Period.

He was a heroin addict and one of the many drug addicts that BLM recruited to riot. His buddy "Reese" Monson already did hard time in prison for other crimes over the last decade. And Monson seems to be the mastermind of the whole operation (or at least, Monson is the man who got Reinoehl to shoot someone, even if Monson was tasked with this by someone else higher up in BLM).

"Reinoehl also was wanted on a warrant out of Baker County in Eastern Oregon, where court records show he skipped a hearing related to a June case in which he has been charged with driving under the influence of controlled substances, reckless driving, reckless endangerment and unlawful possession of a firearm. Police said he drove on an interstate at up to 111 mph (179 kph), with his daughter in the car, while racing his 17-year-old son, who was in a different vehicle."

Baker County is over 300 miles from Portland. Quite a ways to travel for a heroin addict. Even more suspicious is he was killed near Lacey, Washington, which is over 130 miles from Portland, and over 420 miles from Baker County. Needless to say, this guy gets around a lot in a short span of time, especially for a drug addict no life loser who doesn't even seem to have a job.

An oddity: Reinoehl's BLM tattoo was recent, maybe a few months old tops. He had no other tattoo's. There's other very recent pictures of Reinoehl without the neck tat. Think about that....a man who gets no tat's his whole life....gets a BLM tat right on his neck! This seems less like him getting a tattoo, and more like him being branded with a tattoo. I.e. he was their white slave puppet. The tat isn't so much him expressing his love for BLM, as it is BLM branding him as their property / white slave foot soldier.

One thing to think about: Where's Reinoehl getting these guns? I'd imagine the police confiscated the gun he was illegally possessing when police discovered him with it from the DUI racing months earlier, yet he had another pistol when he committed murder, and a rifle when he shot at police. Clearly he didn't obtain any of these legally. And I doubt a heroin addict loser like him who spent most days lounging around with a needle in his arm, would be going out to buy guns with that money rather than drugs. Clearly he didn't shoot guns, because he couldn't even kill a single cop after firing over 50 rounds from window to sidewalk.

My theory is that Monson, semi-fresh out of doing hard time in prison, was supplying him with illegal street weapons. He's Reinoehl's BLM HQ "hard hitter" connection. First the pistol was supplied to kill the guy (maybe with the payment of heroin as a reward or the cancellation of some type of drug debt he had with Monson...and the tattoo could be that too, i.e. ok you can't cover your drug debt, then get this "I'm a black mans slave" tat on your neck instead).

Monson planned it out, they expected to get away with it on a dark street among the chaos of rioting...then once they realized they were identified, they panicked.

Now one thing fishy about all of this is that video is soo low quality and soo far away, I find it hard to believe even his own family would recognize him from that video. Let's keep in mind, the internet sleuth's were only able to identify him from that video by piecing together other higher quality pictures/videos from that night. Yet, right as the internet sleuth's were figuring out the identity of the shooter, she claims to have received a call threatening her to turn in her brother otherwise they would kill her family. Why would anyone need to threaten her to turn her brother in, when the internet sleuth's were already figuring it out? They didn't need her to identify him for police to take action. The internet sleuth's sure as heck didn't call her, they didn't need her to make an ID. She knew he murdered a man before she even saw the video.

So who made this threat? Monson. He knew that with Reinoehl being identified, it was only a matter of time before he'd be implicated too. Monson's position is he wasn't going back to prison again, and knew that as much as people say they ain't no snitch, when the heavy charges come down, tight lips start singing like a canary. So he wanted to make sure that Reinoehl would never live to see trial. He couldn't outright kill Reinoehl, it was too risky. So he did the next best thing....threatened Reinoehl's family to force him into suicide by cop. The threat to Reinoehl's sister was Monson making a point that he was serious and could get a whole crew up there to hurt people if he wanted, and Reinoehl's sister probably told him about the threat, not knowing it was from Monson.

Monson meets with Reinoehl and tells him he made the threat...then made his demand, something along the lines of: "Suicide yourself by cop, or we will kill you and your family. Either way you lose... but do you want to lose more or less?". So he dropped off a rifle or had someone else from BLM drop it off, for Reinoehl to use when the cops inevitably showed up, to make sure they had reason to shoot him dead. I doubt he still had the pistol used in the shooting, it was probably just a loaner from Monson and had likely been ditched shortly after the shooting. They needed something heavier and higher powered to make him seem like more of a threat so the cops would definitely air him out and so he wouldn't run out of ammo before they killed him, and for him to hopefully take some cops with him. Monson saw that as a double bonus: The man that could implicate him and his BLM buddies, dies before trial, and maybe some police die in the process.

Now all of this isn't to say that Reinoehl is innocent, but it's the point out that criminals beget criminals. Reinoehl may have had no qualms with being onboard with everything, but he definitely wasn't the leader, he was being lead. The shooter is almost never the mastermind, but rather the lowest person on the rung, a lackey sent to do someone elses bidding.

Here's the truth of the matter. GoFundMe gave the fundraiser an ultimatum: "Give the money to a non-profit, or we will refund all of the money back to the donors". This is because they didn't like funds being raised for the wall, so they wanted to sabotage it.

But by forcing him to give money to a non-profit, they completely altered the nature of the fundraising. Non-profit isn't free, non-profit still pays people working on it. Non-profit just means people get paid salaries, they cover their operating costs, and the rest goes to the stated cause. Where for-profit means people get paid salaries, and the rest goes into someones pockets as profit, like any regular business.

So it was GoFundMe that altered the nature of the fundraising and the stipulations around being able to accept the funds, yet now people are being charged with fraud. It's essentially a bait and switch frame job, to make it look like fraud was committed, when the only fraud committed was actually by GoFundMe trying to set someone up to create the appearance of having committed a crime.

Initially, it was just one man running the GoFundMe, and that was where the advertisements of not taking any money were made. Then GoFundMe changed the nature of the fundraising by requiring that the money be put into a non-profit, which Steve Bannon set up for him. Thus the guy can't have possibly committed fraud, because it was GoFundMe that altered the nature of donation acceptance and their ability to be paid out, based on artificially created stipulations requiring it to go into a non-profit before the money could be touched at all. And again, the stipulation was that if they didn't have a non-profit to put it into by a deadline GoFundMe set, then the money would be refunded to the donors.

So the guy couldn't possibly keep his promise of all the money going toward the wall after GoFundMe stipulated that he couldn't personally handle the money and had to use a non-profit. The moment they wouldn't release the money if he didn't put it in a non-profit, is the moment GoFundMe changed the nature of donation acceptance, which makes him saying 100% of the funds would go toward the stated cause, null and void. There is no non-profit on earth that uses 100% of the money toward the stated cause. And by law, non-profits are certainly allowed to pay salaries and other operating costs. So everything he did was above board.

What wasn't above board, was how GoFundMe used that to deliberately frame them for fraud.

See, even if the guy hadn't taken any money from Bannon, they would still be charging him with fraud, because remember, his initial claim was that 100% of the money would go toward the wall. By forcing him to put it into a non-profit or get nothing, GoFundMe effectively made it impossible to comply with that claim. But by adding stipulations on the payout of donations, GoFundMe's actions essentially get him off the hook for that claim because they made accepting the donations contingent upon having it in a non-profit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soYkEqDp760

Chris Slowe from Reddit, when speaking about content reaching the front page they don't like and label as "coordinated inauthentic behavior":

2:16 in the video:

"I mean it's definitely a problem we constantly work to prevent... There will be always things that hit the frontpage that potentially shouldn't be there"'

2:45 in the video:

"What we try to do...there's two parts to it. One is, users have an opportunity to reconsider their vote after seeing the content. Secondarily, have the down vote available to them as a way to degrade any inauthentic behavior that happens. The other side of it is we put a lot of work over the last decade and changes into maintaining the sanctity of the vote. The joke I use is we count every vote but that doesn't mean that every vote counts and so we have to be able to come up with...um...based on behaviors, knowing there's some adversary on the far side who is trying to game our system, have a set of somewhat opaque ways to hide what counts and what doesn't".

Phew, that's a lot to digest, let's dig in. First of all that's more than two parts (Looks like Chris Slowe's last name checks out if you know what I mean). Secondly, this is a direct admittance of what we asserted all along: Reddit was deliberately burying our content on the site, messing with our view counts, upvote counts, user counts, etc.

The fact is, if you alter who counts and who doesn't, that means everyone doesn't get an equal vote, which means Reddit decides whose vote counts. And since upvoting is a form of speech, denying a person the speech of their upvote, is a violation of free speech, not to mention it's again just another way of Reddit acting as a publisher rather than a platform. You can't say, "This is a platform for all, we are a platform....oh and some of you aren't allowed".

And who decides who is an "adversary on the far side"? Reddit. Because they literally just admitted it. That's again not free speech. That's not even an accurate representation of what's trending, because by manipulating the vote counts and content and user access and user visibility, Reddit by proxy, is deciding what's trending. And it's certainly not platform behavior, it's publisher behavior.

Now let's fast forward a bit in the video to 9:30:

Reddit: "Following the 2016 election, Reddit acknowledged 944 trolls on the platform, and it did a very detailed transparency report in 2017"

Then the Reddit employee proceeds to show the list of the "known trolls", and goes to a users account named u/rubinjer that they banned who had 99K Karma, showing posts to r/The_Donald, posting memes and other stuff mocking the left, such as when Amy Schumer said she was moving out of the USA when Trump was elected, Hillary for prison stuff, with almost all of it being just memes, gifs and links to youtube videos.

They treated this user as a troll account spreading false information and propaganda, literally calling them a, "Known Russian agent trying to manipulate us". And they're not going by the persons real world identity, they're not even going by geographic location of the account, they're going by the person simply posting meme's and youtube links that they politically disagree with, that conservatives tend to agree with and express on the internet.

They are effectively saying that posting conservative viewpoints, and more importantly, in an effective format that people can easily digest quickly, is "trolling" and "known Russian agent" activity. And this guy was posting in r/The_Donald. Exactly who were they "trolling"? This is clearly content that was common for this subreddit, par for the course. It's not like they were posting them to liberal subs.

So let's break it down....posting content in a subreddit, that the subreddit is made for, is considered trolling and the user a Russian agent?! Absolutely ridiculous and indefensible. There's no way to put that round peg in a square hole to justify it. They clearly labeled the account a troll account simply because they didn't agree with its political position. It's effectively an open outlawing of conservative speech.

Another quote a bit later in the video:

"At the time this particular troll operation seemed to be underway, the strategy seemed to be an attempt to use the hot button issues of the day in order to rile up Americans on both sides of any argument".

Yet we don't see ANY of that on these users account. They weren't playing both sides, they didn't go into Pro Hillary or leftist forums and pretend to be against Trump. They never played both sides, and that's clearly not shown here!

Then they show posts from another user on the troll list and banned, named u/deusXYX, who they claim was trolling, when their comments include comments like, "Liberal logic is delightful", in response to an article titled, "Hillary Supporting journalist says Bill Clinton is probably a rapist, but that doesn't make him not a feminist who deserves respect". That's trolling?! That's inflammatory?! That's a "fake" troll account?! Sounds like someone expressing an honest opinion to me, and an opinion pretty much every r/The_Donald user would have upvoted and conservatives would tend to agree with in general.

So it's clear they're simply labeling speech they disagree with, as "trolling", and outright banning people for it, when really it's just commentary being critical of leftist content.

And this user clearly didn't share all conservative values, as they were against churches/religion and alluded to supporting gun control (and they didn't exactly express gun control for citizens, but rather for police)...but even where I disagree with them, it's clear they're not playing both sides. People aren't just a collection of beliefs that always fall on one side or the other. Just like there's Democrat voters who believe in free speech and gun rights and are against immigration.

At one point the user claims, "Trump is just a master troll and his supporters just agree with him no matter what". So the user is clearly not a Trump supporter, but also doesn't seem to be playing both sides either. They posted in r/The_Donald, but also posted in various other subs.

In another comment by the user on a post about Iran punishing homosexuality with death, the user leaves a comment saying, "Islamic countries just hate minorities".

In another comment on a post about refugee's assaulting women at a music festival, the user left a comment saying, "Did someone say refugee's are welcome?".

In another comment on a news post about ISIS making $50 million a month from oil sales, the user says, "$50 million a month plus US aid = ISIS are rich terrorists".

In another comment on a post about German police encouraging women to wear sneakers to run from migrant rapists, the user comments, "haha, just put on sneakers and train to run faster and no one will rape you, that's funny".

In two posts about police, the user expressed, "gun control isn't a bad idea", over a post about NYPD shooting blacks, and in another post about a bystander with a cellphone being shot by deputies in Sacramento county, the user says, "There are soo many stories showing their incompetency that I'm starting to think that they hire only completely insane people there".

Two posts jabbing at police, not one jabbing them and one supporting them. Not a single example of them "playing both sides". Just a person with various positions and critical commentary on various topics.

But it's as if Reddit is saying that a person HAS to have all of their beliefs match to on one side or the other, while also saying that any person who is on the right is also considered a troll, which means the ONLY way you can be considered to not be a troll is to be leftist and agree with leftist opinions and points of view!

It's clear these aren't troll posts, these are post's pointing out the hypocrisy of these matters, in a jestful way. That's not trolling, that's just a common way of going about critical commentary about topics on the internet.

I could keep going, but I think I've made my point. I'd suggest watching the whole video for yourself to see how, ironically, this video itself is propaganda. It's using false examples to justify what they're doing wrongfully, showing evidence to the contrary, while trying to convince you that your eyes should see what they want you to see. It's literally the CNN's "This is an apple" analogy. They're holding up a banana and telling us it's an apple, right out in the open. It's like they're holding their hand out presenting all the bad and illegal stuff they've done, and saying, "But it's actually good and not bad at all and totally justified, because you know, we're just a platform who has the right to silence free speech if we just call them trolls for politically and philosophically expressing disagreement with us".

In John Bolton's interview today, he was shown a video where Sarah Sanders says John Bolton was drunk on power. People have said that John Bolton behaved as if he thought he was President, and now he's only affirmed that.

His response was, "We don't owe loyalty to an individual, particularly an individual who routinely undercuts his own advisors".

This response should only ever illicit outrage. An advisor to the President isn't a policy maker (despite the fact that their ideas may end up in policy), they don't have some inherent right to have what they want enacted. They are there at the President's leisure to merely offer information and viewpoints so the president can come to the best decision they can. It is the President who makes the decision, based on that Presidents policy positions.

Bolton trying to act like he has some "duty" to the constitution and American people is pretty rich coming from someone whose job is to serve the President. It would be letting Bolton off easy to look at it like he is a fool for not understanding this. He knows what an advisor is and isn't. He just wasn't happy that he wasn't getting what he wanted. He joined the Trump administration with an agenda.

An advisor that has an "or else" approach to getting what they want, is NOT acting as an advisor. He really did seem to think he could use Trump as a puppet to go play war, and that's basically what he's admitting to here. Bolton thought he was in charge, as if the office of the President is beholden to him and his whims.

All I see is a whiny child in an old mans body, lashing out for not getting his way.

They used the Chinese flu to hurt the economy by shutting stuff down. They saw its effects wearing off, people wanted to get back to work. Then low and behold, a story about a jogger and a cop killing a man comes out of the blue. Stuff like this happens from time to time (but not enough to be considered statistically out of control), except cops kill more white people than black people....and black people kill more black people than cops.

So what's the difference? In how it's cherry picked and elevated to viral status. This is social media manipulation, targeted at the right time, stoked from behind the curtains with logistics like pallets of bricks mysteriously appearing near hot zones, bad actors crossing state lines, and people even caught on video directly paying people to do stuff to instigate rioting (one being directly linked to Bernie Sanders former campaign). These are targeted ground logistics. They're using mob mentality to lead people like sheep.

Collusion didn't work. Blocking nominations didn't work. Mueller failed. Christine Ford failed. Impeachment failed. The entire coup failed. And everything else they tried failed. All of their deep state allies are being uprooted and removed. They threw everything and the kitchen sink at Trump, from rape accusations to prostitute porn stars, to outrage at everything he said, to blaming him for problems of the world that existed long before he was ever President. And now all they have left is the moron Joe Biden, someone they can't even put on TV for 5 minutes without making an ass out of himself, and whose mental faculties are clearly on the way out. I've seen plastic spoons sturdier and sharper than him.

You could even say that it wasn't even a cop killing. The cop used to work with Floyd. Clearly they had beef (or someone paid him to kill Floyd, knowing their history, knowing they could use this one incident to spark outrage taps head). But the real perspective here is that he knew Floyd, and if he intentionally killed him, he wasn't just a cop killing a random black man. He was a murderer targeting and killing someone he knew, using his position as a cop as cover. That doesn't make it any less terrible, but it does change the narrative significantly.

it's no mystery as to how Floyd went viral soo quickly: Fake news networks and social media companies like Twitter. They make sure people get pushed the right feeds at the right time, enough to kindle a flame. The lockdown was getting long in the tooth, Ahmaud wasn't having the exact effect they wanted, so they were looking for whatever they could to create a spark that they could drum up national outrage about. They knew that after a lockdown, that after peoples lives were economically destroyed, it would be much easier to turn spark into flame, if they put down kindling and coddled it and blew on it just right.

This is technology being weaponized against America, through social media manipulation. They control what people see and tell them how they should feel. Then when people are all worked up, they push tweets, trends, fake facts, opinions prefaced with the word "literally", cherry picked news and fake outrage to the top and make sure everyone see's them nonstop, while actively burying everything else. Their users and viewers live and breathe what they decide they should see and how they should see it. They craft it and carry it out in such a way as to lead the sheeple toward the outcome they want, with the aid of artificial intelligence programs, to manage it all with a few clicks, to know what pressure points to press and where to press them for the strongest effect.

We all know Democrats have been fishing to create economic turmoil and artificial outrage. This is the clear result of that. These riots aren't natural. They are artificial. They are the result of social media control right before our very eyes.