|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Posted on 08/21/2018 9:46:21 PM PDT by ransomnote
“Trust The Plan”
YouTube President Trump This Video Will Get Donald Trump Elected (The Plan) - 6 min
YouTube Joe Masepoes Q - The Plan To Save The World - 13 min - popular introduction
Threadreader Jason Wright Q Anon Is Real - Oct, Nov 2017 Q drops + commentary
Threadreader ImperatorRex A thread on how Team Trump is preparing the normies for what is coming: major Swamp Draining. - overview
Paul Serran What is Q? - 31 point introduction
Article Sundance Imagine You are Not a Politician, Yet You are Running For The Presidency - overview
Thread Martin Geddes WWG1WGA: The greatest communications event in history - 4 min - quick overview
“Pay Attention” Thread Qmap.pub Q drops - created by Q, searchable by date or drop number
Website We-go-all.net Q drops and research - includes extensive resources and links
Website qntmpkts.keybase.pub Q drops - copied from Q’s 8chan board
“The Truth Is Spreading” Thread Anonymous QProofs - compiled “proofs” that Q has trusted insider access to President Trump Oracles Bagster Oracle - warm and witty summaries of each day's thread Lexicon Swordmaker LexiQon - immense list of expanded acronyms and terms used by Q; invaluable reference “Power to the People” YouTube Praying Medic Series of videos explaining Q-drops Praying Medic Immediate reactions to Q-drops YouTube Dustin Nemos Series of videos identifying Q content - Well reasoned; excellent documentation links ImperatorRex Includes Q-drop reactions Thread SkyPilot Story of Q - collection of Q information “Silent Majority No More”
Website White House Email the White House with your support and suggestions Website Congress Email Congress with your support and suggestions Website roserambles.org Q Cards Thread Little Jeremiah Memes “Fight, Fight, Fight!” YouTube President Reagan A Time for Choosing - 3 min - 1964 speech set to Matthew Worth’s images YouTube President Kennedy The President and the Press - 20 min - 1961 speech on secret societies
Nature of the internet. The other side objects to my point of view that Sessions' recusal was well taken, and is not a big deal. I ignore them too. At some point I will abandon FR ... again. It's inevitable.
Moving lawyers around is relatively easy. They do specialize, but the core education is the same for all of them.
JAGs tend to stay in the military venue becuse they like it there, it's specialty, understood, etc. Similar to career intertia everybody has.
-- Perhaps it is a complicated business. --
Somewhat, but not beyond an average person's understanding. Just takes time and attention, a little bit of academic/intellectual discipline.
We are on the same trajectory.
I have to say, C. I'm 188 that you're not a liar, and you deny being a Larp.
So you must be mistaken.
There. That was easy.
Now, let's do indictments.
:)
Bagster
-- Now, let's do indictments. --
Why bother? Minds are made up, and debate is merely repetetive at best, most likely a source of iritation. So, no. No doing indictments. I did my piece on that more times than I should have.
Just a quick sidebar, counsellor.
Flouting meat selling regulations is not the same [Cause] as this;
[Cause]
Define 'Subversion'.
The act of subverting : the state of being subverted; especially : a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working secretly from within?
Is this clause from the Executive Order then Un-Constitutional?
"I therefore determine that serious human rights abuse and corruption around the world constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat."
And please render a ruling on the Constitutionality of this piece of the Q post.
"Sec. 12. In accordance with Article 33 of the UCMJ, as amended by section 5204 of the MJA, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, will issue nonbinding guidance regarding factors that commanders, convening authorities, staff judge advocates, and judge advocates should take into account when exercising their duties with respect to the disposition of charges and specifications in the interest of justice and discipline under Articles 30 and 34 of the UCMJ.
That guidance will take into account, with appropriate consideration of military requirements, the principles contained in official guidance of the Attorney General to attorneys for the Federal Government with respect to the disposition of Federal criminal cases in accordance with the principle of fair and evenhanded administration of Federal criminal law."
Please take special note when addressing this issue, the legality of the Civilian positions of Homeland Security and Attorney General with regards to guidance and their working with the Department of Defense.
Perhaps a hybrid system of joint jurisdiction between civilian and military courts? When sedition and the previously outlined criteria are met and it's "determine(d) that serious human rights abuse and corruption around the world constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat."
I do have a strong feeling, C, that Q wouldn't be pointing us to all this if he (and Trump) thought as you do, that military tribunals for U.S. citizens are so easily dismissed as you are attempting to do.
Perhaps they expect the Supreme Court to make a ruling?
Bagster
TL, DR — plus, irritation if we debate this. Minds made up both ways, and I am postive I have exhausted the argument on my side. In short, this side rests.
I resemble that remark, goodman. I've been called a pig before, but never a swine.
But seriously. Either Cboldt is right and Q is wrong, or vice versa.
Tie goes to the Supreme Court.
And if Q is wrong, we might as well just pack it up and fade away into that good night, for Q is a Larp.
Same for the "sealed indictment" issue, for that matter.
Bagster
He brought it up and posted about it like it was a thing.
So until I cease to believe in Q, I will believe it's a thing.
Just like military tribunals.
We disagree, and that's fine.
Bagster
No closing arguments.
Let the jury deliberate.
Bagster
We disagree on that "premise -> conclusion" too. I think Q has inside information (my definition for "not a larp"), but I don't expect Q necessarily has a sound legal foundation with which to judge the more exciting contentions advanced. And I also give Q leeway to gin up the crowd with BS.
Trump said some exciting things on the campaign trail, not all of them have come true ... heck, "build the wall" is still hung up in Congress, and immigration, an existential issue for the nation state, is still on the wrong track.
Does that make Trump a larp? LOL.
I will be interviewed on @foxandfriends by @ainsleyearhardt tomorrow from 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. Enjoy!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 23, 2018
I don't use a TV so I've included a YouTube link. . .
:: Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in ^hostilities^ without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. ::
Who was the management team for:
- Nuclear missile launched at Hawai’i
- Nuclear missile launched at Seattle
- Parkland Shooting
- Texas church shooting
- Indiana school shooting
- Las Vegas shooting
?
You should put this disclaimer at the bottom of every post then, in the name of actual honesty and full disclosure. Might help those that hang their lives on Q’s every pronouncement as well.
I don't expect Q necessarily has a sound legal foundation
On this point we can agree. Q doesn't strike me as a lawyer type. More a military/intel sort of team. I just don't see them going off half cocked on this one without a sound legal basis. Remember. Years in the planning.
So the indictments and the military tribunals are intended as either disinformation or to "gin up the crowd" as well?
I don't imagine that Trump and his Generals all sat around talking about military tribunals as part of THE PLAN without a sound legal basis and consultation with legal minds. They must have access to lawyers, judges, and Constitutional scholars who would have advised them on the legality of their plans.
If, of course, we are to believe that the Q team is what we think it is.
The possibility does exist, as you explain, that the indictment talk and the military tribunal talk is all just intended as disinformation to scare the enemy or to "gin up the base".
I highly doubt it, though. Perhaps the Generals and the legal minds they consulted are just wrong on the legality.
But anything's possible, I guess.
Bagster
Glad to see you boys are finally starting to figure it out. Now what to do about all these drones you’ve created around here?
I don't appreciate you insinuating I am a liar in general - and if I mistake the insinuation, I resent your presuming some right to instruct me how to post - as if a post that expresses my PERSONAL point of view carries any weight beyond my personal point of view.
This is real deep dive. There’s a LOT here and it will take time to digest.
I have seen little new information and zero big news in the Fox & Friends/Trump interview.
I should have stayed asleep.
Maybe not today and maybe not GEOTUS.
It would be politically expedient for ^Sessions^ (trust him) to fire RR as a result of some “impropriety” (black-hattedness) that is revealed to the people by Donaldus Magnus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
