JMO....
1. Strzok hearings. Yes, a mess. But I disagree. A LOT happened. A few things that came out (covered by all the shouting and posturing) are: versions of the dossier. There was not “a” dossier. There were many, or many versions. The FBI/left did their best to hush this up. What was in those other versions? Who created them? And most importantly WHO IN THE FBI made the decision to open an investigation into Trump based on them?
The number of interviews Strzok conducted (or more likely failed to conduct) between date X and date Y (can’t remember the dates) is hugely important. I don’t quite understand why (Can someone help me out here?) PS and the democrats were wetting themselves trying to prevent him from answering this. They even tried to adjourn the hearing. So obviously very important, but why? I assume the Rs knew exactly what they were doing and why they asked about this and so did the Ds.
2. Hey, if you knew you had 2 weeks or 2 months to live, what would you do? She doesn’t have any “loved” ones to spend time with, so she just keeps doing what she’s always done. Will she use a red scarf? Will she be sent to Gitmo? If she really thinks she’s going to win, she’ll be in campaign mode. But if she really thinks she’s going to be indicted, what else is she going to do? Cower in the corner? I give her credit for one thing: She’s going to go down swinging.
3. How so? Also, July isn’t over yet. I would not expect any major events to upstage/upend the Trump/Putin meeting. Or the NATO/UK trip, for that matter.
Yeah, I miss Q, too. But I’d hate to think that I was dependent on Q. I’d like to think that I have a life and a purpose beyond Q and that Q was designed to make me look into world events and learn about them and think for myself. I do think it’s likely that Q will be back. But I suspect the entire Q team is pretty busy with the summit, etc.
To be fair, one of the posts clearly indicates further action AFTER the summit.
I’m not completely dependent on Q, but the movement, any movement, depends on momentum.
Q directs research, and as such allows those researching to more efficiently expend those limited resources.
I guess from that it follows that, for the moment, no more research is required and we wait for all the pennies to drop.
The number of interviews Strzok conducted (or more likely failed to conduct) between date X and date Y (can’t remember the dates) is hugely important. I don’t quite understand why (Can someone help me out here?) PS and the democrats were wetting themselves trying to prevent him from answering this. They even tried to adjourn the hearing. So obviously very important, but why? I assume the Rs knew exactly what they were doing and why they asked about this and so did the Ds.
******
As I recall from watching/listening to the hearing, Trey Gowdy pointed out that he already knew the answer to the question. Strock had conducted ZERO interviews between date X and date Y.
Yes, some things did come out of the hearings. For me, the biggest was Gohmert’s assertion that all but four of the HRC 30,000 email batch went to unauthorized destinations. And I also believe Louie said “and not Russia”.
So, to me, the Rs had a fairly orchestrated throwing out of the apples. Now...I’m trying to reconcile the timeline of Gohmert’s assertion.
There was breaking news about those emails and about what Gohmert said during the hearing. Was HE first to throw this out or were the news breaks first?
Seemed to me the Demonrats had their panties in a wad due to THEIR assertion that the question could not be answered because Gowdy was asking for the names of those interviewed. Gowdy merely asked HOW MANY people had been interviewed during that time period.
gen, I agree that there was a LOT of significance to the Strzok hearings. (One of which is that I THINK I finally learned how to spell his name.)
I do think the multiple dossier thing is a big prep for what is coming..... two more IGA reports are yet to be rolled out!
Yes the dates - it was a period of time in August, just after the thing was initiated, and he did not interview ANYONE, for quite a while is what I’ve taken away.... implying that it was not a usual investigation, if you are not interviewing your subjects while the iron is still hot. Strange. You are correct that the dems went into their Gorilla poo poo throwing conniptions when that was being explored.
In your second point, I’m assuming the “She” you refer to is the big “Sheness” herself, HRC. Very good examination of what it is like to be her right now. [If you had not put in the word “campaign” I would have thought Lisa Page to be a possibility...;-D ]
I’m ecstatic that Q has given us a vacay! I’ve been able to complete a couple of projects that have been moldering over in the corner since December! LOL!
Even if Q Never came back - even though I dearly hope he does, - a lot of major lifting has been done. Thousands if not millions of people have been introduced to the concept of digging and using original sources and other citizen sources of news and information. Conversation boards such as our own FR which has a long tradition of news examination and commentary, are being joined by the chans, Reddit and others in a positively fermenting explosion of a baker who left the yeast too long in the warm closet! The MSM will NOT survive this!
We do have so much to be thankful for and to look forward to!
Just watched a youtube of J. Pirro.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEDDmQL5NhQ
She explains the reason Strzok didn’t answer the question about how many interviews the FBI conducted between July 31-Aug 8 about the alleged collusion between Trump campaign and Russia.
It’s because there WASN’T an investigation. They made up a fake date for their fake investigation. But then they had no “fake interviews” to go with it. They had to make up a fake date and a fake investigation because of their lie about collusion and the lie about collusion was part of their “insurance policy” to sabotage Trump.
Now I finally understand the significance of the question about “how many interviews”.