NWO/Illuminati US politics - Pt 4

[Kurve]

Here is PART 3

Donald Trump was sworn in as president of the United States on Monday 20th January, 2025 in Washington DC.

Take Note

Anti-trans commentary will be deleted and warnings issued.

Play nice, please.

 

[Mofra]

"DOGE Impact” leads job cut reasons this year and was attributed to 63,583 layoffs, both directly to the Federal workforce and to contractors. Downstream impacts of DOGE, such as loss of funding to private Non-Profits, led to another 894 job cut plans."

Job Cuts Surge on DOGE Actions, Retail Woes; Highest Monthly Total Since July 2020 | Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.

Published March 6, 2025 U.S.-based employers announced 172,017 job cuts in February, the highest total for the month since 2009 when 186,350 job cuts were recorded. It is the highest monthly total since July 2020 when 262,649 cuts were announced,Read More ›

www.challengergray.com

 

[Stokey]

Their man Trump is in power, ruling by decree, firing thousands, and they're still raging about lefties.

Incredible stuff.

It's not about you.

Narcissism really is the trait of the left.

 

[Jbudds04v2]

It's not about you.

Narcissism really is the trait of the left.

um...Trump?

 

[faible]

um...Trump?

Great guy. The greatest. The most caring. The most orange.

 

[Stokey]

um...Trump?

Wbat a perfect encapsulation.

 

[bok_party]

It's not about you.

Narcissism really is the trait of the left.

Stupidity and gullibility are the traits of the right I spose.

 

[bourbons]

That's not going to cut it I'm afraid. The Espionage Act criminalizes the willful communication, delivery, or transmittal of national defense information by someone with or without authorization to possess it to anyone not entitled to receive it. 18 U.S.C. § 793(d)-(e). Section 793(e) also applies to anyone who receives national defense information, who is not entitled to receive it, and who “willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.” Section 793(g) covers conspiracy to commit these offenses. And section 798 of the Espionage Act explicitly criminalizes the publication of a specific subset of classified information concerning communications intelligence.

Au contraire my friend, it most definitely does cut it. Its right there in the language;

the willful communication, delivery, or transmittal of national defense information

It was not wilfull, and he did not communicate, deliver or transmit it - not until Gabbard & co. declared it wasn't classified. I reckon the The Atlantic's lawyers would be a bit more across the relevant legals than either of us, just quietly.

Anyway you've just totally ignored the laundry list of confirmed, objective facts in relation to Trump that led to his charges, the stuff that very clearly explains why Trump was charged and why Goldberg won't be. Not very 'good faith' of you I must say

DOJ has several times in the past claimed that the Espionage Act applies to journalists who solicit, receive, possess, or publish national defense information. See, e.g., Memorandum from Edward H. Levi, Attorney General, for President Gerald Ford 5 (May 29, 1975).

If you arrange to meet someone in a carpark for someone to give you stolen property and unbeknownst to you that person was being followed by an undercover cop, do you think yelling "But I never took anything" is going to save you from a receiving stolen property charge?

Again, the journalist didn't solicit, possess, or publish national defense information (again until Gabard & co. declared it wasn't classified). That just leaves you with 'receive' - good luck arguing that being added to a group chat by someone else and doing precisely nothing with that information until after event it pertained to = 'receiving' lol

And you're right, in the scenario you've described you'd be cooked. The more analagous scenario for the reality here would be some random running up to you in the street and shoving something stolen into your hands while the police were observing him, pretty sure you'd be all clear in that scenario.

The issue is whether I believe the information in the chats was classified. Whilst it may have been sensitive there wasn't enough specific information to make any of it actionable. I don't believe the information is classified.

So its basically as I suspected - you're not basing your position on any data or rationale, merely your beliefs.

There was most definitely actionable information - who the target was (the Houthis), when the strikes were planned to happen and what methods were going to be used - as I've said to you before and just re-iterated to Lebbo, we can assume the Houthis know they are the Houthis and where their own forces threatening shipping are located, yes? Like... they have anti-aircraft capability, demonstrated only a month or so ago.

Houthis Attack U.S. Fighter Jet and Drone

In a close call indicating the tenuous stability of the Red Sea, the Houthis fired surface-to-air missiles at a U.S. F-16 and MQ-9 Reaper drone on February 19 but missed them both, according to reports...

www.fdd.org

But the real kicker is the information doesn't even have to be 'actionable' according to the policy; "lnformation providing indication or advance warning that the US or its allies are preparing an attack" is the text. This 'actionable' thing is an invention of people you're following online who are trying to run defense for this quite egregious **** up, and they're still wrong because, yes, clearly the info was actionable had it fallen into the wrong hands (this also takes care of the response you've asked for in regard to your other post, 2990).

Hegseth, Ratcliffe, Gabbard and the White House all said the chats contained no classified information. So unless you think they're all lying, that's where we are.

Of course they were all lying when they said no classifed info mate, like what the ****

Was straight up proved once Goldberg released the chats the day following Gabbard and Ratcliffe's testimony

So this appears to be a chance to alter how we interact with each other and take some verified, objective facts on board in consideration of our positions, and possibly even learn something occasionally. Considering everything I've laid out above, is it still your contention that the chat contained no classified information?

 

[bourbons]

This is crazy talk and why The Atlantic being involved in the 'war plans' leak has been responsible for it not being taken as seriously as it sbould have been.

"not being taken as seriously"

Tell me you're in a bubble without telling me you're in a bubble. Trump & co and compliant media aren't taking it seriously mate, rest assured everyone back here in reality is.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Wbat a perfect encapsulation.

Have you tried typing with your fingers?

 

[bourbons]

Why is that Elons responsibility though? Trumps doing the firing. He is signing the exeuctive orders. Musk is merely a employee.

Riiiiiiiight, that must be why Musk is fronting interviews defending his work and tweeting about how many bazillions his team has saved. That random lady on holiday for the last 2 months identified as head of doge for legal purposes surely only days away from rocking back into the office

Trump has empowered Elon to do the cutting and Elon is doing just that, mate. You know this, quit the gaslighting please. The nazi stuff also having an impact as evidenced by the swasticar stuff.

 

[faible]

So unless you think they're all lying

It's this one. They're lying. Because they're liars.

 

[bourbons]

Is it Musk or Trump?

Two people cant take 100% of the credit...

Trump would be loving it I reckon. Just get Elon to do all the stuff he wants to do but is too lazy or incompetent to do, have him take a good deal of the blowback for it and all Donnie has to do is the odd Telsa commercial and muse about domestic terrorism.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

Au contraire my friend, it most definitely does cut it. Its right there in the language;

It was not wilfull, and he did not communicate, deliver or transmit it - not until Gabbard & co. declared it wasn't classified. I reckon the The Atlantic's lawyers would be a bit more across the relevant legals than either of us, just quietly.

Anyway you've just totally ignored the laundry list of confirmed, objective facts in relation to Trump that led to his charges, the stuff that very clearly explains why Trump was charged and why Goldberg won't be. Not very 'good faith' of you I must say



Again, the journalist didn't solicit, possess, or publish national defense information (again until Gabard & co. declared it wasn't classified). That just leaves you with 'receive' - good luck arguing that being added to a group chat by someone else and doing precisely nothing with that information until after event it pertained to = 'receiving' lol

And you're right, in the scenario you've described you'd be cooked. The more analagous scenario for the reality here would be some random running up to you in the street and shoving something stolen into your hands while the police were observing him, pretty sure you'd be all clear in that scenario.


So its basically as I suspected - you're not basing your position on any data or rationale, merely your beliefs.

There was most definitely actionable information - who the target was (the Houthis), when the strikes were planned to happen and what methods were going to be used - as I've said to you before and just re-iterated to Lebbo, we can assume the Houthis know they are the Houthis and where their own forces threatening shipping are located, yes? Like... they have anti-aircraft capability, demonstrated only a month or so ago.

Houthis Attack U.S. Fighter Jet and Drone

In a close call indicating the tenuous stability of the Red Sea, the Houthis fired surface-to-air missiles at a U.S. F-16 and MQ-9 Reaper drone on February 19 but missed them both, according to reports...

www.fdd.org

But the real kicker is the information doesn't even have to be 'actionable' according to the policy; "lnformation providing indication or advance warning that the US or its allies are preparing an attack" is the text. This 'actionable' thing is an invention of people you're following online who are trying to run defense for this quite egregious **** up, and they're still wrong because, yes, clearly the info was actionable had it fallen into the wrong hands (this also takes care of the response you've asked for in regard to your other post, 2990).


Of course they were all lying when they said no classifed info mate, like what the ****

Was straight up proved once Goldberg released the chats the day following Gabbard and Ratcliffe's testimony

So this appears to be a chance to alter how we interact with each other and take some verified, objective facts on board in consideration of our positions, and possibly even learn something occasionally. Considering everything I've laid out above, is it still your contention that the chat contained no classified information?

I thought we were toning down the mockery? I restrained myself in my last post to you. Looks like you can't give up your habit. Anyway, short for time right now and I'll give a fuller response later. Just want to briefly make two points. The willful part is in relation to the retention. You can't argue he didn't willfully retain the information. He also communicated and or transmitted the information with other employees at the Atlantic, as several news articles have outlined in their analysis of whether he's broken any rules.

 

[bourbons]

Also we are not raging about lefities. We are raging about violence and crime.

Yes, you're all very concerned about violence and crime aren't you

Has Donnie "taken a look at" the pardons for J6'ers who assaulted police do you know? He said he'd do it so I assume its coming, seems like it'd be a pretty big one for a righteous upstanding concerned citizen like yourself

 

[bourbons]

um...Trump?

Stokey sure walked right into that one

Wbat a perfect encapsulation.

God you are stupid.

Its ok mate, not even top 10 in the stupidest things you've said. Just take the L and move on.

 

[bourbons]

It's this one. They're lying. Because they're liars.

I'm trying my best to change up my tone with him, it was a legit offer.

Its very, very hard to take someone at face value though when they're oh so innocently wondering how Hegseth and Gabbard could possibly be lying in this situation, I mean come on

 

[Stokey]

Have you tried typing with your fingers?

Excuse me for using my mobile. We cant all be shut-ins like yourself.

 

[bourbons]

I thought we were toning down the mockery? I restrained myself in my last post to you. Looks like you can't give up your habit.

No I don't think there was any mockery in there? In fact I re-wrote parts of it as I thought it might have come across a bit harsh, which specific bits do you take issue with?

Anyway, short for time right now and I'll give a fuller response later. Just want to briefly make two points. The willful part is in relation to the retention. You can't argue he didn't willfully retain the information. He also communicated and or transmitted the information with other employees at the Atlantic, as several news articles have outlined in their analysis of whether he's broken any rules.

Retain/receive, like I said good luck arguing that part as it pertains to being added to a group chat by someone else.

I'd be interested in reading any of the articles about the legals though, post them up. Would have thought the biggest indicator is there has been no rumblings from the Trump admin about prosecuting him - surely they would if they could? Whats Donnie waiting for?

 

[faible]

I'm trying my best to change up my tone with him, it was a legit offer.

Its very, very hard to take someone at face value though when they're oh so innocently wondering how Hegseth and Gabbard could possibly be lying in this situation, I mean come on

There's no principles or values guiding their posting. That's why there's no consistency.

It's all just post-hoc justifications that start with 'Trump is right' as the intended outcome. That's it.

I posted the below in the previous iteration of this thread, and not one single poster was willing to do so:

I'd love to know what the pro-Trump cohort consider their red line.

Realistically, not some weird deflection, what's the red line that would see them jump off the Trump train?

Any one willing to stick a flag down and say 'here's my line' for us to review over the next four years?

There's no principles. There's no values. There's no morals. There's no ethics.

There's just Trump.

 

[bourbons]

There's no principles or values guiding their posting. That's why there's no consistency.

It's all just post-hoc justifications that start with 'Trump is right' as the intended outcome. That's it.

I posted the below in the previous iteration of this thread, and not one single poster was willing to do so:



There's no principles. There's no values. There's no morals. There's no ethics.

There's just Trump.

Yep. Have posted similar many times here.

they don't have any actual core beliefs or principles, its just yay team for them regardless of what their team is actually doing.

 

[PenskeFile]

Why are they sending Venezuelans to El Salvador without due process? At least send them home, it just sounds dodgy as hell. It has been well reported that many were in the US legally and definitely not gang members.

I have seen a few surmise that the Venezuelan gang they are going after works for the CIA (the gang oppose Maduro), so they don’t really want to go after them. If they sent the people back home to Venezuela, it would be quickly established that they are not gang members so they send them to prison indefinitely in El Salvador (at the expense of US tax payers).

Venezuela has said they will take them, again it just makes no sense to send them to El Salvador at far greater expense.

 

[PenskeFile]

In less than 100 days, the Trump regime are disappearing PhD students for being critical of mass murder off the streets, bombing countries, begging Zelenskyy for a minerals deal, playing “let’s make a deal” with tariffs and now unquestionably being Israel’s bitch.

 

[faible]

In less than 100 days, the Trump regime are disappearing PhD students for being critical of mass murder off the streets, bombing countries, begging Zelenskyy for a minerals deal, playing “let’s make a deal” with tariffs and now unquestionably being Israel’s bitch.

And his supporters are loving it all. This is what they wanted, apparently.

 

[bourbons]

Yeah seems to be doing a fair bit of bombing and warmongering, Donnie The Dove firmly in the rearview.

"Aren't you against fraud and waste" basically all they have left.

 

[jatz14]

[emoji2357]

Every one of which is inferior to fibre for those people who can access it.

Which is the vast majority of Australia.

The NBN was a good infrastructure project, sidetracked by an idiotic Coalition government.

Satellite has about 30 - 50 years left as a viable mass communication technology.

The movie Gravity is a hyperbolic and inaccurate depiction of a real mathematical projection.

As the amount of material in orbit increases, the number of collisions increases. Each collision adds more debris to the orbit. Satellites have already been lost to this.

At a certain point, the number of collisions will start to increase exponentially, exponentially adding more debris.

When your satellites need to be replaced every year or 2, because they got damaged, it becomes financially unviable to launch them.

They are already looking at debris removal techniques, but even if they work, hideously expensive.

On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app