As for Bill? Well, he's Sgt Schultz that knows nothing, saw nothing.

And I don't believe THAT for one second.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/w...

So no. I DON'T find it strange that Hillary and Bill are called to testify. Bill is mentioned in the files and Hillary was close enough to the situation to be called as a witness by either party of the lawsuit begs the question; just how close to the situation WAS Hillary? I'd like to know.

So. Funny thing about this...

It was reported that Hillary was listed as a potential witness in the lawsuit put forward by Virginia Guiffre. Whether it was to be a witness for Maxwell or Guiffre wasn't made clear, but, that EITHER found her ABLE to be a witness is telling.

Or should be.

He hurt "those people".

That was the mission.

Live in the southern states for, oh, DECADES... have MAGA racist parents and you get to see and understand the problem.

It's the racism. The bigotry. Misogyny. Hurting "those people". The "them" of the week.

MN tossed red meat to the base.

Which people have proven by posting donor lists.

OH... right... internet... bots...

Dems in power claim they can't do anything because the GOP cried about (insert).

Dems in minority claim they can't do anything because...

Get it yet?

It. Doesn't. Matter.

They will work for the donors, F the people over, cry at a mic how useless they are.

Rinse. Repeat. For. DECADES.

The POINT is that stating ALL men is false. Period. Pick a number. 85%? 90%. Whatever. Fine.

LOTS of men are shitheads. I know this. Women know this. MOST don't have the balls to stand up against the wrongs. But SOME do.

The rest? Do whatever. Treat them however you want.

There is an estimated 4.89 BILLION men worldwide.

And ALL of them are that way? Every. Single. One? In EVERY country? WORLDWIDE?

No.

The majority? Even the vast majority. Pick a %. 70%. 85%? Whatever.

ALL is a provably false statement because it only takes ONE good one to make ALL false.

We can surmise that Andrew's activities were known and the Queen used her power to squash any accountability on the royal family in every venue that could do so, Metro Police/Scotland Yard, etc.

And with her passing, suddenly that protection is gone... to an extent.

How far? We'll see.

So. 🤦‍♂️

"says he was told to keep quiet by the Met."

Metropolice told the protection guard to remain silent about Andrew's activities.

Scotland Yard began then squashed an investigation into Andrew.

Between those and now?

Andrew was arrested.

Difference?

No Queen.

www.msn.com/en-us/entert...

Yes. And they are currently trying to get the voter data from every other state so they can pull some tomfuckery in those states.

Our elections are now as screwed as Russia's where there is video evidence of Putin stooges stuffing ballot boxes.

"New theories are not worthy of consideration just because somebody says, hey, what if."

THIS is WHY your method fails.

You don't even CONSIDER the consideration just because someone SAYS so even when YOU have little to ZERO knowledge of what you speak.

By YOUR reasoning, I was a quack! I SAID it existed before the "proof" emerged and it was admitted to exist.

YOUR method fails.

The government denied the existence of Groom Lake and Area 51 for decades DESPITE there being photos of the entrance sign. 🤣 So much for the "scientific method" when it comes to the gov't and people's evil nature; even WITH evidence, just deny it.

I've BEEN there. BEFORE it was admitted to exist.

"Diana's death has been interrogated for decades"

And did it uncover SOME of the facts, or, ALL of the facts?

See. That's the problem. YOU don't know. YOU know what has been made public. That's it.

Things are denied. Evidence withheld or never uncovered. That, we know, for certain.

A claim was made. YOU made a second claim.

BOTH claims hold a 50/50 chance of being true as a result. True? Might. Might not be.

YOU cannot PROVE your claim is right just as they can't as NEITHER of you have ALL of the evidence.

The files alone aren't ALL of the evidence.

We already know. They haven't stated one that is different from what it has always been;

1. They aren't the "other guys"
2. They will promise to do (insert) with a high probability of sabotaging it from happening once elected.
3. They will work for their donors and selves as a party first.

And you've seen EVERY file, unredacted, to KNOW that it ISN'T in there?

That too is a claim.

So prove YOUR side... YOUR claim... that it ISN'T in there.

Or STFU.

No. AFAIK we don't have secret alien spacecraft, but if evidence comes later, so be it.

Too many times people KNEW things were happening that weren't right and have been silenced by these types of people crying "but but evidence! NOW dammit!" that DID appear later. That's a FACT people forget.

This is why I facepalm.

"but but EVIDENCE! Right NOW dammit!"

Did people have evidence in 1932 of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment? Or did THAT come later proving everyone RIGHT?

MKULTRA, that ran for 20 YEARS. Who had the evidence between '53 and '73 to PROVE it before it was admitted to?

So. We KNOW that Trump and his cronies are going to go after VA disability benefits, and we KNOW that it is already starting with this revelation.

They are looking for any and every way possible to take away VA disability benefits.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/u...

France and the UK are already compromised as both countries had the chance to investigate fully and failed to do so.

Poland and Lithuania? We'll see.

Disaster capitalism.

In the past, it was a reaction to a disaster. Now, they create a disaster just to profit off of it.

All because they CAN without fear of consequences.

Yes. This isn't new, either. Why do people think Trump believes he CAN do this and get away with it.

Bush Jr instituted a TORTURE of prisoners PROGRAM with "legal" memos and all... and Obama, along with his AG, told the people to "move on" while protecting those involved.

The people have had the evidence for decades of just how evil people can be, both within and without of a gov't, to include the US gov't.

That people STILL shove their head in the sand refusing to admit it just exacerbates the problem.

This is why the rampant abuse problem is now a coming reality because there is no objective requirement attached, which we know because it was already challenged and the SC fuckwits refused to provide clarification of any standard.

Hillary IS mentioned in the files as a potential witness in the lawsuit brought forth by Guiffre. Who Hillary could have been called as a potential witness BY, Maxwell or Guiffre, is unclear.

Exigent circumstances already allowed cops to enter without a warrant. This basically removes the requirements of exigent circumstances and says "if it's not attached to a criminal situation, warrants aren't even needed, just a BELIEF someone needs emergency assistance."

It's the wording.

The question is whether officers must have “probable cause” for the intrusion, as they typically would when investigating a crime. We hold it does not.

The probable-cause requirement is rooted in, derives its meaning from, the criminal context, we decline to transplant it to this different one.

Court held that police officers may enter a home without a
warrant if they have an “objectively reasonable basis for believing” that someone inside needs emergency assistance.

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...