21. Military Intelligence Contact Update continued:

Twitter•Yesterday at 12:17 PM
Ashli Babbit ALIVE and WELL The FALSE FLAG Shooting
You have been PLAYED. Chalk one more for the DeepState. Sheeple will still believe whatever they are told. In this Slowed Down & Stop Motion...

1. Will Trump pull the trigger?

The only question now is: Will Trump pull the trigger and unleash the military arrests? Note that Trump does not have the loyalty of the US Army, nor of many top generals. He doesn't need that. Trump has Chris Miller at the DoD, and he has...

1 “Amazing Juan O'Savin Video: America's New Day Dawning, the Rebirth of America" 12.21

When Senator Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated on June 6, 1968, Jacqueline Kennedy cried out, “If they’re killing Kennedys, then my children are targets. I want to get out of this country.”

2. Mrs. Kennedy had a heartbreaking reason and a compelling reason to say that.

President Kennedy’s family are either incredibly accident prone or possibly, and this is just my supposition, there was an underlying plot by the de*ep state to remove every Kennedy that they...

3. ... believed posed a threat to their envisaged defeat.

How can I make that claim?

Because both the de*ep state and the Alliance are in possession of Looking Glass technology. This advanced off-world tech enables one to see into everything: Akashic records, future, past,...

4. ... present, timelines, dimensions, 2020 U.S. elections, anything.

Gene Decode reported that POTUS was in a SCIF Election Night watching the Election fraud take place on Quantum Computers and that this was the second time the Alliance had watched the fraud. They’d already...

5. ... seen Election Night 2020 before Trump even became POTUS thanks to Looking Glass.

This technology could also explain why Q’s posts are so eerily accurate.

It is my theory that, perhaps, when the ca_bal looked into future timelines they could see that an essential...

1. Juan O’Savin for verifying this. “Plane crashes are targeted kills.”

Here is a brief summary for those who may not be familiar with Kennedy History:

21. Military Intelligence Contact Update continued...

. . . He said one such Deep State attack scenario was being threatened in Las Vegas NV THIS COMING TUE-TO-SAT 26-30 Jan for which Deep State operatives with FBI / CIA related connections put out ads to recruit mass...

1. On Wed. 20 Jan.Military Intel Contact said that by Sun 24 Jan things should become clearer. The illegal presidency of pedo-Sat*anist Joe B*iden should begin to be disclosed, along with the disclosure of the crimes of many other traitors / criminals in DC.

Let's remember that L. Lin Wood - according to a lawsuit filed by three attorneys who worked with/for him - allegedly called them to his house at 1 a.m. in the midst of a personal crisis, they sat with him to make sure he was okay, and tthe next day he fired them all via email.

Let's also recall that, shortly thereafter, according to the same Complaint, it is alleged he held a 3.5 hour phone call wherein he - again according to the Complaint - verbally berated these attorneys nonstop.

Then proceeded, the attorneys who worked with him allege, to send multiple abusive email messages to them with unhinged ramblings about Almighty God guiding him.

Note: Literally ANY email that includes the words "you are the ones who are crazy, not me" is immediately suspect.

Sidenote: Voicemails that insist an action seems crazy but really isn't and makes completely sense are, in my general experience with domestic abuse cases, red flags.

Law society published some guidance recently on e-signatures...https://t.co/g70MUWg6K0 - some thoughts and comments...

👁‍🗨 Witnessing...they conclude that witnesses have to be "physically present" and you cannot witness somebody by video link. Probably correct as a matter of case law. It's a shame they aren't more forceful in their urge for change here...

The point in witnessing has always been evidential. So that if one person claims they didn't actually sign a document, you have somebody you can call upon to attest evidence that they did or did not. Also adds some formality to the process to make people think

When you're using e-signature, people's email addresses are being put into a system. You also have IP addresses, geolocations, timestamps all recorded when people actually go on to sign the document. Doesn't this add quite a lot of evidential value?

Physical presence would help avoid a scenario where somebody gains access to somebody else's email account, signs a document and then gets somebody to witness. If that witness were virtual, they wouldn't see the mischief that has occurred...is this not quite a remote risk though?

I'm all for discussing Navaly's personal politics, and disagree with him on much, but saying the free world shouldn't stand up for someone jailed and nearly murdered because he's not Bernie Gandhi Mandela is bullshit. He's risking his life fighting a mafia dictatorship.

Plus, Navaly's politics as we know them (he's never held office), not coincidentally, largely reflect mainstream Russia, which is far from liberal by Western standards. This is probably a more useful topic anyway, tbh, esp re Crimea.

He's ambitious, as was/is Khodorkovsky. He has positions (again, no formal platform) that would make him acceptable to Russians should he ever get an actual chance at power. That makes him less acceptable to Western liberals, but they're always hoping for a Yavlinsky, a Nemtsov.

Navalny and his org fight Putin and corruption. They advocate for free and fair elections, for a democratic Russia that is part of the civilized world. As for his being xenophobic and pro-annexation of Crimea, congratulations, you discovered that he's Russian.

(I've got quite a few far more liberal Russian friends who have a hard time saying Russia should ever give Crimea back. It's a real weak spot, one that Putin was very aware of and exploits effectively with propaganda.)

I love the smell of a leaked legal service opinion in the morning

The conclusion: the EU Council legal service says that it's OK for the Brexit deal to be concluded with the UK by the EU only, not needing Member States' participation

The reasoning: the legal service distinguishes between competences reserved to Member States, and competences shared with the EU. For the latter, the EU has the choice of concluding an EU-only treaty.

The legal service summarises the prior case law backing up its interpretation.

It refers to the Weddell case, concerning competence to conclude a treaty on the Antarctic environment, where Member States *could* be involved. But that was based on the particular legal features of the Antarctic treaty; and the UK is not Antarctica.