Q Anon: 10/07/19 Trust Trump’s Plan ~ Vol.181, Q Day 710

While I continue to believe RR is a black hat, I don’t have evidence for my current theory as to the “why” he was hired when he was.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Dear Fearless Leader,

If that is your only open question, maybe you can answer a few others:

1) Why was "Black hat" RR instrumental in firing Comey, the BIGGEST anti-derp BOOM to date?

2) Why was "Black hat" RR instrumental in removing the insidious and evil McCabe from control of the "Insurance policy" investigation, by setting up the "Inept" Mueller SC?

3) Why did "Black hat" RR get involved in 4th FISA, unless it was to insert the "Smoking gun" assurances and oaths of cabal participants and possibly FVEY into the still-redacted 20 pages? (Admittedly, this is a "Dis" interpretation, yet to be verified.)

4) Why did "Black hat" RR keep the "Inept" Mueller and his "Angry Democrats" away from issues better left to the Barr/Durham/Huber DoJ? (Hint: Wouldn't want to inadvertently inoculate the RATS!)

5) Why did "Black hat" RR's "Mueller gambit" pay off so well for POTUS, keeping the RAT media transfixed for 2 years while he fixed the military, the SCOTUS, the Senate, NAFTA, PPT, Paris, taxes and began building the Wall--ALL ENSURING 2020 re-election?

6) Why did "Black hat" RR become an ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT in the Barr analysis of "NO OBSTRUCTION" burying part II of the Mueller report?

MY CONCLUSION:

"White Hat" RR is at or near GROUND ZERO of the Plan.

I thought I would attempt to extract this PDF here, for the record.
See the original for all the notes and footnotes.
(Wasn’t easy. It came across with entire sentences/paragraphs missing spaces between the words.)

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/PAC-Letter-10.08.2019.pdf

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Speaker
House ofRepresentatives Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Eliot L. Engel Chairman
House Foreign Affairs Committee Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Madam Speaker and Messrs. Chairmen:
The Honorable Adam B. Schiff Chairman
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings Chairman
House Committee on Oversight and Reform Washington, D.C. 20515
THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON
October 8, 2019

I write on behalf of President Donald J. Trump in response to your numerous, legally unsupported demands made as part of what you have labeled-contrary to the Constitution of the United States and all past bipartisan precedent-as an “impeachment inquiry.” As you know, you have designed and implemented your inquiry in a maimer that violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process.

For example, you have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. You have conducted your proceedings in secret.

You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. All of this violates the Constitution, the rule oflaw, and every past precedent. Never before in our history has the House of Representatives-under the control of either political party-taken the American people down the dangerous path you seem determined to pursue.

Put simply, you seek to overturn the results of the 2016 election and deprive the American people of the President they have freely chosen. Many Democrats now apparently view impeachment not only as a means to undo the democratic results of the last election, but as a strategy to influence the next election, which is barely more than a year away. As one member ofCongress explained, he is “concerned that if we don’t impeach the President, he will get reelected.”

Your highly partisan and unconstitutional effort threatens grave and lasting damage to our democratic institutions, to our system of free elections, and to the American people.

Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings
Page 2

For his part, President Trump took the unprecedented step of providing the public transparency by declassifying and releasing the record of his call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine.

The record clearly established that the call was completely appropriate and that there is no basis for your inquiry. The fact that there was nothing wrong with the call was also powerfully confirmed by Chairman Schiffs decision to create a false version of the call and read it to the American people at a congressional hearing, without disclosing that he was simply making it all up.

In addition, information has recently come to light that the whistleblower had contact with Chairman Schiffs office before filing the complaint. His initial denial of such contact caused The Washington Post to conclude that Chairman Schiff ‘clearly made a statement that was false.” In any event, the American people understand that Chairman Schiff cannot covertly assist with the submission of a complaint, mislead the public about his involvement, read a counterfeit version of the call to the American people, and then pretend to sit in judgment as a neutral “investigator.”

For these reasons, President Trump and his Administration reject your baseless, unconstitutional efforts to overturn the democratic process. Your unprecedented actions have left the President with no choice. In order to fulfill his duties to the American people, the Constitution, the Executive Branch, and all future occupants of the Office of the Presidency, President Trump and his Administration cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances.

I. Your “Inquiry” Is Constitutionally Invalid and Violates Basic Due Process Rights and the Separation of Powers.

Your inquiry is constitutionally invalid and a violation of due process. In the history of our Nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the President without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step.

Here, House leadership claims to have initiated the gravest inter-branch conflict contemplated under our Constitution by means of nothing more than a press conference at which the Speaker of the House simply announced an “official impeachment inquiry.” Your contrived process is unprecedented in the

Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings
Page 3

history of the Nation,4 and lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding.

The Committees’ inquity also suffers from a separate, fatal defect. Despite Speaker Pelosi’s commitment to “treat the President with fairness,”6 the Committees have not established any procedures affording the President even the most basic protections demanded by due process under the Constitution and by fundamental fairness.

Chairman Nadler of the House Judiciary Committee has expressly acknowledged, at least when the President was a member of his own party, that “[t]he power of impeachment ... demands a rigorous level of due process,” and that in this context “due process mean[s] ... the right to be informed of the law, of the charges against you, the right to confront the witnesses against you, to call your own witnesses, and to have the assistance of counsel.”

All of these procedures have been abandoned here.

These due process rights are not a matter of discretion for the Committees to dispense with at will. To the contrary, they are constitutional requirements. The Supreme Court has recognized that due process protections apply to all congressional investigations. Indeed, it has been recognized that the Due Process Clause applies to impeachment proceedings. And precedent for the rights to cross-examine witnesses, call witnesses, and present evidence dates back nearly 150 years.

Yet the Committees have decided to deny the President these elementary rights and protections that form the basis of the American justice system and are protected by the Constitution.

No citizen-including the President-should be treated this unfairly.

Since the Founding of the Republic, under unbroken practice, the House has never undertaken the solemn responsibility of an impeachment inquiry directed at the President without first adopting a resolution authorizing a committee to begin the inquity. The inquiries into the impeachments of Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton proceeded in multiple phases, each authorized by a separate House resolution.

The House then satisfied that requirement by adopting H.R. Res. 803, 93rd Cong. (1974), Chairman Nadler has recognized the importance of taking a vote in the House before beginning a presidential impeachment inquiry. At the outset of the Clinton impeachment inquiry-where a floor vote was held-he argued that even limiting the time for debate before that vote was improper and that “an hour debate on this momentous decision is an insult to the American people and another sign that this is not going to be fair.”

Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings
Page4

To comply with the Constitution’s demands, appropriate procedures would include-at a minimum-the right to see all evidence, to present evidence, to call witnesses, to have counsel present at all hearings, to cross-examine all witnesses, to make objections relating to the examination of witnesses or the admissibility of testimony and evidence, and to respond to evidence and testimony.

Likewise, the Committees must provide for the disclosure of all evidence favorable to the President and all evidence bearing on the credibility of witnesses called to testify in the inquiry. The Committees’ current procedures provide none of these basic constitutional rights.

In addition, the House has not provided the Committees’ Ranking Members with the authority to issue subpoenas. The right of the minority to issue subpoenas-subject to the same rules as the majority-has been the standard, bipartisan practice in all recent resolutions authorizing presidential impeachment inquiries.

The House’s failure to provide co-equal subpoena power in this case ensures that any inquiry will be nothing more than a one-sided effort by House Democrats to gather information favorable to their views and to selectively release it as only they determine. The House’s utter disregard for the established procedural safeguards followed in past impeachment inquiries shows that the current proceedings are nothing more than an unconstitutional exercise in political theater.

As if denying the President basic procedural protections were not enough, the Committees have also resorted to threats and intimidation against potential Executive Branch witnesses. Threats by the Committees against Executive Branch witnesses who assert common and longstanding rights destroy the integrity of the process and brazenly violate fundamental due process.

In letters to State Department employees, the Committees have ominously threatened without any legal basis and before the Committees even issued a subpoena-that “[a]ny failure to appear” in response to a mere letter request for a deposition “shall constitute evidence of obstruction.”12

Worse, the Committees have broadly threatened that if State Department officials attempt to insist upon the right for the Department to have an agency lawyer present at depositions to protect legitimate Executive Branch confidentiality interests-or apparently if they make any effort to protect those confidentiality interests at all-these officials will have their salaries withheld.

The suggestion that it would somehow be problematic for anyone to raise long established Executive Branch confidentiality interests and privileges in response to a request for a deposition is legally unfounded. Not surprisingly, the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice has made clear on multiple occasions that employees of the Executive Branch who have been instructed not to appear or not to provide particular testimony before Congress based on privileges or immunities of the Executive Branch cannot be punished for

Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings
Page 5

following such instructions.

Current and former State Department officials are duty bound to protect the confidentiality interests of the Executive Branch, and the Office ofLegal Counsel has also recognized that it is unconstitutional to exclude agency counsel from participating in congressional depositions.

In addition, any attempt to withhold an official’s salary for the assertion of such interests would be unprecedented and unconstitutional.

The Committees’ assertions on these points amount to nothing more than strong-arm tactics designed to rush proceedings without any regard for due process and the rights of individuals and of the Executive Branch. Threats aimed at intimidating individuals who assert these basic rights are attacks on civil liberties that should profoundly concern all Americans.

II. The Invalid “Impeachment Inquiry” Plainly Seeks To Reverse the Election of 2016 and To Influence the Election of 2020.

The effort to impeach President Tnnnp-——without regard to any evidence of his actions in office is a naked political strategy that began the day he was inaugurated, and perhaps even before.

In fact, your transparent rush to judgment, lack of democratically accountable authorization, and violation of basic rights in the current proceedings make clear the illegitimate, partisan purpose of this purported “impeachment inquiry.”

The Founders, however, did not create the extraordinary mechanism of impeachment so it could be used by a political party that feared for its prospects against the sitting President in the next election. The decision as to who will be elected President in 2020 should rest with the people of the United States, exactly where the Constitution places it.

Democrats themselves used to recognize the dire implications of impeachment for the Nation. For example, in the past, Chairman Nadler has explained:

The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. We must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat, and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeaclnnent supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by another.

Such an impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our

Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings
Page 6

politics for years to come, and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.

Unfortunately, the President’s political opponents now seem eager to transform impeachment from an extraordinary remedy that should rarely be contemplated into a conventional political weapon to be deployed for partisan gain. These actions are a far cry from what our Founders envisioned when they vested Congress with the “important trust” of considering impeachment.

Precisely because it nullifies the outcome of the democratic process, impeachment of the President is fraught with the risk of deepening divisions in the country and creating long-lasting rifts in the body politic.

Unfortunately, you are now playing out exactly the partisan rush to judgment that the Founders so strongly warned against. The American people deserve much better than this.

III. There Is No Legitimate Basis for Your “Impeachment Inquiry”; Instead, the Committees’ Actions Raise Serious Questions.

It is transparent that you have resorted to such unprecedented and unconstitutional procedures because you know that a fair process would expose the lack of any basis for your inquiry. Your current effort is founded on a completely appropriate call on July 25, 2019, between President Trump and President Zelenskyy of Ukraine.

Without waiting to see what was actually said on the call, a press conference was held announcing an “impeachment inquiry” based on falsehoods and misinformation about the call.

To rebut those falsehoods, and to provide transparency to the American people, President Trump secured agreement from the Government of Ukraine and took the extraordinary step of declassifying and publicly releasing the record of the call. That record clearly established that the call was completely appropriate, that the President did nothing wrong, and that there is no basis for an impeachment inquiry.

At a joint press conference shortly after the call’s public release, President Zelenskyy agreed that the call was appropriate. In addition, the Department of Justice announced that officials there had reviewed the call after a referral for an alleged campaign finance law violation and found no such violation.

Perhaps the best evidence that there was no wrongdoing on the call is the fact that, after the actual record of the call was released, Chairman Schiff chose to concoct a false version of the call and to read his made-up transcript to the American people at a public hearing.

Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings
Page 7

powerfully confirms there is no issue with the actual call. Otherwise, why would Chairman Schiff feel the need to make up his own version? The Chairman’s action only further undermines the public’s confidence in the fairness of any inquiry before his Committee.

The real problem, as we are now learning, is that Chairman Schiffs office, and perhaps others-despite initial denials-were involved in advising the whistleblower before the complaint was filed.

Initially, when asked on national television about interactions with the whistleblower, Chairman Schiff unequivocally stated that “[w]e have not spoken directly with thewhistleblower. We would like to.”

Now, however, it has been reported that the whistleblower approached the House Intelligence Committee with information-and received guidance from the Committee-before filing a complaint with the Inspector General.

As a result,The Washington Post concluded that Chairman Schiff “clearly made a statement that was false. “27 Anyone who was involved in the preparation or submission of the whistleblower’s complaint cannot possibly act as a fair and impartial judge in the same matter-particularly after misleading the American people about his involvement.

All of this raises serious questions that must be investigated. However, the Committees are preventing anyone, including the minority, from looking into these critically important matters. At the very least, Chairman Schiff must immediately make available all documents relating to these issues. After all, the American people have a right to know about the Committees’ own actions with respect to these matters.
***

Given that your inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, or even the most elementary due process protections, the Executive Branch carmot be expected to participate in it. Because participating in this inquiry under the current unconstitutional posture would inflict lasting institutional harm on the Executive Branch and lasting damage to the separation of powers, you have left the President no choice.

Consistent with the duties of the President of the United States, and in particular his obligation to preserve the rights of future occupants of his office, President Trump cannot permit his Administration to participate in this partisan inquiry under these circumstances.

Your recent letter to the Acting White House Chief of Staff argues that “[e]ven if an impeachment inquiry were not underway,” the Oversight Committee may seek this information

Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings
Page 8

as a matter of the established oversight process. 28 Respectfolly, the Committees cannot have it both ways.

The letter comes from the Chairmen of three different Committees, it transmits a subpoena “[p]ursuant to the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry,” it recites that the documents will “be collected as part of the House’s impeachment inquiry,” and it asserts that the documents will be “shared among the Committees, as well as with the Committee on the Judiciary as appropriate.”

The letter is in no way directed at collecting information in aid of legislation, and you simply cannot expect to rely on oversight authority to gather information for an unauthorized impeachment inquiry that conflicts with all historical precedent and rides roughshod over due process and the separation of powers.

If the Committees wish to return to the regular order of oversight requests, we stand ready to engage in that process as we have in the past, in a manner consistent with well-established bipartisan constitutional protections and a respect for the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution.

For the foregoing reasons, the President cannot allow your constitutionally illegitimate proceedings to distract him and those in the Executive Branch from their work on behalf of the American people.

The President has a country to lead. The American people elected him to do this job, and he remains focused on fulfilling his promises to the American people. He has important work that he must continue on their behalf, both at home and around the world, including continuing strong economic growth, extending historically low levels of unemployment, negotiating trade deals, fixing our broken immigration system, lowering prescription drug prices, and addressing mass shooting violence. Wehopethat,inlightofthe many deficiencies we have identified in your proceedings, you will abandon the current invalid efforts to pursue an impeachment inquiry and join the President in focusing on the many important goals that matter to the American people.

cc:
Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Minority Leader, House of Representatives
Hon. Michael McCaul, Ranking Member, House Committee on Foreign Affairs Hon. Devin Nunes, Ranking Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Hon. Jim Jordan, Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Reform
Letter from Elijah E. Cummings, Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, et al., to
John Michael Mulvaney, Acting ChiefofStaffto the President 3 (Oct. 4, 2019).
29 Id.

I thought it was Clyde Chestnut Barrow ....

ah...I see “champion was more a nickname then his middle name.

“They are up to something”

I keep getting Hunger Games....

Thanks so much for posting the whole letter. It really lays out the entire thing for the dems. What a contrast...Schiff with his insulting ‘parody’ and this — plain discussion supported by the law and precedent.

bkmk

Kyle Freese Twitter page is starting to get trolled

Some funny comments

https://mobile.twitter.com/HKFrese

3 days of food available on a good day from the market.

Not everyone preps but maybe they are trying to find out what kind of panic will happen or estimate how many people are prepped. Prepped people are usually armed people I would think....

If the power is off long enough, power dependent food storage is worthless and people might not be able to restock.

Maybe they(PTB)want something like this to happen. People with no utilities and food are easier to control.

Complete darkness can hide a lot of things. So can lack of communication. They’re so unhinged they might start rounding people up for their own good, who knows? No communication or light could hide abuse by authorities.

We aren’t in an area that is definitely expected to be affected but we did make sure we had some extra bottled water, I did a lot of canning this summer and we have propane stoves. Even my mom prepped a little bit and she’s very DGI sometimes.

Maybe they’re just creating a problem so they can implement a solution they want that we hate.

There isn’t even a breeze in my AO but my son’s work cancelled(they do government contracts-petroleum and military infrastructure).

My husband still had to work but he keeps gasoline trucks moving. For him to have to stay home everything would have to be over already.

I do feel like something is odd here. I don’t trust PGE or the state and they are in cahoots, they always have been.

FF sitch?

My thoughts as well.

Dear Fearless Leader,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eh...I prefer MOD or even ‘r’ as those are short not as “fearless” or “leaderish”....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If that is your only open question, maybe you can answer a few others:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Huh? I didn’t say I had all the answers and only one open question remained. I have said I view his his overall actions (i.e., blockade) as more substantial than other details.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) Why was “Black hat” RR instrumental in firing Comey, the BIGGEST anti-derp BOOM to date?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I dunno but I suspect he was an “instrument” (POTUS utilized him). I don’t believe there was only one way to remove Comey, but this way was utilized as it provided ideal optics (not driven by Trump himself).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2) Why was “Black hat” RR instrumental in removing the insidious and evil McCabe from control of the “Insurance policy” investigation, by setting up the “Inept” Mueller SC?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mueller was “inept” because he was the front man to a team of DS working behind him to bring down the president and they couldn’t find anything, or manufacture something in time, to get the job done. They did indict people and the left is waving those indictments around while claiming POTUS is immersed in a sea of corrupt indicted peeps because he himself is corrupt.

Cohen’s indictment still has some on the left referring to POTUS as the “unindicted co-conspirator” mentioned in that trial. No, I don’t believe POTUS would use this 2 years of “framing” smear job against himself to “help” his cause.

Again - I think RR was utilized. With all the crimes Comey and McCabe committed, there must be more than one way to take them down. Ideally, it should e done by those of whom the DS approves so the DS won’t call government to a screeching halt (e.g., the left and DS are currently trying to have Barr’s law license revoked because he supports POTUS, they claim he is merely doing POTUS’s bidding).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3) Why did “Black hat” RR get involved in 4th FISA, unless it was to insert the “Smoking gun” assurances and oaths of cabal participants and possibly FVEY into the still-redacted 20 pages? (Admittedly, this is a “Dis” interpretation, yet to be verified.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Personally I don’t think RR can sign fraudulent FISA’s (posed to bring down a president) to try to entrap others. I don’t think it’s legal and the optics would be horrible. The Deep State on both sides of the aisle is real and needs to be exposed - but making it look like white hats had to lead Dems by the nose to “get them” to do dirty deeds (RR, Mueller leading the witch hunt) would fail horribly in my opinion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5) Why did “Black hat” RR’s “Mueller gambit” pay off so well for POTUS, keeping the RAT media transfixed for 2 years while he fixed the military, the SCOTUS, the Senate, NAFTA, PPT, Paris, taxes and began building the Wall—ALL ENSURING 2020 re-election?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I do believe POTUS could find plenty to do while “fixing” the military, the SCOTUS, the senate, NAFTQA, PPT, Paris, texes, the wall.....that would not divide the country and tarnish his brand for 2 years. Posing a sham trial against himself as a distraction only later to admit later those sham leaders (Muller and Rosenstein) were his white hats would NOT win him the election. The country is exhausted and they would feel lied to and manipulated by POTUS. They actually aren’t sure whom to believe. The public would have a hard time believing anything else POTUS said about the Deep State after he cried wolf for political means (witch hunt) for two years.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6) Why did “Black hat” RR become an ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT in the Barr analysis of “NO OBSTRUCTION” burying part II of the Mueller report?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Personally I thought RR was more of a CATATONIC INGREDIENT in the Barr analysis (thinking of that presser?). I believe that POTUS and the Q team provided RR with sufficient incentive to straighten up and fly right. So he would have been in a position and neutral party to supporting Barr’s analysis if he had played it legit. But he was flipped (IMHO) easily and early and “selected Mueller” who was a front for a hit team Weisman (sp?). The witch hunt was ongoing until Barr stepped in and looked at the evidence, and asked them painful questions about it (Remember Q drop 2776?). Barr stopped what RR and Mueller were doing.

So, we disagree. :)

I have changed my position and I think RR is dirty.@@@@@@

Never a doubt! Follow RRs wife, Barsoomian? (Sp) RRs wife as a lawyer is to WJC/HRC as Comey is as an investigator!

WWG1WGA!

FF sitch?

My thoughts as well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let’s hope we’re wrong. G_d help us if we’re right.

"Maybe they’re just creating a problem so they can implement a solution they want that we hate."

^^^THIS^^^

Whatever it is, they'll blame POTUS and want money.

They have to know the economic impact. Much worse than a fire.

A local grocery store lost power for about three to five hours recently. Big store. They had to throw out everything in every cooler - frozen foods, deli, cheese, seafood, meats, veggies - plus all the stuff in storage in back. It was a couple days before they could re-stock.

Exactly. I’m in both camps. Gowdy and McConaughey fan. Thanks for making me realize their similarities are my attachments.

Definitely, I’m such a voice person! Both personalities have the same quality of voice, and interesting personalities to match. Go figure.

What do you charge for your psyche counsel! You earned it, here.

We all will graduate with a 4.0 with honors.

Not me. I've been skipping class to smoke dope with the cheerleaders behind the Ag building. I'll have to settle for a 3.8

This is bizarre. They are up to something. Just not sure what it is.

~~~

It could be as simple as they got sued big time and decided to take it out on it’s customers.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pg-e-warns-it-may-cut-power-for-600-000-customers-due-to-wildfire-risk-11570513569

Has to have LOTS of walnuts. And good vanilla. DH hates it so I never make it because I do NOT need a whole pan of that cake.

I need your recipe!

Burisma Paid Joe Biden $900,000 for Lobbying – Ukrainian MP
Ukraine News Agency ^ | October 9th 2019

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3784896/posts

NEWS BLAST FOR THE DAY OF TUESDAY OCTOBER 8TH
ENoCH @elenochle https://twitter.com/elenochle/status/1181961156333731841

Image Link

Where We Go 1, We Go All