[bagster]

The only person “Q” promotes per SE is POTUS, never mention of party etc. Trump is not on ballot by name this year ;)

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

[Snowybear]

Maybe someone can do the digging and see if military intellegence is subject to the Hatch Act.

[Snowybear]

> He “campaigned” strongly for Kavanaugh, though I don’t know if that qualifies.

Doesn’t qualify. Only for elections.

> 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”.

That would be me.

[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

[Conservative Gato]

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.

What a tangled web for the derps. A Hatch Act complaint, all for a LARP??? Crazy stuff.

CCat