Replies

I need input.

In reviewing one segment of the Trump CPAC speech, where he plainly spoke up about some bad placements, one was that Trump still demonstrably kept Sessions between his teeth and continues to give him a good shaking. In public. (Sessions, in my experience, is the Largest problem Q has.)

I. Is Trump’s pronouncement at CPAC an example of tactical “mis-information”, or a lie, or the hard Truth?

II. Why continue to mention Sessions, in this light, now that he is out of office? (What purpose would it serve, at.this.point?)

I need a proof or two to answer a devoted Republican activist who, over this Major Sticking Point, stopped following Q, because she “Trusts Trump”. She will be in a position of some influence. It could help Q if she is persuaded.

She was “crushed” by the absurdity that Q would cleanse Sessions, and cryptically elevate his performance, at JD, to clandestine heroics. (Solely based on Sessions appointment of Huber.)

I did not discuss Sessions, myself, with this person, because as you know, I also found the Sessions thing to be my only snag with Q. My snag sure as heck wasn’t fatal. With others, however, it was fatal for Q.

That Sessions is held in Favor by Q, but held in emphatic Dis-Favor by the President kind of matters out here in the Red Pill reality. Does this dilemma need to be reconciled?

Rita, I had very similar questions to those you posed:

I. Is Trump’s pronouncement at CPAC an example of tactical “mis-information”, or a lie, or the hard Truth?

II. Why continue to mention Sessions, in this light, now that he is out of office? (What purpose would it serve, at.this.point?)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OBSERVATION: These are hard questions, and very pertinent.

I resolve them personally, by the following assumptions:

1) Sessions is and always has been loyal to President Trump.

2) Sessions was a bit of a failure as an executive of the huge DoJ. Being an executive is VERY DIFFERENT from being a Legislator or lawyer. Executives must learn to EXECUTE. They make their living making decisive decisions in the GREY AREAS of uncertainty, and thinking strategically. (This means they know their best guesses may be wrong; but they have already thought about next moves in a variety of scenarios.)

3) I think President Trump is used to firing executives who cannot "Execute." (NOTE: "Execution" is partially a LEARNED skill and, ironically, includes willingness to fire people.) But he couldn't fire or even push aside Sessions due to politics. So HE BECAME FRUSTRATED.

IN SUMMARY: Sessions is a white hat; but inadvertently created difficulties and frustrations for POTUS. Hence, POTUS was telling the truth at CPAC about his feelings; but, Q is also correct in saying "Trust Sessions."

FOOTNOTE: If Sessions runs for Senate, no one will campaign harder for him than Donald Trump.

If Trump talked up Sessions in positive ways could that not be used as him only being Trump’s puppet when he testifies at some of the trials/tribunals? If he appears to be in poor standing with Trump yet testifies there would be less room to challenge his testimony.

I have cared for Sessions as an honorable man since he served in Alabama. I trust Trump and can’t decide if what he says about Sessions is true or part of the show. In the end I will go with Trump but for now I will wait.

That Sessions is held in Favor by Q, but held in emphatic Dis-Favor by the President kind of matters out here in the Red Pill reality. Does this dilemma need to be reconciled?
***********************************************************************************
Not a problem for me, cause future will prove past. Optics are important, so maybe POTUS needs to keep up the optics.

How do you hire people qualified for a job when they are all swampy/connected? Well, you take the least swampy. You also know their inclinations. You know what they are likely to be trustworthy for and where they might betray you, and keep an eye out.

Do you trust a liar? Yes I trust a liar-I trust that he will lie. So do we know what the definition of trust was when Q used it? No we don’t for sure.

Maybe Sessions had a job to do and he was trustworthy for that, but had other issues not so great.

Or hey. Maybe Q got fooled. No one is omnipotent except God. So to me it’s not an issue.