TH3WH17ERABB17 -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- -XV-

Bye, Hillary.

New Q so spicy.
Hope hillary brought her hot sauce

Speaking of T-banner...
Trump at CPAC: Trying to take me down with 'BULLSH#T'

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: queenofswords

What is "Our Insurance Policy"?

We already know Mueller was (probably) "Their Insurance Policy".

Wouldn't our insurance policy be releasing the records? Transparency. Trump, FBI, DOJ have it all.

No better way to destroy their narrative but with the light of day.

Really can't wait to see how the media tries to play this.

originally posted by: MetalThunder
a reply to: crankyoldman

You may enjoy this news nugget,

Curbing Press Access to Epstein Hearing

“I’ve seen partial seals, but I’ve never seen anything where it went quite that far. That in of itself is newsworthy,’’ he said. “What kind of power here is able to influence our court system in such a big way? Something is amiss and I’m glad that journalists are out there looking at it.

Clintonian fireworks sitting right there, one simple - sure open the files like it was supposed to be done and BOOM. #makethishappen

March has the potential does it not?

a reply to: crankyoldman

Oh... it's Happening ....



Trust the Plan

Rewatching that roast at the Al Smith charity dinner, it is so much more obvious now. He knew then. He knows now.

T minus time for Hillary. The jig is up. Bye Bye.

a reply to: liveandlearn

I was thinking Q’s Insurance Policy is John Huber and those 470 lawyers setting on the mountain of data at that NSA Data Center in Utah.

Q831

Misspellings matter.
Sentence formation matters.
Learn.

Possibly referring to legalese documentation and Weiner [Wiener] laptop misspelling in that indictment. Lost the link to it.

a reply to: crankyoldman

Only bad thing would be if we keep the gold instead of giving it back to the people that isis stole it from.

This country has enough money and that would be pretty sleazy of us.

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

soon.
so soon.

a reply to: SeeItReddit

I'm usually the first one to post a news source when anyone claims

I don't think 90% of the media will report this, at all.

Something care likes to do .

But this time , so far, he is correct.
I can't find anything from the msm outside of reddit. www.reddit.com...

That doesn't mean they wont.

Re Q Post #2914 decodes:


1) The IntraDelta for this post is 11:23 = Pain for the cabal

2) The picture in the post is of Q post #831 from Mar 3 2018 23:18:43. So #2914 is posted on the eve of exactly 1 year later!

The Misspelling referred to is in #830:

Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: 85cc02 No.544206 📁
Mar 3 2018 23:15:14 (EST)

What I say a class action lawsuit?
When is it effective?
Who controls the narrative?
WHO wrote the singular censorship algorithm?
WHO deployed the algorithm?
WHO instructed them to deploy the algorithm?
SAME embed across multiple platforms.
Why?
Why is the timing relevant?
Where is @Snowden?
Why did ES leave G?
Why has NK out of the news cycle?
Define false flag?
What event(s) change the news cycle?
Why didn’t LV change the news cycle?
You have more than your know.

BOOM.
Q

(bold emphasis mine to identify the misspelling which should read "What is a...")

Interesting also that #829 is an action command:

Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: 85cc02 No.544119 📁
Mar 3 2018 23:08:25 (EST)
Zebra_Zebra.
Bring the thunder.
KILL_BOX[1A-23x]
Light_T_1A-23-go5
Q

Are we getting the thunder today, Sunday 3rd?

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi

Thunder you say .... LoL


It's Sunday somewhere.

a reply to: butcherguy

Between UncleTomahawk, Phage, and yourself, you're all making good points.

My apologies as I'm catching up, but i thought I'd throw a few points in here before I get too deep and lose my train of thought.

I'll round it off at the end, but consider the following from Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915).

Point one:

Indeed, the grace of a pardon, though good its intention, may be only in pretense or seeming; in pretense, as having purpose not moving from the individual to whom it is offered; in seeming, as involving consequences of even greater disgrace than those from which it purports to relieve. Circumstances may be made to bring innocence under the penalties of the law. If so brought, escape by confession of guilt implied in the acceptance of a pardon may be rejected, preferring to be the victim of the law rather than its acknowledged transgressor, preferring death even to such certain infamy. This, at least theoretically, is a right, and a right is often best tested in its extreme. "It may be supposed," the Court said in United States v. Wilson,

"that no being condemned to death would reject a pardon; but the rule must be the same in capital cases and in misdemeanors. A pardon may be conditional, and the condition may be more objectionable than the punishment inflicted by the judgment."

So, the pardon is a grace conferred on the individual by the executive office for an offense. That grace conferred may be rejected if living with the admission of guilt for said offense is worse in the mind of the one pardoned than being tired and potentially found not guilty.

Point 2:

It is hence contended by Burdick that the pardon is illegal for the absence of specification, not reciting the offenses upon which it is intended to operate -- worthless therefore as immunity. To support the contention, cases are cited. It is asserted besides that the pardon is void as being outside of the power of the President under the Constitution of the United States because it was issued before accusation or conviction or admission of an offense. This, it is insisted, is precluded by the constitutional provision which gives power only "to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States," and it is argued, in effect, that not in the imagination or purpose of executive magistracy can an "offense against the United States" be established, but only by the confession of the offending individual or the judgment of the judicial tribunals.

The constitutionality stands on the fact that an offense has been committed, and that act is established as being real through confession, or an admission of guilt.

Point 3:

This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. The former has no such imputation or confession. It is tantamount to the silence of the witness. It is noncommittal. It is the unobtrusive act of the law given protection against a sinister use of his testimony, not like a pardon, requiring him to confess his guilt in order to avoid a conviction of it.

There are three words to be considered in this argument, and the distinction between the three are important, they are: 1.Immunity, 2. Pardon, and 3. Clemency. The distinction, as far as I can tell, rest on the admission of guilt for the sake of this argument. Immunity does not require an admission of guilt, whereas a pardon or clemency, does.

This is my uneducated, narrow understanding of what I have found, so feel free to beat me over the head with it if you want.

a reply to: CoramDeo

Nixon, after the pardon, did admit remorse. Sorta. Kinda. Guilt? Nope. Yet the pardon stands.
www.theguardian.com...

Tomahawk knows not of what he speaks.

Have y'all checked this thread by JadedandCynical ? It seems to be related to the FBI request to check files on Weiners laptop.

This could actually be the beginning of "bye Hillary"

originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
Re Q Post #2914 decodes:


1) The IntraDelta for this post is 11:23 = Pain for the cabal

2) The picture in the post is of Q post #831 from Mar 3 2018 23:18:43. So #2914 is posted on the eve of exactly 1 year later!

The Misspelling referred to is in #830:

Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: 85cc02 No.544206 📁
Mar 3 2018 23:15:14 (EST)

What I say a class action lawsuit?
When is it effective?
Who controls the narrative?
WHO wrote the singular censorship algorithm?
WHO deployed the algorithm?
WHO instructed them to deploy the algorithm?
SAME embed across multiple platforms.
Why?
Why is the timing relevant?
Where is @Snowden?
Why did ES leave G?
Why has NK out of the news cycle?
Define false flag?
What event(s) change the news cycle?
Why didn’t LV change the news cycle?
You have more than your know.


Are we getting the thunder today, Sunday 3rd?

Time stamp: 3 2018 23:15:14

3:15:14

March 14 & 15?

A lot of things are pointing mid march territory.

edit on 2-3-2019 by crankyoldman because: nvm

originally posted by: liveandlearn
Have y'all checked this thread by JadedandCynical ? It seems to be related to the FBI request to check files on Weiners laptop.

This could actually be the beginning of "bye Hillary"

JAC is epic as always.

One thing stuck out to me that I don't recall being broached: Does Huma still maintain her security clearance? Given the existence of the laptop and the known contents, it is beyond inconceivable that she still has it.

this is interesting to say the least

In case it isn't clear in the pic: by U.S. Department of Justice (Author), Alan Dershowitz (Introduction)