delete please no direct links to Q trying to keep the masses out.

Ummmm seriously...? That’s the problem right there. If you think the “Masses” won’t get a filtrated version condemning everything Q has said, you’re dead wrong. It’s already begun, they’re in damage control. Everyone has to know about this info in order to really make a change...

Whole other point here is... this could all be a ploy by that very same “deep state” to divide and concur... trump and friends could be in on it from the get go. Art of war.

Doubt it but don’t put it past TPTB... Always remain objective... these guys clearly don’t play around...

If you think they don’t monitor all those posts... you’re mistaken. Linking here won’t change a thing.

Stay Woke

Nah just dont direct link to that place use pics etc but no links. that place is for research and we have enough trolls and shills. copy memes etc but plz no direct links.

research?. its a pile of shit. just wasted 15mins of my life reading that shit. there is no correlation between consequential and consensual. Your all being duped.

opps.

Like I said in the othe thread, this is interesting, but elites have lawyers retained all the time. Without some corroboration or context from elsewhere, this doesn't really mean much. Assuming it is true.

I think the key word here is "formally." It implies that there is some sort of proceeding that is currently hidden from the public.

Who's hiding it exactly? We know for a fact that there is a lot of shit going on, but not a shred of credible evidence seems to picking up steam against the dems.

So, who's hiding it? The GOP controls all 3 branches but can't seem to do anything at all. I'll wait to see any evidence. Like, literally, anything.

hmmm another vapid baseless statement in which you bash the GOP and uplift dems. you're a clown

I'm sorry, why are you calling me names and not addressing the questions?

why are you still trying at this point?

Thought you might have something valuable to add, but that was wrong.

Low effort. Good job.

Lol it's so incredibly obvious at this point. They can't admit they've been conned because it'll show just how incredibly stupid and gullible they really are.

I'm 100% sure once people start going to prison these same morons are gonna say "it was just a prank bro I was just pretending to be a subversive moron"

Who knows? I'm not saying that I believe this, just that "formally retaining legal counsel" is different than just retaining legal counsel.

That said, it wouldn't surprise me all that much if it were true, given what we've learned about FISA abuse and the Russia investigation.

Seems more like a smear campaign by right-wingers than anything legitimate. But, we'll see.

lmao

What's so funny? Please share all the evidence that I'm wrong.

I have all night. I'll check back soon. Thanks in advance.

you have no evidence you are right lmao. you are just stating an opinion

more like a wish

No, I'm stating what appears to be reality. Just because it doesn't jive with you doesn't mean much. Go ahead, make a smart rebuttal that shows you're right.

I have all night.

No, I'm stating what appears to be reality.

You're not even sure, LOL

Uh, what?

Appears like in not totally knowing what it is. thus UNSURE

Well, at least you can almost use grammar correctly. That's good. Looks to be, what, 6th grade reading level?

Actually, AP Style Guide says you should have a comma in there, so never mind, you're bad at grammar too.

Do you feel better now, I truly hope so. Bit more certain about things in life? How does it feel to be corrected by a 6th grader.

I still have no idea what you're talking about, but hey, congrats on the 6th grade reading level.

I still have no idea what you're talking about

man you make it too ez.

Deleted account 3 days later lmao

Formally refers to him having to shell out $400 per hour by forking over a YUGE retainer and signing papers. Unless of course it's a sniveling weasel attorney tryna suck up and who's volunteered to do it pro bono. If that's the case, he's gonna be sorry when Barry Soetoro goes down, cuz he broke the laws which are for everyone, not just him and Killary.

The kind of lawyers a former president would retain don't charge $400 an hour. $400 is a mid-level rate for junior lawyers at a major firm. Senior partners can charge upwards of $1,000 an hour.

And people don't do pro bono work for rich clients. They submit bills and expect them to get paid.

Anything Obama did would have primarily been done while he was acting commander-in-chief. Trump doesn't have a lot of faith in the FBI or DOJ (because you know all shit going on..shit that is credible because anyone can read it and no one is denying it).

What would lead you to believe Obama would land in a civilian and not a military court?

Military likely as I think this would be treasonous crimes against the nation. Gitmo next

Because there is absolutely no way to try civilians in a military court.

The president is a civilian. If what happened extends past a soft coup it is uncharted territory. Service members vow to protect America against foreign or domestic enemies. That includes former presidents and democrats. If there is some DNC/FBI/Clinton etc. thing going on the military is obligated to address it.

God, you are dense. Again, there is no law in place that allows American civilians to be tried in military court.

Or you could just read what I said. How dense are you?

So you want to ignore the constitution? The military has no way to do anything about this imaginary conspiracy, even if it was real, and to ask otherwise is to completely change the way our government works.

I'm not ignoring the constitution. It is an unprecedented situation. No matter how the cards fall some people fucked up. If the seriousness of the situation is to be believed the military is compelled to act.

They aren't compelled to act. They are barred, by law, from acting.

If the FBI/DOJ is compromised there are not many other games in town(except the people Obama sent into war for 8 years with their hands tied behind their backs). I doubt that pissed them off /s. It looks like my initial comment flew right over your head...

The military has detained citizens. Citizens have seen military court. If America really is facing something as bad as it looks the military is compelled to act.

Citizens have seen military court.

When?

There is no constitutional way for the president to be tried by the military. That's not just saying that it hasn't happened before, it would be antithetical to the basic principles of American government.

Aside from the fact that the military trying the president would literally be an armed coup, it would a constitutional crisis because it would be the Commander in Chief being tried by his own military. That's repugnant to a system founded on the concept of checks and balances.

It would also violate modern understanding of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Also whatever part of the core constitution guarantees jury trials for criminal cases--I forget where that is.)

When?

You don't know that citizens have been detained and seen military court. lol?

As you mentioned the former president is a citizen. Upholding oaths is not a armed coup.

Obama is no longer the commander in chief. Why do you think he is still president?

You don't know that citizens have been detained and seen military court.

I'll be more specific--when has an American citizen on American soil been detained and tried in a military court?

Obama is no longer the commander in chief.

Yes, I got caught up in the hypothetical--you're right that seizing Obama wouldn't necessarily be a coup.

But it would still be grossly illegal. The Military Commissions Act prohibits military tribunals holding exclusive jurisdiction over American citizens, at least on US soil.

99 Americans were at one time or another at GITMO. Anwar al-Awlak was droned. The military has pretty much established that if someone is serious contender for attacking America that person will be dealt with. If the people running the courts and investigations are the people attacking America the military doesn't have much of a choice. Controversial as they may be places like GITMO exist for a reason.

99 Americans were at one time detained or at GITMO. Anwar al-Awlak was droned.

None of them on American soil, as far as I'm aware. The rationale is that enemy combatants on foreign soil may be subjected to military jurisdiction--I'm not aware of it ever happening on American soil, or outside of active hostilities. I'm not an expert in this field, so I could definitely be overlooking something, especially historical examples like Civil War actions, but nothing that I'm aware of would be even remotely analogous to the military arresting an ex-president.

If the people running the courts-investigations are the people attacking America the military doesn't have much of a choice.

It's true that they don't have a choice, in that the military doesn't get to decide "that the people running the courts-investigations are the people attacking America." That violates the principal of civilian control of the military, and now we are talking a coup. Literally.

Controversial as they may be places like GITMO exist for a reason.

And they exist on foreign soil for a reason. But even if Obama went overseas for a vacation and the military snagged him there, it would be the biggest Constitutional crisis the country has ever seen, but for the Civil War.

Being an ex-president does not make someone immune from prosecution. Executive privilege exists but it doesn't protect anyone from the consequences of FISA abuse, conspiring to rig an election, sham Iran deals etc. Current FBI, former DOJ etc. are not immune either.

If the military wants you they will get you. If it comes done to grabbing someone and just flying them to GITMO (or some place we have never heard) they will do it. They have done it. This is one of the reasons Assange doesn't leave the embassy.

Again, if the situation is as serious as people have made it to be the military may need to take action. The military swore an oath to protect America. The military did not swear an oath to protect the FBI/DOJ/CLINTON/DNC etc.

Being an ex-president does not make someone immune from prosecution.

No, but because presidents have to be citizens, it makes him immune from prosecution by a military court. The Army absolutely cannot roll up to his house, pick him up, and put him on trial--it would be an enormous violation of statutes (the CMA and maybe the Posse Comitatus Act) and the Constitution (Amendments 5, 6, and 14--and maybe 4, off the top of my head).

Executive privilege exists but it doesn't protect anyone from the consequences of FISA abuse, conspiring to rig an election, sham Iran deals etc.

You don't seem to get it. The military has already done this to citizens. The military has done it to non citizens. Some who have been whisked away never get trials. They are held indefinitely. You didn't know Americans had been detained like this and you are somehow an expert on everything related to it? Googling a handful of amendments doesn't change what the the military does.

When has the military detained or tried an American citizen on American soil, or who is not engaged in armed hostilities?

I didn't "Google a handful of amendments." The Constitution guarantees a swift trial and jury of one's peers; I keep asking for examples of these junta courts and you seem to be thinking of Guantanamo. But Obama isn't carrying a gun or on any foreign battlefields.

The army can't arrest people in DC because it doesn't like their politics.

A coup is a coup. If everything is to be believed, it did involve violence(Seth Rich/Paid Antifa). The military is more than welcome to whisk people responsible away. THE DOJ/FBI etc. can't just say "nothing happened.we investigated ourselves".

That’s not a coup lol

And no one really believes any of it

God what an effing asshole you are

You can count me as someone who is skeptical of Q. Consequently, I won't address the rumor presented in this thread regarding Obama and legal counsel. I want to specifically address your statement: "We know for a fact that there is a lot of shit going on, but not a shred of credible evidence seems to picking up steam against the dems."

Purely in regards to just the FISA memo, I suppose this is technically true since we have not seen it yet. However, it seems unlikely that there's no "there there" given the vast number of congressmen who have publicly stated that the contents of the memo are shocking and point directly to the weaponization of the Federal Government against a Presidential candidate by the Obama Administration. They'd be sticking their necks out awfully far if there's genuinely no evidence in that document.

But bigger picture, your entire comment betrays a lack of understanding of the situation. The GOP doesn't "control all 3 branches" of government, the Uniparty does. Most of the people that populate those 3 branches belong to the Uniparty. Consequently, most of the Republican law makers that appear to be on Trump's side are doing so because they're either a) bowing to public pressure, b) recognize that the tide is turning and they're trying to align with the winning side or c) they view the exposure of the Obama Admin's crimes as an opportunity to consolidate more power.

This isn't cowboys vs. indians. This is play acting on stage and very few of the people on that stage are playing themselves.

The corruption that's slowly but steadily being revealed inside the FBI, the CIA, the DOJ and the State department isn't about the perpetrators aligning themselves with the Democrat party, it was about making sure than an outsider couldn't get in an spoil the party.

If someone like Mitt Romney would have had the nomination in 2016, we wouldn't be having this discussion for numerous reasons. But prime among them is that there likely wouldn't have been an effort made by the Obama Admin to keep him out. With Romney and Clinon running, it's a win-win for the Uniparty.

So despite your comments and despite your coarse, cretinous name, I just invested a bunch of time in you by writing this comment; a comment that was written in good faith in an attempt to wake up a fellow human being. I hope that in exchange, you'll seriously consider what I've written here.

You don't formally and informally retain counsel. If someone is retained as your lawyer, they're formally your lawyer.

I'm saying that it could mean that he retained counsel for a specific matter, rather than just the typical lawyers he has on call.

I mean, if we're going off the word of a random internet poster, then sure we can speculate in literally any direction. Maybe he hired a lawyer because he murdered Trump last night and needs to get ahead of it before it hits the press.

Tracy Beanz ladies and gents.. If you get impatient and want to know where Q comes in.. go to the last ten or so minutes of the video.

Lol. The people worried about Q are the ones worried about something coming out if you ask me..

https://youtu.be/zAiZlX92QfI

Seems like Obama is doing just fine while the Trump White House flings shit as the walls close in on them.

dude stfu with your week old account

okay. ill say it for him.

Seems like Obama is doing just fine while the Trump White House flings shit as the walls close in on them.

Also, Q is a bullshitter and you're being lied to and enjoying it.

dude stfu with your account created days before the 2016 election in which you have also been trump bashing lmao. im sure the op i replied to is your alt

lmao i started commenting in r/canada, thanks though. go back to last night and you can read my glorious thoughts on the hockey game i watched.

or i can just look at these

https://www.reddit.com/user/cptn_canada/comments/?sort=controversial

Yes, i comment left leaning comments on r/conspiracy and shit in r/canada. and those damn leafs fans. whats your point?

LMAO okay bud

Hey, who let the liberal Canadian in here?

funny, the subreddit is r/conspiracy, not r/the_donald, even though so many are desperately to make it is

It's funny, the subreddit is r/conspiracy, not r/the_donald, even though so many are desperately to make it into that

Oh Judger of Accounts, what is your acceptable account age and comment content?

How about a decade-old account:

Seems like Obama is doing just fine while the Trump White House flings shit as the walls close in on them.

Also, Q is a bullshitter and you're being lied to and enjoying it.

Or you could refute it. But you attack the messenger instead. Says it all. Thank you :)

impossible to refute a vapid statement with no base. stick to r/politics bud

I don't post there. But, again you've decided to attack the messenger instead of addressing the message.

Low effort. Not, like, smart.

They're just sensitive about your username.

Guess that does rustle some jimmies. Forgot that might trigger some TrumpFlakes.

So sad.

So you are basically not here to talk about conspiracies, but to "rustle some jimmies". Just pointing out the obvious.

When did I say that? I said I forgot that might even be a reason why.

Reading comprehension.

That's why you picked such an innocuous name. People who research conspiracies FOR REAL are not here to rustle jimmies. And "reading comprehension" isn't a sentence.

my point exactly. he is just bashing the right and promoting the left, not adding anything about the OP topic at hand. it's so completely obvious. even more so when in the first hour he had negative points and now he has positive points in the double digits lol.

I pray for people so deluded with misinformation as you are that it almost sounds like you're purposely trying to sound like a dumbass.

Then, learn me. Don't attack me and call me names. Show me how I'm wrong.

Can you?

Everything you need to know is here.

Forgive me for losing my temper. I believe Trump is saving the country so saying he's flinging shit and obviously your incredibly biased username triggered me.

Thank you. I will give them a listen.

You're free to believe what ever you want, but that first source is heavily biased and not exactly good at dispelling it. But, hey, it's a source, so that's something.

The article is not biased. It purposely links to left leaning news sites as citations when possible to avoid that. I can understand that the website title can make the article seem biased but all the information contained in the article can be found at websites like the New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN.

I listened a bit, but it doesn't change my mind. Feels over reals just seems to be the forte these days.

Prove one thing he says is wrong.

https://youtu.be/Y4Rzg-Hast4?t=669

That page is always blank for me.

We all want to believe that there's some secret hero of the masses up at the top, that there's a struggle between good and evil in the theater behind closed doors, that there's hope for us after all... but I'm not buying it. I haven't seen this person post anything that is irrefutable proof that they are who they say they are.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but today isn't shaping up to be that day.

it occurs to me that even the elite and infamously wealthy are trapped in this machine that is the deep state or TPTB. \

the only escape is a paradigm change and it's a whole hell of a lot easier if someone within the castle drops the gate then trying to ram it down from the outside.

research?. its a pile of shit. just wasted 15mins of my life reading that shit. there is no correlation between consequential and consensual. Your all being duped.

why are you still trying at this point?

That's why you picked such an innocuous name. People who research conspiracies FOR REAL are not here to rustle jimmies. And "reading comprehension" isn't a sentence.