0
0

[–] 22504950? ago 

Pence.

0
0

[–] 22505069? ago 

You could be right.

Other possibilities that make some sense (IMHO):

1) George W. Bush (not a Democrat, no publicly-known involvement in either the "Muh Russia" hoax or the Ukraine hoax.)

2) Chief Justice Roberts (also not a democrat, and any claim that it was retribution for attacking Trump would be way too much of a stretch.) The only downside to Roberts is that, while we awaited a replacement on the Court, the balance of power would be 4-4.

0
0

[–] 22505209? ago 

They’ll say trump was retaliating on Roberts for Roberts not letting rand read off the question that had Eric’s name in it.

0
0

[–] 22510299? ago 

Of course they would.

But that is such a weak argument, Trump would easily survive it. Going after Schiff would be a different story.

0
0

[–] 22516045? ago 

Ruth is dead though

0
0

[–] 22520591? ago 

They could indict her body double / clone....

0
0

[–] 22505079? ago 

Do I understand that you are basing your theory on the fact that arresting media personnel will be shocking in a visibility sense, since these ppl are on tv everyday etc? And that the narrative establishers would not have a script ready for an event like arresting a media figure, as they would in the event of a politician being the initial arrest?

0
0

[–] 22512939? [S] ago 

It is more of a hypothesis where I'm speculating since a theory needs either compilation of supporting data or a testable experiment with results that can be duplicated. But yes, you've got most of it. A high-visibility arrestee; a straight-forward crime (like lying) that is easy to understand and not convoluted, and obvious enough that it cannot be easily blamed on something else; and a charge that, as you said, they would not have a script ready for it because it is so "unheard of" to make an arrest for reporting fake news, even though POTUS has been putting it out there in plain sight that Fake News ought to be held responsible for creating a clear and present danger.

Most speculation about the First Big Arrest has been a "Who?" "Who" is important, but not the top of the list. A sense of personal betrayal would cause a greater emotional response.

"That person deceived us!" The "that person" is somewhat interchangeable, but the deception was targeted directly at ME and my friends. Personal betrayal is more jarring than celebrity gossip; a good movie will have both the personal, visceral response and a starring celebrity. So that is the other part—an emotional realization that what they did wrong was actually harmful and dangerous to our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

0
0

[–] 22505325? ago 

The 2 that matter #1 Hussein’s #2 Hillary’s

0
1

[–] 22505351? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Oprah would be a shock. A happy shock.

0
1

[–] 22505357? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Pence would make them all think "if he wasn't safe, then who is?" He has been supportive, but quiet. Not sure about him.

0
0

[–] 22515979? ago 

Pence a pedophile and human trafficker

0
0

[–] 22505683? ago 

I believe so. [controllers]

0
0

[–] 22506205? ago  (edited ago)

2 for 1: Bush and Bill Clinton both conspired to take our freedom - both fruits of the same poisonous tree (shared secret societies)? One for each party (aisle)...

load more comments ▼ (4 remaining)