article about another failing of Covington, Burling lawyers and Flynn's potential for Congressional immunity and what that meant.

LINK

Holler at me if you still have questions after reading.

---

I understand about the addition failing of Covington & Burling, but it sounds like had Flynn testified before Congress circa April 2017, he likely never would have fallen under Mueller's thumb.

---

That is certainly a distinct possibility given the Oliver North precedent.

But there is also a risk of implicating himself in another area. And Covington, Burling was still in contact with government lawyers over the FARA filing on the Inovo deal in early spring 2017. So that could have been another consideration.

In any event, his lawyers failed him yet again.

aggiehawg said:

---

Posted excerpts on the Flynn thread but read this Federalist article about another failing of Covington, Burling lawyers and Flynn's potential for Congressional immunity and what that meant.

LINK

Holler at me if you still have questions after reading.

---

Did Mueller have something on Flynn's original legal team?

Went from gung-ho on Congressional immunity to a complete rejection of it.

With Mueller and company, such activity wouldn't be beyond the pale.

Stlkofta said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Posted excerpts on the Flynn thread but read this Federalist article about another failing of Covington, Burling lawyers and Flynn's potential for Congressional immunity and what that meant.

LINK

Holler at me if you still have questions after reading.

---

Did Mueller have something on Flynn's original legal team?

---

I think they were part of the conspiracy from the beginning. Their actions were never in Flynn's best interest, and they made all sorts of declarations and rejections behind his back and without his knowledge.

Stlkofta said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Posted excerpts on the Flynn thread but read this Federalist article about another failing of Covington, Burling lawyers and Flynn's potential for Congressional immunity and what that meant.

LINK

Holler at me if you still have questions after reading.

---

Did Mueller have something on Flynn's original legal team?

Went from gung-ho on Congressional immunity to a complete rejection of it.

With Mueller and company, such activity wouldn't be beyond the pale.

---

Could be. IDK. If the lawyers were feeling some heat from Team Mueller they didn't say that but it would partially explain some of their actions. Of course ethically, they should have sent Flynn to another firm. And that would be doubly so if they themselves were getting squeezed. Flynn's no longer their client, Mueller has to crap or get off the pot, has lost the leverage.

captkirk said:

---

akm91 said:

---

You know when this whole travesty started way back in 2016, i thought it was outrageous. Never in my wildest dreams thought the corruption and abuse of power would be this widespread and we're just actually scratching the surface it seems.

No way in hell this was a rogue operation by the FBI/CIA/NSA alone. Something this widespread must have had the blessings of the WH. Not sure if there will ever be a way to prove that but I am convinced more than ever that this was orchestrated at the highest levels of the executive branch.

---

---

I both love and hate this pic

Love = sweet seeing these losers out

Hate= just a reminder of how much power the corrupt have had

Speaking of that pic, I viscerally dislike Samantha Power (started to say Stephanie).

Assuming she wasn't telling the truth when she said "someone hacked my computer when everyone was unmasked", does anyone know what statute her crime would be under? The way things go, everything seems to be procedural, which involves a stern letter and reprimand.

fasthorse05 said:

---

Speaking of that pic, I viscerally dislike Samantha Power (started to say Stephanie).

Assuming she wasn't telling the truth when she said "someone hacked my computer when everyone was unmasked", does anyone know what statute her crime would be under? The way things go, everything seems to be procedural, which involves a stern letter and reprimand.

---

Perjury, if she was under oath.

That's the problem with FISA, since it is court ordered, there are no specific penalties for improper abuse. Even if unmasking is done for solely political reasons as was done hundreds if not thousands of times under the Obama administration, if it originated with a Title I FISA warrant, 702 queries are deemed to be under that warrant.

fasthorse05 said:

---

Speaking of that pic, I viscerally dislike Samantha Power (started to say Stephanie).

Assuming she wasn't telling the truth when she said "someone hacked my computer when everyone was unmasked", does anyone know what statute her crime would be under? The way things go, everything seems to be procedural, which involves a stern letter and reprimand.

---

Thats Jen Psaki in the pic. A different ginger haired socialist

Man, that's twice in three days.

I've got identity theft. First I said Tim O'Shea in place of EDMO Jensen, and now Power in place of Psaki.

Thanks guys. Tomorrow is Saturday, so I'll do some studying.

aggiehawg said:

---

Posted excerpts on the Flynn thread but read this Federalist article about another failing of Covington, Burling lawyers and Flynn's potential for Congressional immunity and what that meant.

LINK

Holler at me if you still have questions after reading.

---

I thought this might interest you. Do you think Flynn knew about Kelner's political leanings? At least he wasn't voting for HRC, but was he best buds with another prominent member of Covington & Burling, one Eric Holder?

BMX Bandit said:

---

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

Some folks here have known the details of all of this for 2 years or more.

Any idea where we may have gotten this info? You know the answer to the Q uestion .

---

What a bunch of hippy dippy boloney.

The details are known because of tireless work by several investigators going over tons of FOI documents and court records that put their findings on Twitter & message board.

Not cryptic messages to the Dungeons & Dragons crowd

---

LOL you're babbling.

Quote:

---

I thought this might interest you. Do you think Flynn knew about Kelner's political leanings? At least he wasn't voting for HRC, but was he best buds with another prominent member of Covington & Burling, one Eric Holder?

---

Have no idea. But if it could be demonstrated with emails or texts that Holder came within a mile of the Flynn case, that would open up a whole 'nother can of worms for that law firm. And I don't mean only contacts with Flynn's legal team, I mean Holder contacts with Team Mueller, Rosenstein or others in contact with Team Mueller, like Comey or his LawFare buds. If there was some back channel conspiracy happening and it could be proved, all hell may break loose.

As events are happening and one person can't possibly know all of the moving parts around them, I have to wonder what people like Kelner, Lisa Page, Bill Priestap and James Baker are thinking in retrospect. Denial? Or more of, "Holy crap! I didn't know that at the time! Looks really bad!"

ETA: Had to put a strike thru on Priestap in light of drcrinum's post. Thought the guy had an inkling of right and wrong. Alas, I was wrong about giving him the benefit of the doubt.

https://saraacarter.com/the-almost-debunking-of-christopher-steele-stopped-by-bill-priestap/

Quote:

---

...Normally an enhanced validation review in the FBI is triggered "if a source is paid more than $100,000 per year for information, or the source's information is so critical that it can shape national policy or trigger some sort of diplomatic or military action. In this case, an enhanced validation of Steele would have been the appropriate course of action given the fact that this had the potential to impact our Presidential election. In this context, it becomes very questionable as to why Priestap would shut it down," said the former senior FBI official....


...As for Pientka, he had allegedly been shut down by senior FBI officials from seeking clarity from sources and exercising caution in the investigative steps being undertaken. In particular, Priestap had stopped Pientka from following through with normal FBI protocol to conduct a validation review of Steele directly and of his salacious dossier, something that would normally be a part of the Woods File. Priestap not only blocked Pientka, but he would've more than likely informed former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and former FBI Director James Comey of the transpiring events, because he normally had multiple daily briefings a day with the senior officials on the case, so "it would not be surprising if Priestap's notes, which were unsealed, were in his mind a sort of insurance policy from the malfeasance to protect himself if this ever came to light," the former senior FBI official said.

After Pientka was shut down the first time by Priestap, he went to another senior official within the bureau. He attempted to skirt around Priestap's authority by approaching a Senior Executive in the Directorate of Intelligence "and asked them to perform an enhanced validation review. Pientka, as the investigating Agent, went to that Senior Executive directly because he believed his chain of command, which included Priestap, would deny that request. "That Senior Executive at the Directorate of Intelligence was ultimately asked not to do the enhanced validation by Priestap," said the former FBI official, who noted that the official no longer works for the bureau....

---

This is new to me, an enhanced validation review of Steele. It's from Horowitz's Report. I've just posted small segments of the article.

drcrinum said:

---

https://saraacarter.com/the-almost-debunking-of-christopher-steele-stopped-by-bill-priestap/

Quote:

---

...Normally an enhanced validation review in the FBI is triggered "if a source is paid more than $100,000 per year for information, or the source's information is so critical that it can shape national policy or trigger some sort of diplomatic or military action. In this case, an enhanced validation of Steele would have been the appropriate course of action given the fact that this had the potential to impact our Presidential election. In this context, it becomes very questionable as to why Priestap would shut it down," said the former senior FBI official....


...As for Pientka, he had allegedly been shut down by senior FBI officials from seeking clarity from sources and exercising caution in the investigative steps being undertaken. In particular, Priestap had stopped Pientka from following through with normal FBI protocol to conduct a validation review of Steele directly and of his salacious dossier, something that would normally be a part of the Woods File. Priestap not only blocked Pientka, but he would've more than likely informed former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and former FBI Director James Comey of the transpiring events, because he normally had multiple daily briefings a day with the senior officials on the case, so "it would not be surprising if Priestap's notes, which were unsealed, were in his mind a sort of insurance policy from the malfeasance to protect himself if this ever came to light," the former senior FBI official said.

After Pientka was shut down the first time by Priestap, he went to another senior official within the bureau. He attempted to skirt around Priestap's authority by approaching a Senior Executive in the Directorate of Intelligence "and asked them to perform an enhanced validation review. Pientka, as the investigating Agent, went to that Senior Executive directly because he believed his chain of command, which included Priestap, would deny that request. "That Senior Executive at the Directorate of Intelligence was ultimately asked not to do the enhanced validation by Priestap," said the former FBI official, who noted that the official no longer works for the bureau....

---

This is new to me, an enhanced validation review of Steele. It's from Horowitz's Report. I've just posted small segments of the article.

---

Must do everything "by the book". Except when they don't.

drcrinum said:

---

Short video. Now I understand Wray's role: Protect his buddies.

---

Trump knows if someone is going to replace Wray it's him right?

Sorry, but I got to add one more...

From Oct 31, 2017, Q posted this


eta: Image apparently doesn't load, this should though


Anyone know what kind of boat that is? (not you TBL )

Not loading on my desktop.

Prognightmare said:

---

Not loading on my desktop.

---

It's not loading anywhere.

TripleSec said:

---

Prognightmare said:

---

Not loading on my desktop.

---

It's not loading anywhere.

---

I updated it above

TexAgs91 said:

---

Sorry, but I got to add one more...

From Oct 31, 2017, Q posted this


eta: Image apparently doesn't load, this should though


Anyone know what kind of boat that is? (not you TBL )

---

Durham boat.

https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/07/overlooked-hero-general-john-glover/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_boat

drcrinum said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Sorry, but I got to add one more...

From Oct 31, 2017, Q posted this


eta: Image apparently doesn't load, this should though


Anyone know what kind of boat that is? (not you TBL )

---

Durham boat.

https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/07/overlooked-hero-general-john-glover/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_boat

---

Correct
Durham assumed office the day after this post.

TexAgs91 said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Sorry, but I got to add one more...

From Oct 31, 2017, Q posted this


eta: Image apparently doesn't load, this should though


Anyone know what kind of boat that is? (not you TBL )

---

Durham boat.

https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/07/overlooked-hero-general-john-glover/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_boat

---

Correct
Durham assumed office the day after this post.

---

I think there was also another connection as well... Durham appointed and Q's first drop... Oct 28, 2017.

aggiehawg said:

---

will25u said:

---

I have a question. The second FBI agent that went with Strozk, Joe Pientka, why has he not been seen nor heard of in this whole ordeal?

---

Well, he was shipped out to the San Francisco office for awhile but then he was tracked down and now his name has been removed from web-site for that field office. Current status and whereabouts unknown.

---

He's still an ASAC in SF.

Rapier108 said:

---

Can we please keep the "Q" junk on its thread.

---

Ok. Sorry...

He's right.

Sidney tweeted this a couple of hours ago.

This is an interesting article that confirms Christopher Wray's mastery of situational ethics. When he was an attornoey for WhatsApp he zealously defended the need for end to end encryption in private communications. It confirms to me that he is a man who will defend the institution where he is employed at the moment and has no ethical bedrock.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/30/fbi-head-christopher-wray-opposed-encryption-under-trump-once-defended-whatsapp

Ulysses90 said:

---

This is an interesting article that confirms Christopher Wray's mastery of situational ethics. When he was an attornoey for WhatsApp he zealously defended the need for end to end encryption in private communications. It confirms to me that he is a man who will defend the institution where he is employed at the moment and has no ethical bedrock.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/30/fbi-head-christopher-wray-opposed-encryption-under-trump-once-defended-whatsapp

---

That's just being a good attorney. I don't see an ethically "correct" position in the end-to-end encryption debate. Of course you take your employers position on that.

Plenty of other reasons to despise him. I don't see it here.