[Wneighbor]

Bitt posted:

20m
In discussing
@realDonaldTrump
in phone conversation in 8/19, Justice John Roberts stated that he would make sure “the mother f#*ker would never be re-elected.”

Roberts engaged in phone conversations with Justice Stephen Breyer discussing how to work to get Trump voted out.

---

We know Q has this recorded. How do we get it into evidence?

I agree with Lin Wood, the nation is ready to rise up for President Trump. FreeQs are holding steady and awaiting our President’s call or instructions. Our states of impatience and calm vary from moment to moment.

But recorded evidence of this phone call between Roberts and Breyer is evidence without a court. It has to be military. So is it legally admissible evidence in a military court?

Disclaimer: not a lawyer, I only play one in my livingroom while debating with hubby. But from these threads I have come to understand that evidentiary rules are more lax in military courts.

[Aquamarine]

Heard they videotaped everything on Epstein Island.

[rolling_stone]

the bigger effect of this info is that everyone with things to hide must realize nsa and trump team does have everything...and it can be released...

[mongrel]

I’m hoping the awakening is an actual movie. An emergency text sent to every phone with a link to a movie that documents the corruption. Primary footage showing an overview of the corruption with links that provide a deep dive into the rest.

[Cats Pajamas]

“Our states of impatience and calm vary from moment to moment.”

“FreeQs are holding steady and awaiting our President’s call or instructions. Our states of impatience and calm vary from moment to moment.”

___________________________________________________________

I do believe my husband has worried today about my state of patience with the level of lying coming out of mouths of ones I trusted in times past.

And yes I await my President’s call or instructions. I trust 45 and no one else in DC.

[xone]

But from these threads I have come to understand that evidentiary rules are more lax in military courts.

They aren't lax, but they allow any germane evidence. Which would include but not limited to things that are NatSec in nature, collected by strategic assets. Every defendant in a military tribunal sits down with their counsel and the prosecution lays out the evidence against them in a pre-trial meeting. I suspect, most of these traitorous ...... will have to try and argue in court that although voiceprinted, that isn't them on the phone, that isn't their email, my co-conspirator is lying but I have no exculpatory proof etc. Lots a stake they may confess and still be executed. If they go to court, with the prosecutions having 'everything', they will likely get the max.