The Schedule - Day 925
- 17GEN4
- Jul 13, 2025
- 5 min read
The Schedule - Day 925
7/13/2025
Welcome back to Rumble Dan Bongino.
Double Fucked
Will Bongino be called up to he show?
We win either way. This is how you take a win-win situation and turn it into a lose-lose situation. Leaker
No reasonable person ever thought we were going to see any client list related to the epstein files. Do you really think that the people who had Epstein killed were going to hand you a list with their names on it?
Continuing with the idea of lose lose situations, that are premeditated calculations based on the process by which an investigation is conducted; I proposed early on that the Diddy trial would be the consolation prize for lack of any substance related to the Epstein "investigation" and that is exactly what it is.
you are once again, double-fucked. The Diddy trial is the Epstein trail that we never had and Diddy the Diddy trial is charging a related party for the crimes of the original offenders - The people who put Diddy on trial shared a link to Epstein through the pimp, Gislaine Maxwell. The people who committed the original sin, by way of Jeffrey Epstein, shared the crime they have in common with Diddy and then dictated a process by which a jury would arrive at a predetermined outcomes based on 40 page series of instructions, process instructions, that directed them to arrive at the predetermined outcome based on a number of 'conditions' axioms or postulates, if you will, linguistic qualifiers,
This is bigger than the Epstein files, this is a prominent example of the linguistic axioms and postulates that are used to arrive at pre-determined outcomes that are proof of absolutely nothing other than the circular reasoning or logical fallacies that are fundamentally accepted principles of the process by which investigations and legal proceedings are conducted.
This is bigger than the Epstein Files, this is about the process by which an investigation and a legal proceeding conducted. They are connected, obviously. If the investigative process is conducted based on a finite series of steps that are designed by the system, than the logical fallacy of circular reasoning is extended to the courtroom where a trial is merely a continuation of or an extension of the process by which the illusion of proof is established regardless of 'extraneous' inculpatory or exculpatory 'evidence' to the contrary as dictated by the formulaic process.
Axiom Protocol and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Marcus Aurelius
Objects in motion tend to stay in motion and objects at rest tend to stay at rest.
Your evidence to the contrary is illegal as is dictated by the process of the legal system, according to the system. This is an excerpt from my manifesto - The Axiom Protocol - Industrial Future and Its Society, which is a continuous work in practice written and recorded by Michael Cronin as a living bible wherein you will no longer be taught to tolerate.
Alina Habba recently said on the Sean Hannity radio show - 'we cannot fight them on the level to which they have brought us,' - the level to which who brought us where - which seems very convenient for the perpetrator who supposedly lives in fear while on the attack. Which makes you the viscous dog for defending yourself when attacked. Stellar job by Alina Habba who racked up a lot of billable hours not defending Trump in any way and then dropped the charges against Mayor of Newark, New Jersey, Ras Baraka.
Trump was given terrible advice by the people who influenced his decision making on certain matters. The people who designed and control the process by why which the illusion of justice is perceived.
Don't even think about the answer. Consider the question. Read it, then look at it.
What does the question say? Not ask; what does the question 'say' or suppose?
_____
YOU: “Do you want some advice?”
ME: “If it’s good, you would be the first. I already know how ‘it is’ and in my experience, people don’t usually go around giving out good advice for free, so what is it that you are selling?”
Influence. I believe it was Dennis Prager who said, “Experts are the worst people to take advice from.”
And I believe him because he interpreted The Bible.
“You don’t believe in God?”
“I believe it, I just don’t believe in it. And I certainly wouldn’t call it God. It isn’t what you think it is in terms of ‘religion’ - but it is. Just not the way (they lead) you to believe it is. God is a concept in the living practice of the teachings of the bible, table or torah.
If you sit on a table, does it become a chair?
Which one do you eat at? The altar?
SO, if the free advice you are giving me is to STFU, I’m still not buying it.
This is how you create a geometric assault to groom a special target - at least I am special in that way because the rest of you are simply targets of mind control.
I give this a 5 out of 5 star rating. However, unpopular options are not very popular right now.
_____
_____
A first year law school student knows the difference between de facto and de jure. Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor did not.
Ketanji Brown-Jackson is a representational feature of equity. I coined the phrase ignorance is a feature of equity.
The color blue did not exist in certain forms of artistic medium prior to the 'invention' of the word 'blue.' Did you know that? So the color blue did not exist (in certain forms of artistic medium) prior to the corpus catalog of language recognizing the word as an accepted entry into the lexicon or vocabulary.
If there is not a word for it, you can't see it? That doesn't make any sense. But it does when you consider the fact that if no word exists for what it is then you are also not able to 'say' what it is. Further, you are also not allowed to think it because it is extremely difficult to describe something for which there are no words available. The mental capacity to understand concepts is controlled by the words you are allowed to use to define them.
How would you describe music? You can't see it, you can't touch it. What is it? One of the earliest definitions of music was simply 'organized noise' or 'organized sound.'
How would you describe 'the experience' of listening to or hearing music? Not from the perspective of one who has been trained to play an instrument.
You cannot control the organized noise or sound that enters your ears. You can put your fingers over your ear canals, but then you cannot use your hands.
You can close your eyes if you don't like something you see, but then you cannot see where you are going.
You are not allowed to provide a clear and comprehensive definition description explanation or demonstrate understanding of a concept behavior or experience for which there are no words or when those words are limited for use only within the approved functional application.
The process is designed to arrive at a predetermined outcome wherein the criteria for material evaluation is subject to relevance as it pertains to the ability to restrict predtermined outcomes.
Look at me when I am talking to you.
Comments