|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Posted on 03/04/2019 11:19:25 AM PST by ransomnote
“Trust The Plan” YouTube Where We Go 1 We Go All Qanon is 100% coming from the Trump Administration. - 6 min YouTube President Trump This Video Will Get Donald Trump Elected (The Plan) - 6 min Table tang-soo et. al. Q Boot Camp Quickest way to learn the basics about Q. YouTube Storm Is Upon Us Q - We Are The Plan - 6 min YouTube Dan Duval Discovering the Truth With Dan Duval-Part 3 -Excellent orientation to Q by Praying Medic YouTube Joe Masepoes Q - The Plan To Save The World - 13 min - popular introduction Also, Stormisuponus on Bitchute Threadreader Jason Wright Q Anon Is Real - Oct, Nov 2017 Q drops + commentary Paul Serran What is Q? - 31 point introduction Medium Martin Geddes WWG1WGA: The greatest communications event in history - 4 min - quick overview “Pay Attention” Thread Qmap.pub Q drops - created by Q, searchable by date or drop number, many additional features Thread Qanon.app Q drops - copied from Q’s 8chan board Website We-go-all.net Q drops and research - includes extensive resources and links Website Qntmpkts.keybase.pub Q drops - copied from Q’s 8chan board “The Truth Is Spreading” Thread Anonymous QProofs - compiled “proofs” that Q has trusted insider access to President Trump Thread Qmap.pub QProofs/Memes - compiled “proofs” and memes The Oracle Bagster The Oracle - warm and witty summaries of each day's thread Lexicon Swordmaker LexiQon - immense list of expanded acronyms and terms used by Q; invaluable reference Website Whitehouse Whitehouse.gov - President Trump's Executive Orders, Proclamations, Nominations, WH press briefings and news Website FBI vault.fbi.gov - new FOIA Library, containing 6,700 documents and other media Website State Dept. foia.state.gov - Virtual Reading Room Documents Search Table FReeQs Q Threads - Our prior Q threads on Free Republic “Power to the People” Sara Carter Fox News National Security/War Correspondent sometimes cited by Q John Solomon Award winning investigative journalist sometimes cited by Q Praying Medic Q-drop reactions. Also, YouTube, Vimeo, Podbean.com and ITunes YouTube Dustin Nemos Series of videos identifying Q content - Well reasoned; excellent. Also, @NemoV on GAB.AI Website Saul Montes-Bradley Non Q Commentary also hosting Rex, Brian Cates and Thomas Wictor YouTube X22 Report Investigative Q-drop reactions YouTube In Pursuit of Truth Brisk, lively drop analysis. Also on Gab.Ai Lisa Mei Crowley Includes Q-drop reactions. Also, @lisamei62 on GAB.AI “Silent Majority No More” Website White House Email the White House with your support and suggestions Website Congress Email Congress with your support and suggestions Thread Little Jeremiah Memes Thread Jim Robinson Board Owner's Rules for Posts on Free Republic “Fight, Fight, Fight! ” YouTube President Reagan A Time for Choosing - 3 min - 1964 speech set to Matthew Worth’s images
National emergencies act case decided by supreme Court in 1983
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/462/919
Court upheld to overturn a presidential veto it required 2/3 vote in BOTH house and senate
And even WAPO knows it
Trump can declare a national emergency to build his wall — and that should scare us
Congress has given the president far too much power to declare emergencies
I read through the memo of p’s and a’s filed by the Trump Campaign, skimming through much of it but focusing on the parts that seemed like they might state that the DNC fabricated the hack. I didn’t see anywhere in the filing that said or intimated that. It would be unusual to state it in this type of motion, because a motion to dismiss a complaint is required to assume that the facts asserted in the complaint are true. As a result, you have to recite the plaintiff’s facts and then say, even assuming they are true, the complaint still fails to state a legitimate legal “cause of action”.
The Trump Campaign did that, assuming the DNC’s claims that the DNC was hacked by Russia, and the other allegations as true. For example, in the summary of the argument at the beginning of the brief:
“Many of the legal issues in this case turn on the distinction between (1) stealing documents and (2) disclosing documents that someone else previously stole. It is thus essential to emphasize at the outset: The SAC alleges only that the Campaign conspired to disclose documents that someone else—namely, Russia—previously stole. The SAC does not allege that the Campaign itself stole any documents, or even that it conspired to steal any documents.”
.................
Then, later, in the section devoted to stating that the Campaign had not committed any predicate acts, i.e., any actions that are among the ones listed in the RICO statute as being the criminal actions that are conducted by an enterprise which will give it RICO liability (mail fraud, wire fraud, extortion, murder, and many others), the Trump Campaign said the following:
“In fact, the DNC’s allegations affirmatively refute any such inference. As explained above (supra pp. 5–7), the DNC does not allege that the Campaign had any role in stealing—or conspiring to steal—materials from the DNC. Nor does the DNC plausibly allege that the Campaign reached any agreement to disseminate stolen DNC materials. In fact, it does not even claim any American had communications even potentially related to disseminating materials until after Russia and WikiLeaks had already begun such disseminations. It alleges that Mifsud told Papadopoulos about emails “that could harm Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign” “[o]n April 26, 2016” (SAC ¶ 94), but the DNC does not claim that Papadopoulos discussed disseminating those (or any other) emails—let alone that the Campaign formed any agreement to do so. The DNC then claims that Stone began trying to contact Assange “[o]n July 25, 2016”—after both Russia and WikiLeaks had already begun disseminating stolen DNC materials, “[o]n June 15, 2016,” and “July 22, 2016,” respectively. Id. ¶¶ 147, 156, 162. To be clear, Stone was not a Campaign employee, and the DNC does not claim that he was acting as an agent of the Campaign. Regardless, the DNC offers no basis for concluding that the Campaign conspired with Russia and WikiLeaks to do what those entities were already doing. The DNC is thus unable to sustain its allegations that the Campaign joined any conspiracy.”
I do not see anywhere in the filing where the Trump campaign says what True Pundit claims it says. It accepts the premise of a Russian hack, and points out numerous reasons why the DNC’s case fails to make a legal case against the Trump campaign.
Also to be noted, the motion relates to “COUNTS II, III, IV, VIII, XII, AND XIV” of the DNC’s complaint. I don’t know what the situation is with Counts I, V, VI, VII, IX, X, XI, and XII. It is possible that those are not pleaded against the Trump Campaign, or that those are claims that are properly pleaded, that Trump will have to go to trial to disprove.
“Did Russia hack the DNC? No, according to the filing, which asserts the DNC fabricated the hack.”
*************************************************************************************
I am reminded of the Thomas Wictor article where he asserts that there are Judas Goats in the DNC.
Filing this lawsuit seems like a good way for Trump Legal Team to get all sorts of discovery/documentation of the real story here.
MOAR POPCORN!
Currently #14 in ALL books on Amazon.
Could be #1 by the end of the week.
MSM can't stop themselves from promoting Q.
😎🇺🇸https://t.co/odd35WbLJq— Praying Medic (@prayingmedic) March 5, 2019
Then build the wall. After that Congress can rein in the power to declare emergencies some.
Re Ocrazio drinking game:
And get us a few beers to keep the Oracle going!
Re Nadler “just knowing”:
“He is mediocre to the last degree, though as obnoxious and self-satisfied as was his father before him.”
You could stand next to Hillary and swing a dead cat, and hit more than 81 felons. Mr. Nadler, have you no decensy?
It certainly seems to weaken DJT’s Constitutional position in the final court outcome.
******************************************************************************************
I actually heard the whole statement made by the turtle. He said that he expected the President to veto it, but that he did not think there were enough votes to over ride the veto.
Thus, Congressional requirements are met. Their “will” is not enough to over ride the President. End of story for the legislature. That’s the way the constitution goes.
So the strategy is a failure, as far as I can see. The real concern is Roberts-will someone be twisting his arm like for the ACA?? TBD
I really cannot take much more of “catholic” leaders forcing abortion down our throats.
Do these people go to Mass?
When did they become “catholic?”
Did they say they are just to get votes?
I am beyond sickened.
Mark
I agree. Anything the anons can decode, the enemy could also.
The left makes everything about sloppy sex.
better thought:
Trump as a porcupine bursting the balloons of the left.
Page 50- It is particularly telling that, even though the DNC hired “a cybersecurity technology firm” to “investigate the attack” and conduct a “forensic analysis of the DNC’s computer network”, the DNC pleads interception only “upon information and belief”***
{From https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5758381-Memorandum-of-Law-in-Support-of-Motion.html -
Case l:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 227 Filed 03/04/19 Pagel of 63
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, et al.
Defendants.
___________________________________________________________
. . . . SAC thus alleges only that Russian agents gained access to stored communications—not that they intercepted communications contemporaneously with the communications’ transmission.
The DNC attempts to solve this problem by alleging, “[u]pon information and belief,” that Russian agents “monitored”—or at least had “access” that would “allow [them] to monitor”—DNC communications “in realtime,” “simultaneously with their transmission.” SAC ¶¶ 103, 128, 129. This does not suffice. First, a complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A complaint also must plead “factual content,” and not just “conclusory statements” that parrot “the elements of a cause of action.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The DNC’s allegations simply assert the legal conclusion that the hackers “intercepted” emails, but do not back up that legal conclusion with factual allegations that the hackers obtained any particular communications contemporaneously with their transmission. These allegations thus fail to provide fair notice as to what the DNC’s claim is. The Campaign and the Court have no way to determine whether the DNC has plausibly alleged that communications were intercepted at all, whether the Campaign knew or had reason to know of any such interception, or whether the Campaign made any use of the supposedly intercepted communications.
Second, the DNC’s allegations in all events do not establish that the Campaign “kn[ew] or ha[d] reason to know that the information was obtained through ... interception.” § 2511(1)(d). The SAC nowhere alleges that the Campaign knew or should have known that Russian agents acquired the emails contemporaneously with the emails’ transmission. It is particularly telling that, even though the DNC hired “a cybersecurity technology firm” to “investigate the attack” and conduct a “forensic analysis of the DNC’s computer network” (SAC ¶¶ 110-11), the DNC pleads interception only “[u]pon information and belief” (id. ¶¶ 103, 128, 129). If the DNC cannot tell whether there was an interception, the Campaign surely cannot have known or had reason to know there was an interception.
. . . . . . . . . . . . {END p. 50} . . . . . . . . . . . .
Liberals “. . . are many, varied, ever-changing, and eternal. Fighting them is like fighting a many-headed monster, which, each time a neck is severed, sprouts a head even fiercer and cleverer than before. You are fighting that which is unfixed, mutating, indestructible.”
ping for later reading.
Good find. It’s at page 50 of the PDF, but page 40 of the Memo of P’s and A’s. They do in fact send a shot across the bow of the DNC.
It will be interesting to see if the DNC claims can survive hearsay and best evidence objections. It’s hearsay because Crowdstrike will be testifying as to what documentary said, instead of letting the server show it, and best evidence, because Crowdstrike won’t have the server available, but will instead go by some kind of records that it has.
Persistent buggar ain’t he.
I really cannot take much more of “catholic” leaders forcing abortion down our throats.
Do these people go to Mass?
When did they become “catholic?”
Did they say they are just to get votes?
I am beyond sickened.
**************************************************************************************
CINOs - Catholics In Name Only?
Leaders who lead their people astray or ignore God’s laws will pay dearly in this life, or on judgement day.
It truly is sickening what is happening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
