Q doesn’t like it when illegal aliens vote


Q wrote:

Q!!mG7VJxZNCI
Q!!mG7VJxZNCI
https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1095051195658522625📁
Let’s actually use ‘FACTS’:
Step One: Hype an invented threat of POTUS working w/ the RUSSIANS (disinformation campaign).
Step Two: Send FBI/DOJ/CONGRESS/SENATE/C_A/NSA/INTEL/FVEY/etc… to address and investigate the IMAGINARY THREAT.
Step Three: Justify the ‘SPECIAL COUNSEL’ and MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS SPENT as necessary to protect the public and our election process against an imaginary, made-up, non-existent threat (which really is) designed to protect the illegal activities of many elected officials.
Step Four: Open ‘new’ Fake & False investigations as CHAIRMAN of the House Intel Comm to retain disinformation campaign designed to keep liberal/D Americans onboard to regain POWER & PREVENT prosecution – Executive Time!
Q
>>5127462
Life Lesson – [AS]
The next time you ‘leak’ classified information, don’t have your phone (or allow phones of the ‘unknown’ go-between ‘students’) present.
FISA works both ways.
Q
Q!!mG7VJxZNCI
https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1095051195658522625📁
Let’s actually use ‘FACTS’:
Step One: Hype an invented threat of POTUS working w/ the RUSSIANS (disinformation campaign).
Step Two: Send FBI/DOJ/CONGRESS/SENATE/C_A/NSA/INTEL/FVEY/etc… to address and investigate the IMAGINARY THREAT.
Step Three: Justify the ‘SPECIAL COUNSEL’ and MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS SPENT as necessary to protect the public and our election process against an imaginary, made-up, non-existent threat (which really is) designed to protect the illegal activities of many elected officials.
Step Four: Open ‘new’ Fake & False investigations as CHAIRMAN of the House Intel Comm to retain disinformation campaign designed to keep liberal/D Americans onboard to regain POWER & PREVENT prosecution – Executive Time!
Q

###


https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-fbi-general-counsel-talked-to-hillary-clintons-lawyer-about-comeys-letter-on-weiner-laptop-clinton-emails/

Baker’s heads up on the Kendall call was sent to:

Then-Director James Comey; since fired;

Then-Associate Deputy Director David Bowdich, who later replaced Andrew McCabe as deputy director;

Michael Steinbach, the F.B.I.’s former executive assistant director for national security;

Then-Assistant Director of Counterintelligence E.W. Priestap, now retired;

James Rybicki, former chief of staff to Comey;

FBI intelligence analyst Jonathan Moffa;

Former Acting Assistant Director Jason V. Herring;

Michael Kortan, FBI assistant director for public affairs, now retired;

Former principal deputy general counsel Trisha Anderson;

Strzok and Page

Does the list above look familiar?

Re_read drops re: FBI ‘Midyear’ OIG ……. & review graphics.

Q
###

VoterFraud.jpg

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/acting-attorney-general-and-secretary-homeland-security-submit-joint-report-impact-foreign📁
[Only when the election harms the D party will they claim foreign interference]
Keyword: ‘Foreign’
What about Domestic interference?
>Non-Cit votes by county
>Non-Cit promo by county
>Non-Cit org by county
>Targeted districts breakdown by ‘Non-Cit’ data acc
>Voter irregularities [internal]
>(-2) Laws enacted in battleground areas as test for 2020 (voter roll screening/review of non_votes (D) > ballot pop > track for sign > submit late for count) – vote swing figures + rule of law (new standard of no show vote SC 2019 scope case?)
Why do D’s push for NO VOTER ID in U.S. elections?
Why do D’s push for OPEN BORDERS?
Find the connection.
Sometimes a MAP helps.
What SC decision (6-3) ruled VOTER ID did NOT suppress votes or deter minorities?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-court/supreme-court-upholds-photo-id-voting-law-idUSWAT00940020080428📁
What (FALSE) ‘narrative’ is pushed by D’s re: VOTER ID LAW?
Racist?
Voter suppression of minority vote?
When is an ID required?
Should an ID not be required at all (for any reason) given the argument made by D’s?
Does the argument ‘A NATIONAL VOTER ID LAW would suppress the minority vote’ suggest minorities are incapable of obtaining an ID?
When is an ID required?
Which minorities are they referring to?
(illegal immigrants?)
Logical thinking.
If there is a previous SC decision on the matter (pre-POTUS Justice conf), would a NATIONAL VOTER ID LAW MANDATE using the SC ruling of 2008 (+ common sense logic/arguments) as the LEGAL FOUNDATION, have merit?
Is every other country that has a VOTER ID LAW considered racist?
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article92593512.html📁
Will the DOJ support the push instead of file legal challenges as [LL] did in the past?
If the SC ruled in 2008 that VOTER ID laws do not impact/harm or prevent ‘minorities’ from voting, how could the U.S. 4th Circuit Court rule opposite?
Is the 4th Circuit Court considered LEFT/Liberal?
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article215247000.html📁
Why do D’s want POWER at all costs?
One example above.
Logical thinking.
#FactsMatter
You are the news now.
Q

VoterFraud.jpg

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/acting-attorney-general-and-secretary-homeland-security-submit-joint-report-impact-foreign📁
[Only when the election harms the D party will they claim foreign interference]
Keyword: ‘Foreign’
What about Domestic interference?
>Non-Cit votes by county
>Non-Cit promo by county
>Non-Cit org by county
>Targeted districts breakdown by ‘Non-Cit’ data acc
>Voter irregularities [internal]
>(-2) Laws enacted in battleground areas as test for 2020 (voter roll screening/review of non_votes (D) > ballot pop > track for sign > submit late for count) – vote swing figures + rule of law (new standard of no show vote SC 2019 scope case?)
Why do D’s push for NO VOTER ID in U.S. elections?
Why do D’s push for OPEN BORDERS?
Find the connection.
Sometimes a MAP helps.
What SC decision (6-3) ruled VOTER ID did NOT suppress votes or deter minorities?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-court/supreme-court-upholds-photo-id-voting-law-idUSWAT00940020080428📁
What (FALSE) ‘narrative’ is pushed by D’s re: VOTER ID LAW?
Racist?
Voter suppression of minority vote?
When is an ID required?
Should an ID not be required at all (for any reason) given the argument made by D’s?
Does the argument ‘A NATIONAL VOTER ID LAW would suppress the minority vote’ suggest minorities are incapable of obtaining an ID?
When is an ID required?
Which minorities are they referring to?
(illegal immigrants?)
Logical thinking.
If there is a previous SC decision on the matter (pre-POTUS Justice conf), would a NATIONAL VOTER ID LAW MANDATE using the SC ruling of 2008 (+ common sense logic/arguments) as the LEGAL FOUNDATION, have merit?
Is every other country that has a VOTER ID LAW considered racist?
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article92593512.html📁
Will the DOJ support the push instead of file legal challenges as [LL] did in the past?
If the SC ruled in 2008 that VOTER ID laws do not impact/harm or prevent ‘minorities’ from voting, how could the U.S. 4th Circuit Court rule opposite?
Is the 4th Circuit Court considered LEFT/Liberal?
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article215247000.html📁
Why do D’s want POWER at all costs?
One example above.
Logical thinking.
#FactsMatter
You are the news now.
Q

Drr-_hrXcAEV77j.jpg

>>5123210
Q!!mG7VJxZNCI
If [AS] has seen ‘evidence’ of collusion and/or POTUS/RUSSIA illegal activities, as he’s stated in the past many times across all D-arm media networks, why then is there a need to open ‘new’ investigations?
What about the so-called ‘evidence’ already seen?
How is [AS] making open statements re: MUELLER not investigating POTUS/Deutsche Bank thorough enough if the MUELLER investigation itself is CLASSIFIED?
How does [AS] know what MUELLER has/hasn’t investigated?
FAKE NEWS DESIGNED TO KEEP THE FAKE NARRATIVE IN PLAY [COVER].
You are witnessing the greatest ‘DISINFORMATION’ campaign to ever be pushed by a political party.
Ask yourself, why?
FEAR of what?
The message must be direct.
The WAR is very real.
Q

###

Judicial Watch wrote:

Judicial Watch announced today it received 215 pages of records from the U.S. Department of Justice revealing former FBI General Counsel James Baker discussed the investigation of Clinton-related emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop with Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall. Baker then forwarded the conversation to his FBI colleagues.

The documents also further describe a previously reported quid pro quo from the Obama State Department offering the FBI more legal attaché positions if it would downgrade a redaction in an email found during the Hillary Clinton email investigation “from classified to something else.”

The newly obtained emails came in response to a May 21 order in a January 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the DOJ failed to respond to a December 4, 2017 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)). Judicial Watch seeks:

  • All records of communications, including but not limited to, emails, text messages and instant chats, between FBI official Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page;
  • All travel requests, travel authorizations, travel vouchers and expense reports of Peter Strzok.
  • All travel requests, travel authorizations, travel vouchers and expense reports of Lisa Page.

On October 28, 2016, the day that Comey sent a letter to Congress regarding the FBI’s discovery that the Weiner laptop contained Clinton’s emails. Hillary Clinton’s personal lawyer David Kendall, within hours, emails Baker requesting a call “ASAP” about the Comey letter. Baker describes his follow-up call to senior FBI officials:

I received the email below from David Kendall and I called him back. Before doing so I alerted DOJ via email that I would do that.

[Redacted paragraph]

He said that our letter was “tantalizingly ambiguous” and made statements that were “inchoate and highly ominous” such that what we had done was worse than transparency because it allows people to make whatever they want out to make out of the letter to the prejudice of Secretary Clinton.

I told him that I could not respond to his requests at this time but that I would discuss it with others and get back to him.

I suggest that we have some kind of follow up meeting or phone call with this group either this evening or over the weekend to address this and probably other issues/questions that come up in the next 24 hours. Sound reasonable?

Baker’s heads up on the Kendall call was sent to:

The emails show that a conference call for the above senior officials was set up for the next day by Peter Strzok. (Two days before the election, on November 6, Comey sent a second letter reporting that the FBI’s review of the Weiner laptop material would not change his “conclusion” that Hillary Clinton should not be prosecuted.)

On October 13, 2016, former FBI attorney Lisa Page sent an email, which apparently references a related Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit and further discusses a previously reported quid pro quo offer from the State Department:

Jason Herring will be providing you with three 302s of current and former FBI employees who were interviewed during the course of the Clinton investigation. These 302s are scheduled to be released to Congress in an unredacted form at the end of the week, and produced (with redactions) pursuant to FOIA at the beginning of next week. As you will see, they describe a discussion about potential quid pro quo arrangement between then-DAD in IOD [deputy assistant director in International Operations Division] and an Undersecretary at the State Department whereby IOD would get more LEGAT [legal attaché] positions if the FBI could change the basis of the FOIA withhold re a Clinton email from classified to something else. [Emphasis added]

The lawsuit also forced the release of a November 6, 2016, email by then-FBI official Peter Strzok telling Bowdich, Priestap, Rybicki, Page, former FBI General Counsel James Baker and others: “[Redacted], Jon and I completed our review of all of the potential HRC work emails on the [Anthony Weiner] laptop. We found no previously unknown, potentially classified emails on the media.”

As Judicial Watch previously reported, there were at least 18 classified emails found on the Weiner laptop by the FBI. Paul Sperry’s RealClear Investigations report revealed that only 3,077 of the 340,000 emails “were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information.”

The new records also include a September 2, 2016, email that Comey forwards containing a press release issued that day by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), in which Grassley criticized the FBI for not publicly releasing many unclassified records related to the Clinton email-server investigation, as demanded by Congress. In his cover note responding to Grassley’s charge, Comey tells his top aides, “To be great is to be misunderstood.” Page then responds with, “Outstanding.”

On October 23, 2016, Strzok forwarded to Page and others the Wall Street Journal article revealing that Andrew McCabe’s wife had received a half million dollars for her Democratic state senate campaign. Page responded that the article, “shaded or omitted or mischaracterized” facts “in order to get out the story [the reporter] wanted to tell.” She claimed the WSJ story was just “another depressing chapter in this whole post-investigation saga.”

“It is big news that, just days before the presidential election, Hillary Clinton’s personal lawyer pressured the top lawyer for the FBI on the infamous Weiner laptop emails,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These documents further underscore that the fix was in for Hillary Clinton. When will the Justice Department and FBI finally do an honest investigation of the Clinton email scandal?”

Last month, United States District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that discovery can begin in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides will now be deposed under oath. Senior officials — including Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, and FBI official E.W. Priestap — will now have to answer Judicial Watch’s written questions under oath. The court rejected the DOJ and State Department’s objections to Judicial Watch’s court-ordered discovery plan. (The court, in ordering a discovery plan last month, ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”)

Judicial Watch’s discovery will seek answers to:

  • Whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a non-government email system;
  • whether the State Department’s efforts to settle this case beginning in late 2014 amounted to bad faith; and
  • whether the State Department adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.

 

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-fbi-general-counsel-talked-to-hillary-clintons-lawyer-about-comeys-letter-on-weiner-laptop-clinton-emails/

This entry was posted in current events. Bookmark the permalink.

comments with fewer than 4 links should be auto-approved if everything works properly...

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.