That's all I'm seeing right now! But Jack. Q tells us over and over that Huber is a large part of the plan.
Are you trying to tell us that Q is bogus?
I'll go with Q over Jack Black this time.
Also. Huber talks about ONE case and that means his office can't be working on others?
He comes out one time and makes a statement on ONE case and you assume nothing is being done on Q related cases?
Did you ever stop and think that "That's all (you're) seeing right now!" is all that they want you to see right now?
Jack o' the Charts, it would be nice if you would stop trying to convince us that we're LOSING when we are quite clearly WINNING. I'm starting to wonder about your agenda, Jacky boy. With all due respect.
I am Jack's...
Bagster
Did you ever stop and think that "That's all (you're) seeing right now!" is all that they want you to see right now? Yes, every day. That's the assumption I make. Other people are more focused on "this is what we will see", which I am very appreciative for their work to bring that forward, and I agree that 'what we will see' is a big focus of Q.
But I still think it's ok to note "this is what we have so far".
Q tells us over and over that Huber is a large part of the plan.
Are you trying to tell us that Q is bogus?
No, of course not! Because he is a large part of the plan we should watch him carefully for other clues. His approach in the drug case is fascinating. Some one ODs. This happens a lot in the USA. In 2017 there were 30,000 OD deaths. Let's say 15% are people ODing on prescriptions (probably not that many). That means that for every one of the OTHER 25,000 ODs there should be a criminal conviction of the person or person who gave them the drugs.
This has not happened routinely ever in the USA.
Huber's not just sleep walking through his job, he's acting like a good QA engineer and saying "what is the root cause of this (OD death).
So, it is because Q has told us Huber is important that I want to closely watch him (use Google Alerts), and report back to the team when I find activity of his.
"That's all I got" certainly doesn't mean "that's all there is", it' means that's all we're being shown right now.
Losing or winning? It's a war it goes back and forth. The biggest win lately (for me) was the Wolfe indictment, and the idea that Papadopoulos might withdraw his guilty plea makes me really excited.
The Manafort conviction was sort of meaningless, though it will be trumpeted by the Left as a bid deal.
The Cohen case? Well it's interesting that A) Mueller gave it to SDNY to bring to closure and B) the guilty plea doesn't include an agreement for him to cooperate (inform on Trump).
So, in both cases what do you really have? Trump hired some high powered guys, and they were crooks.
Manafort had worked for all sorts of other politicians, going back to Ford. He is the poster child for the GOPe -- so even the respected uncles of the GOPe are corrupt, NY developers are corrupt, NY lawyers are corrupt, NY Taxi companies are corrupt -- I AM SHOCKED, SHOCKED THAT THERE IS GAMBLING GOING ON HERE !! -- To some extent it's starting to look like Trump was the only honest guy in the high-flying City of New York real estate industry.
It's like saying "Trump employed mobbed up unions".
Well, there is no other kind in NYC, so of course he did because it's illegal (literally) to build with non-Union labor in NYC.
The law required him to hire criminals, the culture was full of criminals.
So Muller got his convictions today, but they are hollow, like so much of his stuff.
I still think it's good to keep track of. I am "Jack of the Charts", after all.
And, of course I fully expect you to trust Q over me!
Cheers!
PS: did you check out that other thread I pinged you on.