You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
People attempting to forum slide and disrupt this board in contravention of Q's call for unity through patriotism may be banned
What is Q related? Anything involving Trump. Politics, Fake news, Censorship, Pizzagate, lluminati, New World Order, Secret Societies, Mk-Ultra, False Flags, Q proofs, etc...
Also, corruption in the following areas...
Government, Entertainment industry, celebrities, charities, corporations, etc...
No Pornographic Material Allowed
Continually harassing users can get your post/comment removed and you possibly banned. Threats of violence against other users or their family members are not allowed on v/GreatAwakening
Those belong in the comment section. If you need help, you can ping a mod, or PM us.
Posts need to be Q related. Not for attacking other users.
GAM is the new place for all things drama/mods/other users pertaining to v/GreatAwakening.
No usernames imitating mods
Misc reasons
Voat Rules
Content violates spam guidelines
Content contains or links to content that is illegal
Content contains personal information that relates to a Voat users real world or online identity
[–]Q201917760 points
4 points
4 points
(+4|-0)
ago
Also found Tashina Gauhar in the Moffa transcript during Congressional testimony related to MYE on p167-168, I believe:
"BY MS. KIM:
Q. One unfortunate byproduct of conspiracy theories is that innocent individuals keep getting dragged into conspiracy theories.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. There is a conspiracy theory that an attorney at the Justice Department named Tashina Gauhar was involved with you and Mr. Strzok in doing the secondary review of the new emails. Is that correct?
A. I've never heard that before. Is the question was she involved?
Q. Was she involved?
A. Can I confer for 2 seconds?
Q. Yes.
A. Thank you. [Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Moffa. Sorry. I was just checking on her SES status. She was not involved.
BY MS. KIM:
Q. She was not involved --
A. She was not involved.
Q. -- in the secondary review.
A. No. Of the Weiner laptop? No.
Q. In your opinion, was the review of the emails found on the Weiner laptop thorough?
A. I believe it was.
Q. Was it even-handed and neutral?
A. I believe it was.
Q. Did any information discovered in reviewing the emails on the laptop change the legal conclusion as to whether Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted?
A. Although classified information was found, it was classified information we had previously identified had been mishandled using the email system. And so, for that reason, it didn't change -- and, again, this was not a decision I made -- it did not change the sort of prosecutive implications when the OGC lawyers took a look at it. "
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Q20191776 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
Also found Tashina Gauhar in the Moffa transcript during Congressional testimony related to MYE on p167-168, I believe:
"BY MS. KIM:
Q. One unfortunate byproduct of conspiracy theories is that innocent individuals keep getting dragged into conspiracy theories.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. There is a conspiracy theory that an attorney at the Justice Department named Tashina Gauhar was involved with you and Mr. Strzok in doing the secondary review of the new emails. Is that correct?
A. I've never heard that before. Is the question was she involved?
Q. Was she involved?
A. Can I confer for 2 seconds?
Q. Yes.
A. Thank you. [Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Moffa. Sorry. I was just checking on her SES status. She was not involved.
BY MS. KIM:
Q. She was not involved --
A. She was not involved.
Q. -- in the secondary review.
A. No. Of the Weiner laptop? No.
Q. In your opinion, was the review of the emails found on the Weiner laptop thorough?
A. I believe it was.
Q. Was it even-handed and neutral?
A. I believe it was.
Q. Did any information discovered in reviewing the emails on the laptop change the legal conclusion as to whether Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted?
A. Although classified information was found, it was classified information we had previously identified had been mishandled using the email system. And so, for that reason, it didn't change -- and, again, this was not a decision I made -- it did not change the sort of prosecutive implications when the OGC lawyers took a look at it. "