I'm gonna go out on a limb, here, and be a little contrarian (cause I never do that) to seek clarification. Don't hate me cause I'm beautiful.
Of course Q mentions dems. All the time. Even today "dem" [6]".
Feinstein is up for re-election (just to pull a derp name outta my...whatever) and you could almost say Q campaigns AGAINST her quite often. And there are many more he does the same with.
He "campaigned" strongly for Kavanaugh, though I don't know if that qualifies.
But the thing is, when Q said this in post #2386
Acceptable 'turn on' comms?
[Filter applied - legal analysis]
After giving this some thought, I think the FReeQ was right who said that this issue may be why Q went dark for so long. It may have been in response to the derp [6] letter and while seeking "legal analysis".
I think "Filter applied" is Q telling us that whoever is MAKING THE Q POSTS, is covered under the Hatch Act. The actual poster, being Q, and he's Hatch-proof.
It would be helpful to know WHEN the derps sent their letter, to judge if it was connected to Q not posting.
But, we can rest assured that Trump/Q have legally analyzed the issue and are going ahead on with the Q program. Of course, this may end up being litigated, cause that's what derps do. But guess what, nukkas. Two words;
Kavanaugh.
5-4
Whose court? Our court!
#TrumpTrumpsHate
#SuckIt
#DoItQ
#BasedBagman.
Bagster
