A secret intelligence operative inside the Trump administration known as "QAnon" has linked the resignation of Eric Schmidt as executive chairman of Google's parent company, Alphabet, at nearly the same time that President Trump signed an executive order on Thursday.

QAnon simply posted, "ES (Goog) resigned today post EO.  Coincidence?  Q."

Seemingly, he was pointing out that it was no coincidence and several commenters agreed.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

One commenter wrote, "Yup, saw Schmidt do the walk of shame. Does that mean Google will soon back off with the censorship practices?"

Not too sure about that, but it's possible.

Another expressed similiar sentiment towards Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg.

"Hoping for a Zuckerberg walk of shame soon, as well. His agenda skeeves me out," Anonymous posted.

Now, author Jerome Corsi has broken this down for us.  He writes:

The executive order allows the Treasury Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to confiscate the U.S. assets of anyone materially assisting, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, or technological support to those engaged in human rights abuses and/or corruption.

An annex published by the Treasury Department simultaneous with Trump signing the executive order made clear Trump has empowered the Treasury Department to implement the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act by confiscating the assets of “malign actors worldwide” who violate this act.

Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act was passed to replace the Jackson-Vanik Amendment from the Cold War aimed at imposing trade sanctions forcing the Soviet Union to allow Jews and other minorities to emigrate, with a more current punishment denying access to the U.S. banking system to international criminals guilty of abusing human rights – an act named to honor Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky who died in a Russian prison in 2009 after trying to expose corruption and human rights violations in Russia.

A piece from New York Mag titled "Inside Google Chairman Eric Schmidt's Lavish Sex Palace" was posted in 2013, opening the door to commenting on Schmidt's lifestyle, indicating that he was seeing at least two women at the same time.

However, just prior to that publication, The New York Post had speculated that he had a "womanizing" lifestyle that began a year prior after living apart from his wife of 37 years, Wendy Schmidt. In that piece, it was pointed out that he spent millions to sound proof the apartment and that it had its own elevator and lacked a doorman.

There was no evidence that he was engaged in sexual harassment though, in spite of the fact that the magazine wrote, "These facts lead us to but one conclusion:  Schmidt is trying to keep 'his womanizing ways secret.'"

Or, he simply likes privacy.  Who knows?

Corsi points out that "Deeper analysis reveals 13 people named in the Treasury annex as 'serious human rights abusers and corrupt actors' target a range of individuals including the former president of Gambia and a Myanmar general; more broadly, the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control names 39 other individuals sanctioned by the U.S. government worldwide who are subject to having the U.S. government confiscate their assets within U.S. jurisdiction."

He then went on to say:

Already researchers are establishing that various of the thirteen named by Treasury have close ties to the Clintons through their generous contributions to the Clinton Foundation and/or the Clinton Global Initiative.

Others point to the close relationship that exists between the Clintons and Schmidt that date back to 2008 when Schmidt loaned the Google jet to members of Clinton’s presidential campaign staff.

In the 2016 presidential campaign, leaked emails from Clinton campaign manager John Podesta published by WikiLeaks made clear that Schmidt wanted to play the role of Clinton’s “head outside advisor,” ready to lend to the Clinton campaign Google’s powerful micro-targeting data to develop software to be used in “get out the vote” (GOTV) and campaign fundraising efforts.

Clearly, the executive order should concern those engaged in international sex trafficking.

The fact that Schmidt was caught up in a cabal of those who flew on a pedophile's plane with no reason to do so other than what might expect, surrounded himself with the most corrupt of the corrupt in the world and our own country, and was tied so closely to the Clintons does make one wonder whether or not he was involved in the very abuses that people have speculated him to be involved in and he knows the Trump administration is going to target him.

To be fair here though, how is it that assets can be taken without due process of law?  Despite all the acts and congressional legislation being mentioned, our Constitution is clear.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Now, while I understand people's desire to support all of this, the Constitution itself supersedes any acts of Congress that seek to undermine it.  I ask once again, what is this business of asset confiscation and forfeiture without due process of law?

If that is in place, fine, but we've seen time and again that Attorney General Jeff Sessions, like his predecessor Loretta Lynch, is in favor of asset forfeiture, something that is clearly unconstitutional.  And we already knew Trump was all for asset forfeiture, as well.

It doesn't matter if a Democrat does it or a Republican.  We only have one Constitution, people!  But most people will simply defend their guy because he wears their jersey.

And while I'm happy about Schmidt resigning and perhaps more is to come, things must be done lawfully according to the Constitution.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.