Uncle Sam

Resetting this discussion here. It's getting too messy.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HqwBIA5pCWI&t=671s
Investigators are testifying in front of congress.

You have to follow what's happening to Clinton to understand Q. Qanons know Clinton is a treacherous and child trafficking witch. Saying this to the average person gets us labeled as crazy or conspiracy theorists.

Q's plan is to get people talking about the truth. You can't call me a nut anymore for saying the Clinton Foundation is corrupt because it's just gone mainstream, but you can choose to deny the investigations findings. Very soon the same will happen with the Clintons ties to the child sex trade. Once it goes mainstream, it will no longer be a cooky conspiracy theory. People can accept it or deny and defend her, but it will be a valid topic.

This is where the picture ties in. While the investigation into the Clinton Foundation was going on before congress, Q asks "Where is HUBER?" The answer is dealing with pedofile pos's.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.deseretnews.com/article/900046409/utahs-top-federal-cops-question-whether-child-sex-offender-treatment-works.amp

Qanons have been talking about the Clinton Foundation for over a year and it's finally coming to light. It won't be long until the whole truth comes out. When it does, remember this conversation and start doing your research into Q. That will be your validation, I hope. Q isn't going anywhere, you'll wake up when you've got a reason to.

First off, at no point did I call you a "nut" for claiming that the Clinton Foundation is corrupt; I asked what proof you had and I also made clear my expectation that, as a politician, Clinton is probably dirty.

Again, you're making a statement which is a de facto claim -in this case "Clinton is a treacherous and child trafficking witch"- without any evidenced proof of point. Witches obviously don't exist so I'll skip over that as hyperbolic adjectivum and Clinton's a politician so yes, she's probably treacherous but leveling allegations of child-trafficking is a serious business. I'm immediately reminded of the Comet Ping Pong incident and how that whole business played out so I'm obligated to ask: what hard evidence did "Q" furnish that you could and did fact-check to support such a claim/belief?

Moving on: per the article, Huber was in Utah doing his job. Per the HOC hearing, Huber was supposed to be present but wasn't. Since prescience is an impossibility, what clear chain of evidence linking these two events beyond obligation of employment do you have? Moreover, what proof is there that Clinton is involved outside of it being a hearing about the Clinton Foundation? Reasonably, as you have said that Qanons have been talking about the Clinton Foundation for over a year, if "Q" is in fact somone working in the government, it would be logical to assume that "Q" is one of the people who showed up to testify before the HOC about whistleblowers or someone who works in the offices of one of the two or even for MDA Analytics. It would also follow that one of the people who showed up for the hearing or who works for them would be aware of whether Huber would attend the hearing.

It's also possible that the whole thing is a fraud concocted to create the appearance of wrongdoing where none has ocurred. After all, if there's an unproveable cabalistic "deep state" powerful enough to shield supercriminals from justice, there's no reason an unproveable cabalistic "deep state" powerful enough to build a false dossier of whistleblowers can't exist either. And if that false dossier-building "deep state" did exist, its most logical move would be to start planting seeds of suspicion in people's minds many months before deploying the dossier. I'll give you points for stating flatly that you can't prove your assertions concerning Russian donations to the Clinton Foundation; that takes balls. I'll also remind you that the...

...donations/foreign agent status issue is still in the assertion stage vis-a-vis Congressional investigation. Which raises another issue: if there's an unproveable cabalistic "deep state" powerful enough to shield supercriminals (e.g -Hillary Clinton over the course of 6-7 investigations) from justice, would having a dossier of whistleblowers even matter?

Which brings us to my problem: you keep making claims but have no hard evidence to back them up and what you do offer isn't really evidence, you just point to a clot of Nostradamusian vagaries pumped out by "Q" --again, whoever this person or group of persons is, he/she/it/they claim Q-level security clearance which, while very high clearance allowing access to nuclear top secrets (those particular secrets aren't that impressive; it's just the equations for calculating how much of what fissile material to use, how to use it and the schematics for detonation bodies and no, I don't have Q-level clearance, I'm just old enough to have learned a few things about this and that which aren't commonly known anymore) only provides access to DOE information and so provides no access to anything secret happening in other branches of government-- that don't actually prove anything. Almost everything "Q" peddles turns out to be completely false and as I said before, if you throw a handful of beans at a post at least a few beans are going to hit the post.

And finally, each time I've asked you for hard proof supporting your claims, you haven't provided any; instead you've consistently changed the subject and run off in a different direction. So one last time: Trump working with "Q", CIA contacting "Q", "Q" making statements obligating specific individuals/departments of the government to react --what hard, direct-connection, unabiguous proof do you have?

If you have none to offer, this conversation is closed.

Trump working with Q: here's the most famous proof. There are countless Twitter synchronized proofs you can find with minor effort. Google has good Q info hidden by its algorithms but YouTube doesn't. I'm not on my pc so I can't start the video at the relevant time. 30 seconds in is a good place to start.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A-eNCnX290A

CIA contacting Q:
I couldn't find the one I was looking for and gave up. It was a one time thing that I've seen brought up in a few videos. They were talking in code with each other over 2 or 3 messages.

Q making people react:
The very first Q drop which the media loves to tout were wrong.

Oct 28, 2017
"Hillary Clinton will be arrested between 7:45 AM - 8:30 AM EST on Monday - the morning on Oct 30, 2017."

Antifa had riots/rally's planned for Nov 4th since September 30th. It was supposed to be a mega demonstration.

Oct 30th passed and Hillary was not arrested.

Starting Nov 1 the Mainstream Media started posting stories of how the antifa riots were just hype and weren't really going to happen.

November 4th came and the rally's did happen, but were extremely small and nothing like what the hype had built up to. It should be noted that the planners had way more supplies available than were used. For example there are pictures of stacks and stacks of picket signs that were not used. Clearly they expected a lot of people to show up initially.

Nov 4th, eleven Saudi Arabian princes are arrested for charges of corruption. The Saudi Royal Family is one of the 4 families that controled the deep state. By the conclusion of that arrest only 2 families were left in power.

Conclusion:
Q hijacked a protest and gave it a new purpose, to revolt against the arrest of Hillary. The deep state across the globe was watching to see what would happen. When nothing did, the antifa controllers canceled major rallies as they knew the public wouldn't be motivated to join. The media began pushing the narrative that the rallies were never going to happen anyway. All guards were down. Deep state crisis averted, or so they thought. The real plan was the Saudi's and was a successful sneak attack.

I can show you how to find the relevant Q drops if you're willing to do the research on this one.

No real proof. This conversation is closed.

Where do you get your news from? What is Q?

I get my news from the mainstream media and I fact-check everything. Anything that isn't built on facts is discarded.

"Q" is a conspiracy-promoting collection of propagandist writers which makes a lot of loose, questionably sane assertions, attempts to tie them all together and provides no hard, verifiable evidence to support anything it publishes. The writing style employed by the "Q" group is reminiscent of schizophrenic ramblings (this is not a slam or an attack, it's a flat assessment based on my own personal experiences dealing with schizophrenics).

Q is some wierd ass conspiracy that preys on retards like you. You believe?

Pretty hard to call it a conspiracy when the president literally just confirmed it AGAIN like a day or two ago. Maybe you should try it out. If the media won't report what the president wants to share, how would he go about doing it? Q.

Note that word again: schizophrenic.

The meds.

Take them.

dood u a nut

I would say that Twitter is the obvious go-to; Trump's president and has the last word on all classified materials so there's nothing to stop him from directly outputting anything he wants to say. More to the point, the current president of the United States is a proven liar (look up "Trump, lie counter") so he's not exactly a reliable source for information and it's not that hard to set up a synergistic co-operative to catch the ummm....easily swayed...in the world of politics. Fact-check ALL politicians and especially Donald Trump.

He does use Twitter a lot. That's not all he uses. If you look at Q posts it becomes apparent very quickly that Trump Tweets and Q posts are very often choreographed together.

That's both symptomatic and illustrative of my point; as president, Trump has zero need for the "Q" group. All that is necessary is for him to order the gathering all pertinent information regardless of classification on whatever topic he feels like talking about and make it public and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. But that's not what's happening; there's a weird little synergy going between "Q" and Trump pushing half-truths, misrepresentations and whole-cloth lies. The saddest part is that the segment of the population following it all is either unwilling or unable to see that the "Q" group is superfluous. Trump doesn't need the "Q" group; he has full authority to declassify any information he sees fit. He has full authority to turn over to the public domain every bit of documentation on anything he chooses to declassify. But that's not what's happening, is it?

If you followed Q you'd understand why Trump doesn't declassify everything now. The pieces aren't set yet. Heck, the senate isn't even confirmed yet. You really think he could topple the syndicate by just declassification? No, everything has to be setup perfectly.

If you followed Q you'd also understand that Q isn't just alternative media, it's an intelligence weapon. Q lies, and leaks. The CIA even communicated on the boards with him once. If Q says "Lynch is talking" Comey has to take counter actions to deal with that scenario. It strips him of the initiative and forces him to react which makes him very easy to predict. Understand?

In case it hasn't sunken in yet, the OP doesn't quite seem to be given to following the mentally addled fairytales for the overly anxious multi-ply tin foil hat set as you are.

Your 'proof' that Q was for real was a fake warrant for Hillary's arrest last year which never happened.

You've repeatedly posted that Q said that the Democrat top brass (as high up as and including Obama) was going to be rounded up and sent to Guantanamo Nov 11th of this year.

You claimed that Mueller, which you rail against, is actually in cahoots with Trump, the investigations a cover for this round up that is a month and a week overdo.

Get a more productive hobby already.

Having "pieces set" is irrelevant when it comes to de-classifying information; there is naught but to do it. If the "syndicate" (by which I must assume you mean "deep state") exists and Trump has proof, then hinting at having knowledge of its existence and teasing a potential reveal rather than exposing it immediately only serves to allow such an organization time to eliminate evidence of its existence. If you want to catch rats, you don't put a bell around your neck.

As you yourself said: "'Q' lies." Trump also lies --which is why I don't and won't place any trust in either of them. When someone is a known liar, nothing they say can be trusted to be accurate. How do you know when something that comes from the "Q" group or Trump is accurate? Anyone can get on the internet and lie; do you have factual data to confirm it or do you accept it as true because it coincides with your pre-established beliefs? Did the CIA really communicate with the "Q" group or was the purported CIA contact merely more fiction ginned up by the "Q" group's writers and portrayed by a paid or simply complicit third party?

Additionally, "Q" level clearance is a DOE security clearance allowing its bearer full access only to DOE secrets. "Q" level clearance is not a cross-department free pass to peruse TOP SECRET information.

Indulge my curiosity --please cite an instance of direct, unambiguous cause-and-effect relationship involving anything "Q" group has published and a reaction in any section of the government.

I fear you have placed too much stock in a fairy tale. I'll readily admit there's a possibility I'm wrong but I suspect the reality is that when it all plays out, you'll be disappointed.

https://imgflip.com/i/2p4yf5?nerp=1545176460#com2818784

Follow the links I posted. Q called it.

I saw the meme; my immediate questions are:

1. Can you provide incontrovertible proof that the donations came from Russia?
2. What evidence is there to automatically discount the possibility of a handful of wealthy U.S. citizens make large, TAX-DEDUCTIBLE (it always comes down to the money), charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation?

1. I can't prove it and I don't need to. Large donations from Russia have already been proven by multiple sources, including the official investigation that just happened. This ones up to you to accept or deny. Do the research.

2. Again, the investigation has determined enough of the money was from non US sources to make the Clinton Foundation a foreign agent.

I'm not making this stuff up. You need to look into this yourself because it's no longer a debatable question. The book "Clinton Cash" could be considered an unofficial accusation, this investigation is totally official.

It's over. She's done for.

Actually, you kind of do need to prove it; you're making outrageous claims with the expectation that those viewing them will accept them. The problem is that outrageous or extraordinary claims require outrageous or extraordinary proof. If you want to bring me over to your camp (that's as far as I'm going because I'm not a team-player) you're going to have to show me that you're correct in your claims.

I'm not saying yea or nay, I simply don't place any stock of credibility in information sourced from a known peddler of false information i.e. -the "Q" group has said a lot of things scattershot and very little (almost none) of it has panned out --which is to say if you throw a handful of beans at a post, at least one or two beans are going to hit the post

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hxNuZTrBZ1w&t=90s

This answers everything you're bringing up with the example of Flynn's role in the swamp takedown.

In short:
Flynn is being used to draw the publics attention to treason so that when the documents are declassified the public will already be familiar with what criminal treason actually is.

Treason was brought up with Flynn because he acted as a foreign agent. Uneducated people hear this and cry 'Treason! Lock him up'. He did end up registering as a foreign agent retroactively, like many others in government, and therefore acted lawfully, and so has not committed treason.

This is illustrated by Judge Sullivan bringing up treason charges in one session (angrily as the news would have you believe) and then in the following session by Apologizing to Flynn for the Treason accusation (which the news left out).

The Clinton Foundation was just determined to be a foreign agent by investigators. Because it was brought to the publics attention they can no longer retroactively register as a foreign agent. They are now guilty of Treason.

Flynn was the former head of Military Intelligence. He was king of the spies. This guy just manipulated the FBI and got them to f**k themselves and their interests.

The video is a freaking bombshell! It's long but totally worth the watch. It even ties Q into it all.

Sorry, but your link leads to someone engaging in speculation concerning what will happen regarding Flynn's sentencing rather than what has happened regarding something issued by the "Q" group and a direct, unambiguous cause and effect relationship in regards to a specific reaction in any branch of the government.

Of course Judge Sullivan issued an apology on record in a separate session; accusing someone of felony treason when felony treason hasn't occurred is it's own felony outside of the courtroom; issuing the apology counts as recorded public mea culpa.

Again, the original request was for a citation of an instance of direct, unambiguous cause-and-effect relationship involving anything "Q" group has published and a reaction in any section of the government. If you cannot supply such evidence, there's nothing more for us to discuss.

Q's been saying Hillary will go to prison for something like IRS violations. His code was "Untouchables". That's a movie about how Al Capone was finally put in prison. Despite being guilty of murder and worse all they could prove was some relatively minor IRS violations. The same is happening with Hillary right now.

You can call it a coincidence, but Q people have always been months ahead of the MSM. This is one more example.

https://imgflip.com/i/2p6ibd

Oh, by the way, treason has nothing to do with not being registered as a foreign agent.

Treason is a crime committed against the U.S. government in conjunction with and in aid of a hostile foreign power during a time of war. We aren't involved in declared war with any of the foreign powers for whom Flynn worked so no treason.

Wrong sir!

We are officially still in a war on terror. Officially. Thanks to the deep state, none of your complaints matter. They never thought they'd lose control.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oOAkU_4iPYA

Only days before Kav was brought into the loop. You can see the wheels turning in his head.

"The laws of war only apply to formally declared war"

Take it up with Judge Kavanaugh. A Supreme Court Justice. According to him, it would seem we are at war.

The second two things you listed are sure to be brought up in Hillary's trial. :)

The Qanons already know what you're going to find out, very soon it seems.

10 U.S. Code § 948a - Definitions, Subsection 9: Hostilities. —The term “hostilities” means ANY CONFLICT SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF WAR. (the laws of war only apply to formally declared war)

50 U.S. Code § 2204 - Definitions, Subsection 2: The term “enemy” means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in HOSTILITIES, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States.

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason --Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their ENEMIES, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason

I think I'm beginning to see the problem; you seem to have taken to mean literally at least one thing that's simply a turn of phrase. "The War on Terror" is a euphemism coined by the media and adopted by the government as a means of referencing the ongoing military presence in the middle east. Currently, we are not OFFICIALLY at war with any foreign government and have not been since WWII. And as I stated before, the legal threshold for a charge of treason is the commission of a crime against the U.S. government in concert with a hostile foreign power during a time of open (AKA "officially declared") war. Flynn did his deals with Russia and Turkey - with neither of whom is the U.S. in a declared war. Thus, Micheal Flynn wasn't and couldn't be charged with treason.

As far as Clinton is concerned, I couldn't care less what happens to her; she's a politician so she's probably dirty. We'll just have to see how things go.