Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: bagster
Acceptable 'turn on' comms?
[Filter applied - legal analysis]

And to further simplify this clause, I think the FReeQ brain trust seems to be in agreement that Q is saying here that, after legal analysis and the proper filters (those releasing information) being in place, that the Q "comms" are "acceptable".

#PartyOn.

It's quite reasonable to assume that the 23 day hiatus was due to getting the legal analysis, as Cletus said.

All the FReeQs were right, btw, who many days ago thought Q was dark due to Hatch Act considerations.

You guys are good. I walk amongst giants.

Bagster


2,025 posted on 11/02/2018 2:13:50 PM PDT by bagster ("Even bad men love their mamas".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2018 | View Replies ]


To: bagster

2,138 posted on 11/02/2018 6:56:21 PM PDT by bitt (We want judges that protects us from them. They, the ruling elites, want judges that PROTECT THEM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2025 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson