Posted on 01/29/2019 10:00:19 PM PST by ransomnote
Regarding PA...
“He may be the most Planned Parenthood-connected governor in American history. Wolf is the first governor in the country to have volunteered for Planned Parenthood as a “clinic escort”—a person who accompanies (encourages? convinces?) women potentially seeking an abortion past sidewalk protesters. They are the deal-closers of the abortion business.”
http://thefederalist.com/2015/05/18/kermit-gosnells-bureaucratic-enabler-just-got-promoted/
“””I thank you for your great research and thoughts. Pondering...”””
Afterthought: I wonder how the hardcore autists and anons who have lived/breathed Q 24/7 from 4 to 8ch and crave “walk among us” from members of Q or Q+ and believe “no comms outside this board” would feel after learning Q+ was over on /pol having a chit-chat?
I should get an award for longest run on sentence. But wait! I’m sure I can string one longer. ;)
Okay, that second tweet...
Confirms Anon/FREEQ understandings and...BOOM to DS-GOP. He is calling them out as colluding to throw the goober el3ction in VA.
No wonder the douche-bag retired!
Can’t one person have more than one indictments?
Which douche-bag retired? I know hundreds were laid off.
Thank you. I did read something about the mach something patterns visible. Sounds as though you would know about stuff like that.
Webb certainly makes sense about the Awans having access to the DNC email security - circumstantial but compelling. It is obvious that Mueller wants Stone to do a Cohen and spill the beans by lying... good grief, who does Cohen run to for legal help: Hillary Clinton. Could there be a more obvious frame up?
We will see how Stone weathers the storm. ⚖️
Why now??? More D diversion?
https://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/local-news/i-team-former-sen-reid-calls-for-congressional-hearings-into-ufos/1743467461
Did Nancy watch CNN’s coverage of this and believe it when CNN identified him as a Republican? Have her aides not told her he is a Democrat?
Poor Nancy, She is always so confused.
He should have quit while he was ahead not that I give a darn what happens to him.
Q
Speakeasy Ryan.
Not bad but the term “radical left” should be replaced with “social democrats”.
Troof in davertising.
One person likely has a bunch of indictments, so it’s likely not that many people, but still a lot. So far they seem to be rolling them out slowly-like the Big DEM Union guy that just got indicted.
I’m thinking of breadcrumbs...first little case...leading to another case... leading to a bigger case...and so forth. Maybe there’s not going to be a massive takedown all at once, just a slow rollup —letting people adjust as they go along rolling up the networks?
Someone - was it greeneyes - very recently mentioned this.
http://dcwhispers.com/did-obama-pay-journos-for-positive-coverage-and-to-attack-trump-why-yes-yes-he-did/
*****************************************************************************
Yes, not this article, but I did mention our Ministry of Truth that was sneaky snake passed in NDAA right before Christmas, and the rumor that was likely connected to the journalist firings.
gisd O
>> Can’t one person have more than one indictments?
Yes. And one sealed indictment can also name more than one person or entity.
So there is not a one-to-one match of indictments with people.
But I’d say that with 75,000 indictments, a good estimate is that there are 75,000 people named. JMO.
I fully expect that certain people are going to be named in multiple indictments, but imagine if every single one names HRC, do you think she managed to commit 75,000 crimes all by herself? I would expect that if certain people are named multiple times (and I expect they are) that many of the indictments that name them also name others with whom s/he was working.
And I’d expect a really busy criminal who is active in multiple areas to have different criminal partners in different areas. So one group of partners for drug crimes, another group for human trafficking, etc. Even with overlap, I expect a LOT of names.
Another thing I’ve been thinking about....
Assume for a moment that there are 75,000 people responsible for all the corruption in the USA out of a population of 300 million. That’s 0.025% of the population. That means that 99.975% of the population is NOT corrupt and that 0.025% has been abusing the other 99.975%.
I just looked up the US population and one site says it’s 328 million. (No idea if that counts illegals or what.) That means an even smaller percentage of the population has been abusing us.
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.