Q post 3858 lead off with a jpeg of the GA (great awakening). The body of the post is a litany of "What happens when the news is__?" After a reminder of the many ways that the DS wants us divided, Q concludes with "positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism," stating that failure to have sources of reliable information represents "A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC."
(That summary was meant to Remind you what #3858 is about. If you haven't read it yet, Click Here.)
I've been reading other anons' speculation over whose arrest could shock the rest of the normies wide awake. IMO, the fatal flaw with most guesses like Comey, Brennan, and other Obama-era officials is that the MSM already has their stockpiled scripts to Scream Outrage or to Dismiss the Charges Outright as being vengeful & retaliatory politics.
Given (a) the Danger of Fake News, and (b) the Gripes, but No Enforcement to date of the FCC Regulations concerning false information, I'm leaning more and more toward the idea that the first 'shocking' indictments and arrests will and must cripple the legacy media.
If I were Anderson Cooper, Rachael Maddow, (or any other high-profile Anti-Trumper hack,) I'd be considering an extended sabbatical in a country that does not have an extradition treaty with the US. Both of them are widely recognized public figures who have openly, repeatedly, and demonstrably reported falsehoods. Surely they'd attempt to fight back with Freedom of the Press, but there are criminal statutes about knowingly reporting false information that endanger the public peace, and if they wanted to claim that MSM arrests were "political" revenge, well, they have already dug their own political pits, and that would be open admission that their reporting was so over-the-top-political that 'revenge' is a plausible response.
Is Q telling us to anticipate arrests of Media Controllers and Public Figures in the MSM?
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 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.