He wouldn't follow it if he didn't take it seriously.
There is intelligence in the Q posting. He's an intelligence guy. Do the math.
You are off base, as usual.
Posted on 05/06/2020 9:25:21 AM PDT by MNDude
Image: Senate Intelligence Committee Holds Nomination Hearing For John L. Ratcliffe To Be Director Of National IntelligenceRep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, testifies before a Senate Intelligence Committee nomination hearing on Capitol Hill on May 5, 2020.Andrew Harnik / Pool via Getty Images May 5, 2020, 8:25 PM CDT By Frank Figliuzzi, former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence and NBC News/MSNBC analyst Since U.S. intelligence agencies exist to seek actionable information that is as close to the truth as possible, it follows that the person who heads our intelligence community should be a scrupulously honest seeker of apolitical facts. Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be the next director of national intelligence, isn’t that guy. The Senate will take up Ratcliffe’s nomination this week, with him testifying before the intelligence committee on Tuesday.
While many questions about Ratcliffe’s credentials already exist — he was previously nominated only to withdraw over questions about his bio — of serious ongoing concern is his social media history. Recent reporting by Spencer Ackerman and Will Sommer at The Daily Beast ties Ratcliffe, at least tangentially, to dangerous conspiracy theories on Twitter.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
He wouldn't follow it if he didn't take it seriously.
There is intelligence in the Q posting. He's an intelligence guy. Do the math.
You are off base, as usual.
“It’s your assertion that the nominee for head of the Department of National Intelligence is crazy, is it?”
If he follows Q, yes, yes it is. That’s what the article essentially asserts.
Frankly, I don’t think anyone that crazy could rise that high. And I believe the article is likely unmitigated BS.
That said, I’ll take crazy over corrupt.
But the crazy should not be dismissed, if true.
What makes you so important that you feel you can speak for everyone else?
Your contention that anyone who reads is a believer is obviously wrong. Ask anyone. Most people read a wide variety of things without accepting or believing. Duh.
And you buy the derp state assertion hook, line, and sinker. Just as you've bought their so-called debunkery of Qanon from the gate.
They call it a 'conspiracy theory' and you buy that too. Because you are programmed to do so.
When will you get tired of the narrative and following orders?
Don't you want to think for yourself?
You should try it, it feels great.
p.s. You and the rest of the anti-Q's remain on the same team as the derps that wrote this article. Don't you feel dirty?
I don’t punch down, sorry.
I never made that contention. I said he takes it seriously.
And you and your fellow nimrods don't. That's my point.
What does he know that you don't know?
p.s. I'm very sure he believes and is dialed in. All the best people are.
“Don’t you feel dirty?”
No.
I’m quite comfortable in the knowledge that I am sane. Something the Q bots can’t understand.
If its true, its not crazy.
Maybe you should have said 'hard to believe'.
Sometimes the truth is hard to believe, especially after a life-time of indoctrination.
The ones that don't want you to believe the truth are the ones that call it crazy.
Those that should know better are dupes.
I didn't say you were crazy. I said you should feel dirty for being on the same side as the derp media, who has an obvious agenda to debunk Q.
I know I would.
I'd believe the Q program solely based on the all out blitzkrieg of propaganda against it. Because I am aware of what the media is and what it propagandizes for.
But there's so much more.
At this point, you almost have to be crazy to not believe it. So there is that.
“Frank Figliuzzi, former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence, and now a NBC News/MSNBC analyst.”
Well doesn’t that just scream credibility... Lost me at “former FBI”.
Your assumption that he takes it seriously assumes something with out any evidence therefore. Has he stated he takes it seriously?
Yes. He followed it.
And if your derp Senators would subpoena his computer usage, they most likely would find that he reads the actual Q posts religiously and not just the discussion around it.
This is a serious man who takes serious things seriously.
And Q is a serious thing, even if he doesn't believe, its a matter of national intelligence one way or the other.
Only a dumb person or a derp state actor doesn't take it seriously. Those are the only two options. Which one are you?
If you disagree with me on this, then there's something wrong with your brain.
Following something does not mean you are taking it seriously. I occasionally follow the nutwad thread. No one will assert I take it seriously.
Yea, but you're not the nominee for the head of the Department of National Intelligence. You're just some know-nothing joker on the internet.
Or are you?
For you to think he doesn't take it seriously is an obvious and blatant lie. You know better, and yet you still say it.
Why?
I question your motives, puker.
p.s. You're trying too hard. Again.
I kinda think you do. Otherwise, why do you work so hard to bring it down and shut it off?
Think about these things, puker.
Let’s go ahead and have the conversation then.
If you have an ability to read his mind that easily, and in the future Ratcliffe becomes DNI, perhaps you should be imprisoned.
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.