This Q update covers a lot of ground including a connection between recent military aircraft accidents and JFK Jr’s plane crash. We learn more about Jeffrey Epstein’s island, President Trump’s plan to bring peace to Syria, Edward Snowden’s bombshell about the origin of Facebook and what happened to Alan Dershowitz when he flew on the Lolita Express.
Tensions are running high after President Trump reacted to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. If you’re not familiar with how POTUS maneuvers people into positions so he can get what he wants, you might be a little freaked out. I’ve observed the master of the deal for a while now and I believe Trump will ultimately avert an escalation of the conflict in Syria.
Let me be clear: I did not say there won’t be an exchange of firepower in Syria. We already have troops in the region and they’re at risk of receiving incoming fire. If that happens, our troops will fire back and we may even launch a few missiles. Some exchange of firepower is inevitable. But I believe Trump will do everything possible to avoid making the situation worse, and ultimately, Syria, Iran and Russia will end up at the negotiating table and a peace agreement will be the result. I believe that will happen because it’s what Trump has done in the past.
Trump is perceived by many to be a loner but he isn’t working alone. He’s recruited the help of leaders in the region. After he became President, he addressed a large group of Arab leaders and demanded they stop funding terrorism. To everyone’s surprise, it worked. Saudi Prince Mohammad Bin Salman took the lead. He arrested the core group of Saudi princes who had backed terror organizations and seized their assets. The Gulf coalition of states has shown remarkable unity in their opposition to Hezbollah, ISIS, and other terrorist groups. Recently, Prince Bin Salman has stated that Israel has a right to exist independently, which has irritated hardliners and he’s signaled his intent to reform Wahhabism.
Trump is rallying a coalition of nations to oppose the terror being propagated by Iran—the force behind Syrian President Bashir Al Assad.
I’ve made this point before, but it bears repeating. If you want to change a dangerous dog’s behavior, you don’t go after the dog. You hold the dog’s owner accountable. Make life uncomfortable enough for him and he’ll make the dog behave. If you want to rein in a rogue nation, you don’t confront the nation. You find out who’s backing them and hold them accountable.
North Korea was causing problems for President Trump. North Korea is backed by China. Rather than deal with Kim Jong-Un, Trump applied pressure to China in various ways and after the price became too steep, President Xi arranged terms of peace with Trump and Kim Jong-Un. That same strategy will be used to with Iran, Syria, and Russia.
It’s true that the situation in Syria is a bit more complex. We have troops in Syria but not in North Korea. Syria is a proxy of Iran and Iran is a proxy of Russia. Other nations in the Middle East have a stake in the outcome, including Israel. There are a lot of moving parts but the dynamics of how Trump will negotiate his deal are the same. He’ll apply pressure to Iran and Russia, knowing that they’re responsible for what happens in Syria.
What is Trump doing to apply pressure to Russia?
He’s rallied a coalition of European nations to hold Putin accountable for the poisoning of a former spy. Last week, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, announced that it had designated seven Russian oligarchs and 12 companies they own or control, 17 senior Russian government officials, a state-owned Russian weapons trading company and a Russian bank as being involved in corruption and/or human rights abuse and has frozen their assets. It may not seem like much, but coupled with other economic measures, Putin is likely to be feeling the pain of opposing Trump.
You may believe that Putin is not responsible for the poisoning of the former spy. You may believe that Assad is not responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Syria. You may be right but who actually committed the crimes is more or less irrelevant to this discussion. The accusations are not being used as a pretext for war the way Obama and Bush used such accusations, Trump is using the public perception of these crimes as a pretext for peace.
Don’t be fooled by Trump’s bluster and threats. He did the same thing to “Rocket Man” that he’s doing to the “Animal” Assad. Look how that turned out. Trump’s harsh words are the strength component of “peace through strength.” You can’t tell what he wants by listening to his fiery rhetoric. If anything, it’s a barometer of what he doesn’t want.
Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!
What he wants is usually kept secret but let’s look at what he’s said publicly.
He told us last week that he intends to withdraw our troops from Syria. Consider that he never reveals (especially to his enemies) his strategies and tactics—things that involve troop placement. He’s often criticized previous presidents for doing that. If Trump told the world a tactical objective, it wasn’t to let his enemies in on his plans. It was a diversion intended to get his enemies to move into a position that he can take advantage of. His enemies include the mainstream media, by the way
While the mainstream media is having a feeding frenzy over Trump’s saber-rattling toward Russia, Trump has already invited Vladimir Putin to a summit meeting at the White House—something no one would have known about if it hadn’t been leaked by a source inside the Kremlin. That goal, (the one no one was supposed to know about) is what Trump is actually moving toward.
It wouldn’t surprise me if a peace deal has already been made between Putin and Trump. Putin knows all too well that the media’s Russia collusion hysteria is the direct cause of tensions between the two nations.
Much of the bad blood with Russia is caused by the Fake & Corrupt Russia Investigation, headed up by the all Democrat loyalists, or people that worked for Obama. Mueller is most conflicted of all (except Rosenstein who signed FISA & Comey letter). No Collusion, so they go crazy!
Trump and Putin had a laugh over the idiocy of the mainstream media when they met for the first time. It’s not hard to imagine them actually colluding to teach the media a lesson by brokering a peace agreement via back channels all the while, allowing the press to further discredit themselves.
I could be wrong but I believe most of what we’re watching is theater. If that’s true, you might as well pop some popcorn and enjoy the show.
Today, President Trump expelled 60 Russian diplomats and closed the Russian consulate in Seattle. More than a dozen European leaders followed suit. Under most circumstances, such a move would be a troubling signal that a war with Russia may be approaching. I would like to suggest that these measures cannot be interpreted through the usual geopolitical filters because Trump is not an ordinary President.
During his campaign, Trump suggested (to the dismay of his opponents) that getting along with Russia would be a good thing. Since he’s become President, he hasn’t changed his views.
Since he’s repeatedly said that getting along with Russia is his goal, we should reject any narrative suggesting that he has a different goal. He has no intention of starting a war. Peace with Russia and her allies is and always has been his goal. The question then is understanding the strategies and tactics he’s using to accomplish that goal.
I wrote previously about how Trump used unconventional strategies and tactics to get China to facilitate peace walks with Korth Korea. I also wrote about his next goal of making peace with Iran. The strategy Trump used on President Xi Jinping of China is the same one he’s using with Vladimir Putin. He’s creating leverage that will place Putin in a difficult spot in the hope that the Russian President will ask Trump for terms of peace. I explain his strategy in more detail in the video below.
If you’re concerned about changes in President Trump’s cabinet, the new spending bill or the general chaos in government, I’d encourage to listen to this. The President is working strategically to accomplish things he can’t discuss publicly. That why he’s authorized Q anon to speak to us on his behalf. Q has repeatedly told us to trust the plan.
Sundance (@TheLastRefuge2) and a group of us on Twitter have been collectively piecing together the story behind the surveillance of the Trump team before and after the 2016 election. Based on news reports, we’ve been working under the assumption that a FISA warrant was obtained by the FBI/DOJ, which allowed the Obama administration to gather intelligence on the Trump team.
Under most circumstances, a warrant for surveillance is obtained by law enforcement to view information on U.S. citizens. Such a warrant requires probable cause of a crime. Under FISA law, probable cause of a crime is not required. The agency must establish probable cause that the person who is to be surveilled is an agent of foreign power. If a U.S. citizen’s communications are incidentally picked up, they are to be ignored unless certain criteria are met.
Current thinking suggests that Carter Page, a member of Trump’s team, was in contact with a foreign agent, which gave the FBI and DOJ a reason to spy on him. The belief is that the FBI/DOJ applied for a FISA warrant in the summer of 2016 which was denied. It is believed a second application was submitted in October to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and was approved.
Recent events have caused us to re-examine some of these assumptions. Sundance asked the question: Is there any hard evidence proving that the FBI/DOJ obtained a FISA warrant?
He offered a $1,000 reward for proof.
OK, GREAT. Who? Show me a reputable media outlet proving today that Devin Nunes received the *FISA WARRANTS*(<- specific), and I’ll give you an immediate $1,000. [Heck, even if you can prove he looked at one, you can have the $1k] https://t.co/bLaYoAIJQ8
I did some digging to determine exactly where the idea came from that a FISA application by the FBI/DOJ had been approved. The stories I found in the New York Times, Wahington Post and other news sources all pointed to a Heat Street article written by Louise Mensch. When I looked for Mensch’s story, all the links were dead. It had been removed from the internet. I did find an archived copy here: http://archive.is/JwNBs
Mensch attributes her report that the FBI obtained a FISA warrant to “Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community.” No names were given. Just two anonymous sources. The article placed the date of the warrant as October of 2016.
For background, I’m including links to other news outlets that reported on the story. Here’s an article from Washington Post, which cites the Heat Street story by Mensch: http://wapo.st/2qWGn2P
New York Times published a story which referred to the WaPo story which is shown below. http://nyti.ms/2o8fQcL
Washington Post ran a story that independently reported the FISA warrant had been issued, but again, they could only cite anonymous counterintelligence sources: http://wapo.st/2qWGRpF
A third independent report on the approval of the FISA warrant was written by Paul Wood of BBC. Again, the author cited unnamed sources in the intelligence community. http://bbc.in/2jFSNaM
Lastly, there’s a story by The Guardian which attempted to confirm the first FISA application but couldn’t independently confirm the second. The author speculated that the BBC and Heat Street stories about the approval of the second application were true. http://bit.ly/2lr5Tcl
All the stories claiming that a FISA warrant was obtained by the FBI/DOJ cite anonymous sources. The main story by Louise Mensch has been pulled. If we’re going to base our belief that a FISA warrant was obtained on news reports, there is little reliable evidence to support that idea.
But it gets worse.
President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, said if the FBI obtained a FISA warrant, he would know about it. He flat out denied that there was one in an interview with Chuck Todd.
Some would argue that Clapper is a known liar and it’s possible that he denied knowledge of a FISA warrant to cover for the Obama administration. Here’s the problem with that line of reasoning:
If there was a legally obtained FISA warrant, the Obama administration followed the law. They had nothing to hide and no reason to lie about it. Moreover, If at any time in the future, evidence came to light that there was a FISA warrant, Clapper would be proven to be a liar. He stood to lose a lot if there was a FISA warrant and he knowingly lied about it. And he had nothing to gain by lying.
In the article describing the documents given to Devin Nunes by Rod Rosenstein about the Trump-Russia investigation which was published a few days ago, the FISA 702 applications are conspicuously absent. Sundance asked if anyone had any info on them, again offering a $1,000 reward. No one has offered any information to date. http://bit.ly/2AHYitl
We know that the Trump team was spied on by the Obama administration. But there is little hard evidence suggesting that they obtained a warrant to do it. Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence says they didn’t have one.
Was there a FISA warrant?
Or was the narrative about it just a cover story?
I’ll leave you with one last question:
What would happen if it were proven that a sitting President spied on an opposing political candidate and his campaign team without obtaining a warrant?