0
1

[–] 15398866? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

“Who knows where the bodies are buried?”

What do we think this means? In terms of the word “bodies.”

0
0

[–] 15398964? [S] ago 

I think is literally means bodies as well as general evidence of crime.

This is a huge sticking point with me and President Trump and Q... because if they are only planning to disclose 80% of the deep state's crimes... that feels like they are potentially fulfilling the role of covering-up some crimes.

Some people have missing children and some of us have had our lives ruined... and none of us should be impressed by Q if his "disclosure" threshold means we never know closure.

1
3

[–] 15399268? 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

They won't disclose 100% because of public safety. And for you to basically say: "If Q doesn't spill 100% about the cabal he can get fucked" might be a new way to divide the community. You can't be seriously this dense, if you're for real.

0
0

[–] 15401365? ago 

If the perp walks are coming, I would hope they are delayed and staggered.

For example, if you arrest a hundred major politicians, regardless of party affiliation, there will a massive distrust of the government the likes we haven't seen before. So you 'arrest' their ability to exert influence, such as not running for office or announcing a retirement. Their convictions may be withheld from the public through the Patriot Act framework under the State Secret privilege expansions, even the 'enemy combatants'.

In an effort to unify the country, you could take the reigns of the special counsel investigation. As the investigation can explore any tangential criminal activity uncovered by testimony, one can drive the more politically hostile investigations through that avenue, as Mueller will have no choice or risk exposing his entire investigation up to conflicts of interest or impartiality; something which would likely end up being handled in SCOTUS. This would risk all the work Mueller has put in.

0
0

[–] 15397997? ago 

This submission was linked from this v/QRV comment.

Posted automatically (#12398) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.

0
0

[–] 15397973? ago 

So Mueller is White Hat confirmed?

0
12

[–] 15398010? [S] 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

Not necessarily.

Acting AG Whitaker is in charge of Mueller and Whitaker may have just bitch-slapped Mueller and told him he'll get a kick in the balls if he doesn't behave himself.

0
2

[–] 15398288? 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

^^^ THIS ^^^ makes me so happy, I want to hug you, Anon!

0
2

[–] 15398275? 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Exactly. This. ^

0
5

[–] 15398112? 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Mueller has been dirty for too long to be a white hat. He may have made some deals, but I don't think that will keep him from going down for U1.

Personally, I want revenge on the bastard.

0
0

[–] 15399234? ago 

You really think a marine corps with a purple heart medal could commit treason?

0
1

[–] 15398553? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

No (but not absolutely impossible, either.)

Far more likely is that he is (or has recently become) "controlled opposition" (from the point of view of the Cabal; in other words he's "opposition to Trump" that's controlled by Q.)

0
1

[–] 15398968? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

If he is guilty in u1, and is working to save himself then it’s not impossible he is controlled op.

2
-2

[–] 15398570? 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

So far Mueller is not reporting to Whitaker for practical purposes. He went to Rosenstein for Cohens plea deal, he merely "informed" Whitaker he was going to do it.

Whatever your belief is about Q and such the reality is that Whitakers appointment is questionable legally speaking. Mueller may be daring him to try and assert his authority so it can be challenged.

0
5

[–] 15399107? 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

The reality is that either Congress has the Constitutional authority to delegate its powers to the Executive Branch, or it does not. There is no middle ground.

If it does, then the Whitaker appointment is Constitutional, because the Senate gave its consent when it voted to pass the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. The exact same reasoning is used to claim that much other significant legislation is Constitutional, from the War Powers Act to the Controlled Substances Act.

If it does not, then the entire edifice of the modern regulatory / administrative state is deeply Unconstitutional.

The interpretation of the "Necessary And Proper Clause" given to us by McCulloch vs. Maryland (and the way that interpretation has evolved in the 2 centuries since) leaves a hole in the armor of the Constitutional restrictions on what both the Executive and the Legislative branches may do more than large enough to authorize the hyper-tyrannical government that now inhabits Washington, D.C., even though no such authoritarian micromanagement of the lives of Americans would ever have been approved by those who wrote the Constitution. Congress may do whatever is "necessary" and "proper" to deal with real life situations, or so the Federal courts almost always rule. Temporarily handling vacancies of crucial Executive Branch offices by having Congress delegate its "advice and consent" authority to the President is completely in line with the sorts of things the courts have already allowed.

Given the above, the safe bet has to be that Trump has a majority of the Justices on his side. There's no way they don't know the consequences of ruling the other way.