Qanon Conspiracy theories

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bubba said:
Saw that, and many arguments for and agin it. Most followers I see are on the fence, but hoping for the legal action Q predicts. The general consensus I saw and agree with is Q or no Q, swamp draining (indictments) is what most Q fans want. Time will tell on that front.
Click to expand...

Put down some goalposts. What timeline and what result do you require from Q to prove his existence and relevance.

Given the cryptic nature and deliberate vagueness of Q's dispatches, any result could be interpreted to fit the narrative. Q predicts a great downfall for many elites. If it happens, Q is right. If it doesn't, the elites have successfully triumphed over the truth, as grand conspiracies tend to do. Either way, with or without result or evidence, Q is the truth. Don't you see a problem with this scenario?

To be brief. What could happen that would make you think Q is BS? Is there any reasonable fact pattern that would disabuse you of this conspiracy theory?
 
Last edited:
Already answered, above. If a passle of Swampsters are not indicted while Trump's in office I'll be disappointed.
 
Re Judicial Watch’s progress in the aforementioned FOIA matter of Hillary's emails:


Federal Court Orders Hillary Clinton to Answer Additional Email Questions Under Oath

Apparently, no one in the federal bureaucracies cares to fully investigate Hillary Clinton’s email misconduct, but we are doing it, and we’re making progress.

This week U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that within 30 days Clinton must answer under oath two additional questions about her controversial email system.

In 2016, she was required to submit under oath written answers to our questions. Clinton objected to and refused to answer questions about the creation of her email system; her decision to use the system despite warnings from State Department cybersecurity officials; and the basis for her claim that the State Department had “90-95%” of her emails.

After a lengthy hearing Judge Sullivan ruled that Clinton must address two questions that she refused to answer under oath.

Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.
During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.

Judge Sullivan read his opinion from the bench, deciding that the question about the creation of the email system was within the scope of discovery. Judge Sullivan rejected Clinton’s assertion of attorney-client privilege on the question about the emails “in the State’s system.”

The court refused Judicial Watch’s and media’s requests to unseal the deposition videos of Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and other Clinton State Department officials. And it upheld Clinton’s objections to answering a question about why she refused to stop using her Blackberry despite warnings from State Department security personnel. Justice Department lawyers for the State Department defended Clinton’s refusal to answer certain questions and argued for the continued secrecy of the deposition videos.

This hearing and court ruling is the latest development in our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former deputy chief of staff to Clinton. The lawsuit, which seeks records regarding the authorization for Abedin to engage in outside employment while employed by the Department of State, was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)). The court also granted discovery to Judicial Watch to help determine if and how Clinton’s email system thwarted FOIA.
 
Bubba said:
Re Judicial Watch’s progress in the aforementioned FOIA matter of Hillary's emails:


Federal Court Orders Hillary Clinton to Answer Additional Email Questions Under Oath

Apparently, no one in the federal bureaucracies cares to fully investigate Hillary Clinton’s email misconduct, but we are doing it, and we’re making progress.

This week U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that within 30 days Clinton must answer under oath two additional questions about her controversial email system.

In 2016, she was required to submit under oath written answers to our questions. Clinton objected to and refused to answer questions about the creation of her email system; her decision to use the system despite warnings from State Department cybersecurity officials; and the basis for her claim that the State Department had “90-95%” of her emails.

After a lengthy hearing Judge Sullivan ruled that Clinton must address two questions that she refused to answer under oath.

Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.
During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.

Judge Sullivan read his opinion from the bench, deciding that the question about the creation of the email system was within the scope of discovery. Judge Sullivan rejected Clinton’s assertion of attorney-client privilege on the question about the emails “in the State’s system.”

The court refused Judicial Watch’s and media’s requests to unseal the deposition videos of Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and other Clinton State Department officials. And it upheld Clinton’s objections to answering a question about why she refused to stop using her Blackberry despite warnings from State Department security personnel. Justice Department lawyers for the State Department defended Clinton’s refusal to answer certain questions and argued for the continued secrecy of the deposition videos.

This hearing and court ruling is the latest development in our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former deputy chief of staff to Clinton. The lawsuit, which seeks records regarding the authorization for Abedin to engage in outside employment while employed by the Department of State, was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)). The court also granted discovery to Judicial Watch to help determine if and how Clinton’s email system thwarted FOIA.
Click to expand...

oh no!
this could seriously affect her chances to get elected in 2016!

But more importantly, this is setting a precedent for what it is legitimate to ask an administration for - which basically means that Trump and Co. are in even deeper ****.
 
Bubba said:
You gotta be kiddin me. You're saying no evidence means the game is not rigged. (just like a statist would).

The evidence never leaves the golf courses or the private dining rooms aboard their jets and yachts.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the next time you sail back to Hawaii on an extended vacation, you can pick up some of this evidence while you're aboard.
Statist.

Bubba said:
I'm going on an extended vacation now. Sailing back to Hawaii.
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11521693#post11521693
 
sts60 said:
Are you backtracking? In post 336 it was admitting you were wrong, not being “disappointed”.
Click to expand...

Your words. Not mine.

Why do you try put words in others' mouth ?

I said the following in post 336.



sts60 Quote:
Quit stalling. Answer the question, or simply admit, by refusing to do so, that you intend to prolong your fantasy without limit, and that you will never acknowledge your error.
Click to expand...


Fer gawdsakes Jets,

You're asking when I will admit I was wrong about believing (hoping, actually, as I've said I, like you, can not know for sure that Q is for real or not) there will be arrests, right?

As if you missed it....Its not my call, so I'll give trump all the time he needs, (there's the logic), while he's in office, to indict/arrest them, (and you, if you dont say please next time).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Q has been saying watch D5.

December 5, December 5....say many Q followers, expecting something significant coming December 5


Maybe, maybe not.

Neon says its not about December 5. Something different, he says. Digging and digging, with help from an Anon or two, Neon dug up another interpretation, plus all kinds of little known stuff on sundry swamp critters.


https://www.neonrevolt.com/2018/11/...dtoo-greatawakening-blacklistanon-neonrevolt/


excerpt:

what I’ve stumbled across, as a result of so much digging, is a deep state apparatus that is so well hidden, and so nefarious, it’s hard to comprehend.
 
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak said:
What you were talking about in Post 452. Have you forgotten already?
Click to expand...


Something I said in post 452 you say....what are you referring to specifically ?

Are you referring to the highlited part, below?

The following item, (actually from an earlier post, #336), was copy/pasted into post 452.

You're asking when I will admit I was wrong about believing (hoping, actually, as I've said I, like you, can not know for sure that

Q is for real or not) there will be arrests, right? ...As if you missed it....Its not my call, so I'll give trump all the time he needs, (there's the logic), while he's in office, to indict/arrest them, (and you, if you dont say please next time).
Click to expand...


Is that it....the highlited part ?

If not, please confirm for us which point specifically it is that you wish to pin me down to ie admitting if wrong. Its important to clarify. I wish to answer correctly on this crucial point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom