They are building gallows…
Holy shit.
It's on.
https:// www.facebook.com/dilleyforcongress/videos/323329651493188/
Not necessarily premature. The general message is they will be sentenced via military tribunal, I'm not so sure there's anything that can be done to stop it—should something be handed down.
But I must pose the question: How much of these glorious fantasies can come to pass? Would we not be opening ourselves up to foreign intervention? Could this not spur forced global takeover of our government? If DJT or The Storm push too far, what is to say things won't come back around? We're not living in a world where other government official embrace national sovereignty, after all.
>>Gallos being built.
>
>LOL - Premature. Building them now would be like Comey writing a memo exonerating Hitlery before the interview.
I want to know when we finally get Soros, and all his Satanic spawn.
Pretty sure Dow dropping is a result of the market's uncertainty regarding the Federal Reserve, as it was also Janet Yellen's last day. Jerome Powell starts his tenure on Monday.
Market's don't like change.
http:// fortune.com/2018/02/03/federal-reseve-chair-jerome-powell/
Not OP, but if National Economic Prosecutor's office is correct, I believe that would get the ball rolling in regards to the RICO (racketeering) stuff Dilley talked about.
>those who do not have a religious background in their families, they at least have some leadership when it comes to orienting your own moral compass. You didn't have to go look at a legal text to figure out right and wrong, you inherently knew it. We now live in loophole nation where people are just reading the law and looking for a way to weasel out of what their responsibilities are.
This.
>You don't hang for sedition.
WRONG.
10 U.S. Code § 894 - Art. 94. "Mutiny or sedition"—https:// www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/894
However, hanging is not a guaranteed result, as one "shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct". I'd believe there would be no real death penalty, instead some form of extreme life sentence.
>No question. But this isn't 1863 and there are politics and sensitivities involved, not to mention the risk of more Detroits and Baltimores burning. I just don't see the military tribunal hanging him unless it is something really, really, really big.
Sadly, I would probably agree with this. However, I believe it could be arranged for the conspirators to never see daylight again.
>MOST SERIOUS
Subjective. Subjectivity isn't law. If it goes against the books, and they play this by the books, then it'll play out how it plays out.
>Law is not always black and white. Okay, so he let a lot of classified information spread. They guy made a mistake and he has a right to declassify whatever he wants, anyway. You can't hang him for that.
Wanna bet?
>I still can't believe people elected a MUSLIM COMMUNIST as President. I am really ashamed of how DUMB people have become.
Agreed. Let who the books say must hang, hang.
There's a point to be made with your overall supposition.
>-Hussein's birth certificate.
This is where I am curious things will get interesting. Escalate this high enough, and that situation may come back into play. Not only would the courts be able to get him on sedition, but how about running for the highest elected office in the UNITED STATES with deception and deceit, and winning?
There is so much that can happen if this goes far enough, it's insanity.
>Thomas Jefferson warned of the Judicial Branch, because of it's power and it's potential for corruption.
He sure did. It's worth looking into his views on the matter. This is a good start:
http:// tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/06/04/thomas-jefferson-on-judicial-tyranny
>He said judicial tyranny made the Constitution “a thing of wax.”
>Jefferson was plainly alarmed by the possibility of judicial tyranny.
>Jefferson plainly had an answer against judicial tyranny.
>He saw judicial tyranny as an undermining of the Constitution.
>Jefferson saw judicial tyranny as an all-out assault on the Constitution.
>He saw judicial tyranny as the greatest danger to the nation.
>For judges to usurp the powers of the legislature is unconstitutional judicial tyranny.
O was a Constitutional lawyer—learned the rules so he could BREAK the republic.
>How much really, really bigger does it have to get?
>PRAY.
>PREY.
P. R. Y.
PRY.
PRY
From MW:
-
to look closely or inquisitively;
-
also : to make a nosy or presumptuous inquiry
Speculation doesn't help if you're inventing a new meaning for an acronym. I would not believe this to be the case. Gov't would sooner use already-existing titles than create new ones, if not to simply avoid headaches caused by any opposition.
>We also need to recognise Zach (from Alex Jones fame) as his intel is also cross-referencing Dilley's source.
The same could be said with any source going to Dilley, but I actually believe Dilley's source is likely providing legit information compared to Zach.
Remember, Q stated numerous times:
>Disinformation is real.
>Disinformation is necessary.
If you wanted strategically-necessary disinfo out there, you would 100% try to get it out there through InfoWars.
Not discrediting Jones or Zach, but Zach could very well be a disinfo agent being used to purposely muddy the waters. He's got Jones' full confidence as well—perfect ruse.
>What criteria do you use to rule in/out a source?
My criteria is irrelevant. You choose to believe what you choose to believe. But you should find your own reasons as to why info Zach provides to InfoWars might be less reliable than that provided to Dilley or the 8ch.
I'll give you one rationale, find your own reasons after if you wish. For me, it's reach.
The Q phenomenon got around quickly. For the mission, maybe it got out too quickly. So to temper things down a bit, you have Zach (who may very well be a part of the mission and/or have his own high-level sources) call Jones (a noted "crazy conspiracy theorist") and provide some legit info but a lot of disinfo as well. Since you know the TARGET monitors InfoWars, this is the perfect place to put out some wholesale disinfo to muddy the waters.
Now, I'm not saying Zach provides only disinfo, but I have no reason to think he's telling even 20% of the truth. He could very well be with the good guys but on a disinfo mission.
>>265782
>Q has had a really bad week.
Not disagreeing, but not sure why I would agree, either. Please elaborate on how Q is having a bad week.
>Now, I'm not saying Zach provides only disinfo, but I have no reason to think he's telling even 20% of the truth. He could very well be with the good guys but on a disinfo mission.
Interview with Seedman (Jones): https:// youtu.be/YWAdJeE2dbk
After watching this—which I'm posting after the Super Bowl—I believe he's full of shit or nothing more than a glorified Thomas Wictor-type character; not actually on the inside but has some sources, yet nothing too reliable or concrete.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but that's where I'm at with this Zach guy.
I'm still with Dilley, but I'm certain Zach is exploiting Jones to push disinfo or he's LARPing.