McFarland to Exit White House as McMaster Consolidates Power

[AuH20]

Ping Pong Pizza? Orgy Island? Or both?

The island with cameras all over the place.

[CPUd]

I just noticed Dina Powell. (No relation to Colin Powell. Looked it up.) Guess where she got her start? Goldman Sachs!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dina_Powell

Dina Habib Powell (born 1973) is an Egyptian-American business executive, philanthropist and U.S. policymaker. She is the current U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy[1] to President Donald Trump.[2][3]

Before being promoted to Deputy National Security Advisor, Powell served in the Trump administration as an Assistant to the President and Senior Counselor for Economic Initiatives.[4] Powell worked at Goldman Sachs from 2007 through 2016 and was president of the Goldman Sachs Foundation.

Powell previously served in the George W. Bush administration as Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Deputy Undersecretary of State for Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy, and an Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel.[3][5]

She was a staffer and policy advisor during the campaign.

Ivanka friend Dina Powell trading Goldman Sachs for White House

[TheCount]

Oh by all means, that isn't the problem. The problem is you dismiss pizzagate as a non-story when clearly an investigation is needed. What is suspicious is it you pizzagate deniers conveniently tend to be EXTREMELY anti-Trump. Not like "This dude sucks", but straight up Correct The Record shill level anti-Trump.

It doesn't matter if pizzagate is a story or not. It will never be investigated by anyone.

[Athan]

Trump himself is a suspected pedophile. And we had "wolves" all along. Hello? Dina Powell? Have you done your research on her? She's been a conductor on the "Trump train" from the beginning and she is a Goldman Sachs executive. Plus Trump himself was funded by George Soros. Dude wake up and smell reality. Your guy has been a NWO stooge all along. And if Trump is such a weak ass leader that criticism of him on a freaking web forum causes him to "change course" (he really hasn't changed course) then Trump sucks ass anyway.

I posted just recently a thread that not only was Soros involved with funding Kushner, but that the lawyer had ties to the Clinton Foundation. And I agree, if there is no arrests or investigations, then Trump is pretty much controlled op.

LOL @ PizzaGate. Orgy Island is the real child sex slave story. One person accused has actually been convicted. That would be Epstein. Bill Clinton and Donald Trump have both been implicated. There is better evidence against Clinton and Trump or Orgy Island than there is on Podesta over PizzaGate. Notice that Alex Jones apologized for PizzaGate. Good money says Donald Trump told him to shut up because too much delving into the story would expose Trump's flank WRT Orgy Island.

They are all interconnected. From Lolita Express/Orgy island, Pizzagate/Pedo Plaza, to Pedowood, to London's child sex rings, and etc.

There is a reason Alex Jones apologized for pizzagate. It has nothing to do with whether he was right about Alefantis, when you are sued by the plaintiff, the only facts that matter in the case brought BY THE PLAINTIFF and the only testimony and evidence that will be allowed in that case is whether your statements have hurt the business. And since Alefantis hasn't been investigated or convicted of the crime, the defendant's lawyers (Jones) have no material witness to back up their claim because it will be dismissed EVEN IF IT IS TRUE. You would hear nothing but "OBJECTION" from the plaintiff's lawyer and the judge striking down any allegation of the said activities, and the judge will instruct the jury to forget and dismiss anything the defendant brings up for defense. His defense has to rely solely on whether he didn't say what he publicly say or that he has proof the plaintiff's business did not suffer financial damages.

That is ALL that will matter in the case, did Alefantis lose money because of Jones' public defamation. "He who sues first, wins."

It doesn't matter if pizzagate is a story or not. It will never be investigated by anyone.

Yes, and I bet you are happy about it since "it doesn't matter" if children are getting raped and groomed for rape.

[twomp]

Flynn cares so much about America that he registered to be a lobbyist for Turkey. That is your guy's hero? This was clearly Ivanka's fault. Teh Donald doesn't make any bad decisions ever. It is everyone else's fault.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

It doesn't matter if pizzagate is a story or not. It will never be investigated by anyone.

Not when pedophiles advocate things like LAMBDA. And from that other thread I'd guess you're happy about that. Good job!

[jmdrake]

I posted just recently a thread that not only was Soros involved with funding Kushner, but that the lawyer had ties to the Clinton Foundation. And I agree, if there is no arrests or investigations, then Trump is pretty much controlled op.

They are all interconnected. From Lolita Express/Orgy island, Pizzagate/Pedo Plaza, to Pedowood, to London's child sex rings, and etc.

Yep. That's my point.

There is a reason Alex Jones apologized for pizzagate. It has nothing to do with whether he was right about Alefantis, when you are sued by the plaintiff, the only facts that matter in the case brought BY THE PLAINTIFF and the only testimony and evidence that will be allowed in that case is whether your statements have hurt the business. And since Alefantis hasn't been investigated or convicted of the crime, the defendant's lawyers (Jones) have no material witness to back up their claim because it will be dismissed EVEN IF IT IS TRUE. You would hear nothing but "OBJECTION" from the plaintiff's lawyer and the judge striking down any allegation of the said activities, and the judge will instruct the jury to forget and dismiss anything the defendant brings up for defense. His defense has to rely solely on whether he didn't say what he publicly say or that he has proof the plaintiff's business did not suffer financial damages.

And your qualifications as an expert on defamation law are.....? Because you don't seem to know what you are talking about. In a defamation lawsuit the main defense is that you have reason to believe that the story you published is true. No judge worth spit would hold up such an objection. If you think you are right then please cite statute and/or case law to support your claim. You can look up relevant case law by going to http://scholar.google.com. Since John Podesta was the main target of the Pizzagate, the lawsuit would fall under the "public figure" exception to defamation law even though it can be argued that Alefantis is not a public figure which means that Alex Jones would have to be shown to be malicious to lose the lawsuit. A showing of maliciousness means that you had to know that the story you were publishing was most likely false before you published it. If defamation lawsuits were as easy to win as you seem to think then Alex Jones would have been sued out of business a long time ago.

Yes, and I bet you are happy about it since "it doesn't matter" if children are getting raped and groomed for rape.

You are the one who defended a suspected pedophile (Donald J. Trump.) This information that Donald J. Trump was a suspected pedophile existed prior to Trump's election. One of convicted pedophile's Jeff Epstein's victims was recruited from Trump's Mara Largo resort. Why does that not bother you?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7631891.html

Donald Trump has been placed on the witness list for a civil trial involving billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, a lawyer involved in the case has claimed.

The US President has been “identified as an individual who may have information” relating to allegations about Epstein, Jack Scarola told the LawNewz.com website.

He said there is evidence that at least one former employee at Mr Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, was recruited by an associate of Epstein to become involved in alleged sex offences.
.
.
.
It also quotes an interview with Mr Trump, featured in New York Magazine, in which he said: “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

[TheCount]

Yes, and I bet you are happy about it since "it doesn't matter" if children are getting raped and groomed for rape.

Oh yes I'm extremely pro child rape. The more the better.

[parocks]

No rewriting history. Examine what transpired. The entire weight of the Deep State together with the MSM was unleashed upon him. Cui bono? Apparently, the CFR, the Saudis and the Mossad benefit with the appointment of McMaster.

That seems about right. Trump has been under attack heavily for the past few months. And he caved.

[CPUd]

That seems about right. Trump has been under attack heavily for the past few months. And he caved.

That is a myth being pushed by fakenews, according to President Donald:

[Athan]

Yep. That's my point.

..uh ok?

And your qualifications as an expert on defamation law are.....? Because you don't seem to know what you are talking about. In a defamation lawsuit the main defense is that you have reason to believe that the story you published is true. No judge worth spit would hold up such an objection. If you think you are right then please cite statute and/or case law to support your claim. You can look up relevant case law by going to http://scholar.google.com. Since John Podesta was the main target of the Pizzagate, the lawsuit would fall under the "public figure" exception to defamation law even though it can be argued that Alefantis is not a public figure which means that Alex Jones would have to be shown to be malicious to lose the lawsuit. A showing of maliciousness means that you had to know that the story you were publishing was most likely false before you published it. If defamation lawsuits were as easy to win as you seem to think then Alex Jones would have been sued out of business a long time ago.

I've dealt with court quite a bit on a personal level as my own defense. I have familiarity with prosecution tactics to dismiss and discredit evidence and exhibits. What are your qualifications? If you a lawyer with someone with better credentials, I'd like your opinion on how you think the lawsuit broke down. As far as I know, Alex Jones made passing comments and wasn't involved the way David Seaman and other youtube online investigators were. I am genuinely interest in how you estimate Alefantis is perusing his case considering much of his online behavior and why authorities are not investigating the activity of him and his group and even has the Sheriff himself providing public support (Very unusual for law enforcement to be doing something like this and get involved and seem bias). There is enough smoke for a forest fire around this dude and his online community and friends and yet there are more concerted efforts to dismiss than there are acknowledgements having authorities investigate instead of online volunteers.

You are the one who defended a suspected pedophile (Donald J. Trump.) This information that Donald J. Trump was a suspected pedophile existed prior to Trump's election. One of convicted pedophile's Jeff Epstein's victims was recruited from Trump's Mara Largo resort. Why does that not bother you?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7631891.html

Donald Trump has been placed on the witness list for a civil trial involving billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, a lawyer involved in the case has claimed.

The US President has been “identified as an individual who may have information” relating to allegations about Epstein, Jack Scarola told the LawNewz.com website.

He said there is evidence that at least one former employee at Mr Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, was recruited by an associate of Epstein to become involved in alleged sex offences.

It also quotes an interview with Mr Trump, featured in New York Magazine, in which he said: “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

Thanks for the link! I'm trying to figure out if they have been blackmailing or had some dirt on Trump since his 180 on Syria. And no, I'm not defending Trump. I am simply giving this shill grief:

Oh yes I'm extremely pro child rape. The more the better.

To which I say to him: Yes, I am well aware. You have made it clear before.

[jmdrake]

Hello. Yes I am an attorney. From what I can gather, Alex Jones has not yet been sued over this. Mr. Alefantis is "weighing his legal claims."

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a...izzagate-stuff

There wouldn't be any prosecutors involved because this is a civil matter. Both sides, plaintiff and defendant, would hire private lawyers so the playing field would be pretty even but skewed somewhat based on who had the most money for legal fees. Alex Jones could get enough of his listeners to donate for a decent defense attorney if it came to that.

In this case there would be little grounds for suppressing the evidence. One argument for suppressing evidence, and frankly the only one I think that applies in this case, is to say the evidence is more prejudicial then it is relevant. But in this case, the "evidence" that Alex Jones put forward on his show is 100% relevant. It's the case for either side. In fact if I was Mr. Alefantis' attorney I would want to introduce it. There whole claim is that based on nothing but flimsy evidence, Alex Jones whipped his audience into a frenzy to the point that one of his listeners went into Comet Ping Pong Pizza with a rifle to "investigate" pizzagate and fired shots. And of course Alex Jones has a right, if he gets sued, to mount a defense. The defense in this case is that he had reason to believe the story was true when he ran with it. I cannot think of a sound legal argument as to why in a defamation case a judge would sustain an objection to evidence that a party used to form his allegedly untrue opinion since that goes to the heart of defamation.

That said, Alex Jones would be at high risk for losing such a case if it went to trial even if he was allowed to put even bit of evidence in, which I suspect that he would be. The actions by his listener makes Alex Jones seem crazy and dangerous, because what the listener did was crazy and dangerous. And apparently the listener was trying to find a basement that didn't exist. You may or may not recall this, but after the shooting at Comet Ping Pong, Alex Jones gave a somewhat apology way back then. Frankly I think what happened at Comet Ping Pong seems more like a psyop/false flag than some of the things Alex Jones has called psyops and false flags. In Washington DC in an establishment frequented by DC elites a gunman goes in, fires shots, and is allowed to surrender without being killed? These are the same cops who chased down Miriam Carey, and unarmed black woman, got her baby out of the car, and then shot her multiple times.

..uh ok?



I've dealt with court quite a bit on a personal level as my own defense. I have familiarity with prosecution tactics to dismiss and discredit evidence and exhibits. What are your qualifications? If you a lawyer with someone with better credentials, I'd like your opinion on how you think the lawsuit broke down. As far as I know, Alex Jones made passing comments and wasn't involved the way David Seaman and other youtube online investigators were. I am genuinely interest in how you estimate Alefantis is perusing his case considering much of his online behavior and why authorities are not investigating the activity of him and his group and even has the Sheriff himself providing public support (Very unusual for law enforcement to be doing something like this and get involved and seem bias). There is enough smoke for a forest fire around this dude and his online community and friends and yet there are more concerted efforts to dismiss than there are acknowledgements having authorities investigate instead of online volunteers.



Thanks for the link! I'm trying to figure out if they have been blackmailing or had some dirt on Trump since his 180 on Syria. And no, I'm not defending Trump. I am simply giving this shill grief:



To which I say to him: Yes, I am well aware. You have made it clear before.

[Athan]

Hello. Yes I am an attorney. From what I can gather, Alex Jones has not yet been sued over this. Mr. Alefantis is "weighing his legal claims."

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a...izzagate-stuff

There wouldn't be any prosecutors involved because this is a civil matter. Both sides, plaintiff and defendant, would hire private lawyers so the playing field would be pretty even but skewed somewhat based on who had the most money for legal fees. Alex Jones could get enough of his listeners to donate for a decent defense attorney if it came to that.

In this case there would be little grounds for suppressing the evidence. One argument for suppressing evidence, and frankly the only one I think that applies in this case, is to say the evidence is more prejudicial then it is relevant. But in this case, the "evidence" that Alex Jones put forward on his show is 100% relevant. It's the case for either side. In fact if I was Mr. Alefantis' attorney I would want to introduce it. There whole claim is that based on nothing but flimsy evidence, Alex Jones whipped his audience into a frenzy to the point that one of his listeners went into Comet Ping Pong Pizza with a rifle to "investigate" pizzagate and fired shots. And of course Alex Jones has a right, if he gets sued, to mount a defense. The defense in this case is that he had reason to believe the story was true when he ran with it. I cannot think of a sound legal argument as to why in a defamation case a judge would sustain an objection to evidence that a party used to form his allegedly untrue opinion since that goes to the heart of defamation.

That said, Alex Jones would be at high risk for losing such a case if it went to trial even if he was allowed to put even bit of evidence in, which I suspect that he would be. The actions by his listener makes Alex Jones seem crazy and dangerous, because what the listener did was crazy and dangerous. And apparently the listener was trying to find a basement that didn't exist. You may or may not recall this, but after the shooting at Comet Ping Pong, Alex Jones gave a somewhat apology way back then. Frankly I think what happened at Comet Ping Pong seems more like a psyop/false flag than some of the things Alex Jones has called psyops and false flags. In Washington DC in an establishment frequented by DC elites a gunman goes in, fires shots, and is allowed to surrender without being killed? These are the same cops who chased down Miriam Carey, and unarmed black woman, got her baby out of the car, and then shot her multiple times.

Bro you rock! Thanks for the clarification on this.

This provides a lot of insight why it makes tactical sense to provide a staged false flag. To discredit and build cases against people.