You can characterize it as “not realistic,” but that doesn’t carry any weight in a context of constitutional law.
Dealing with existential threats justifies a president declaring something to be classified, or secret. I don’t know if this is what happened, but it sure does refute your comment.
How far is it reaching when people conspire to assassinate a president? I don’t think you can reach any farther than that. And it should be met with the full weight of justice.
What evidence do you have that these secret activities took place? Only Q. What is the issue with Q? In a nutshell:
The problem is the circularity of the Q phenomenon. In the beginning—as I said before and was derided for it—Qanon was very specific. He named the day and nearly the hour when Hillary would be arrested. He named the days when first Podesta and then Huma would be indicted/arrested. He named the day when Trump would use EMS nation-wide to sidestep Fake News. Q spoke plainly and to the point.
But from a real-world, evidentiary POV, none of the predictions materialized. Not even one out of the four.
So now the argument becomes, the events *could* have happened, and we just don’t know about them.
But again, there’s zero evidence that the things Q predicted actually happened. So what’s the argument for the, ‘It’s all top secret, hush-hush, under the radar,’ position?
It’s that Q predicted it.
Ok, so why should we believe something happened just bc Q predicted it?
(Q-believer) Because Q is an insider whose predictions pan out.
(Q-denier) But what about in the cases of Hillary, Podesta, Huma and the EMS? Those predictions didn’t pan out.
(Q-believer) Yes they did.
(Q-denier) How do we know?
(Q-believer) Because Q predicted it.
And so on. It’s entirely circular. The conclusion is used to prove the premise. Logically that is a big zero.