>>11776422 PB

RE envelopes at FUNERAL OF BUSH SENIOR.

1. EACH got brief message, maybe someone's name, maybe a yes or a no, maybe a number to call, or a date on the calendar.

1. THE WIVES got the notes. HRC was treated as a FLOTUS not as a president, of course, and she ho-hummed and missed the point. Each of the others showed the note to the husband aka a former POTUS. HRC did not show hers to BILL. MICHAEL did not - but HUSSEIN peaked.

1. DIFFERENCE between a POTUS and a FLOTUS? COMMS specific.

1. GWB did not look at the note but passed it on to the wife.

1. The real recipient was JEB whose reaction was genuine as he let his guard down because LAURA showed it to him and she did not understand but she understood the difference between the reaction of GWB and JEB.

1. Possibly their children were invoked.

1. PENCE was a trojan horse for GWB and company; watch the way GWB's former VPOTUS, CHENEY, behaved - his daughter was to become a SENATOR in her own right.

1. Significantly, in hindsight, BIDEN was dumbfounded/ confused as he looked not to HUSSEIN but to HRC when he discovered the note that his wife JILL had let slip to the floor. His was a blank face, involuntary, but HRC's was a blank face, studiously.

1. So who let their guard down - JEB and BIDEN. How to reconcile?

1. The message/s were understood, at least superficially, on a quick glance. So prolly not a written message. Prolly a symbol or a number or a picture. Example, a photo of an offspring, for example. Think of how BIDEN's son has been taken down. Who is next, is the threat or the negotiation question on the minds of each.

>>11776747

The message prolly set the gang's paranoia aflutter because each note prolly hinted that one of them had turned. So who left in the gang can be counted on as an ally? And who as a foe? The CLUB OF FORMERS is very small and each successor had access to dirt on predecessor/s. HRC was a bit out of the loop, in that sense, but elbow deep with BILL and OBAMA admins. And not as a traditional FLOTUS, natch. Imagine if they had expected a sort of note because word had gone out, informally, of a get-together, a drink in a backroom of sorts. The FLOTUSes were invited to one room, the POTUSes to another, which would mean HRC would have been relegated outside of the real meeting. OR, the meeting of the FLOTUSes could have been real meeting because its focus would have been on the offspring of THE FORMERS CLUB.

Spitballing to reconcile the reactions of each.

>>11776775

Yes, we can. His memory will be punctuated with the fact that he did not go on his own terms. OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

The punctuation of his demise is well-known and, amongst Patriots, it will be remembered in such a way that, yes, he will be killed again.

Not that he will have died, repeatedly, but he will live on through his being killed again and again and again.

Not in a gruesome way but in a dutiful ritual of setting right what he set wrong.

>>11776764

ENVELOPES

https://youtu.be/pmHwJbS_ku8

LIP READER

https://youtu.be/Nk51wKwgioM

SNUBBED

https://youtu.be/6d_xv4mjKK8

TRUMP DEPARTED BEFORE CASKET

https://youtu.be/CDLZmBUG5kg

BILL ON LETTER LEFT BY BUSH SENIOR

https://youtu.be/wumgEcIV5dY

>>11776782

Prince C and plenty of others

https://youtu.be/hO4pbuJ3vlg

Watch former CANADIAN PM with BIDEN.

>>11776897

>https://youtu.be/Nk51wKwgioM

Watch CHENEY.

>>11776827

Who writes the year 2020 as 20/20.

Reference to eyesight, maybe?

Double meaning for '3rd party'?

Thinking that the plan had included splitting into a 3rd party, neither DEM nor REPUB, during a 2nd DJT term. So the plan would have been to concede - see how BIDEN campaigned - while creating as much turmoil as possible. Their plan is being executed and is getting results, if the idea was to undermine the unity of the REPUB party, forcing a split, and regrouping as a DEM-REPUB alliance or coalition of some kind.

Suppose the two-party system was replaced by a 3-party system and all that would be entailed if the three parties were almost on equal footing - 1/3, 1/3, 1/3.

>>11777026

Think of countries where parties split the vote 3-ways very competitively. Moar or less stable than a 2-party system?

Then think of the opportunities for greater voter fraud beyond tabulation of votes. Think coalition-building post-elections.

>>11777038

In systems that are split into many parties, the tiny and persistently successful party/parties gain leverage such factions would never have otherwise.

>>11776997

Maybe moar evil than NoName.

>>11777026

1/3, 1/3, 1/3-plus 1 vote.

Parliamentary systems are prone to such splits.

The socialists in CANADA gained leverage in just this way.

Likewise in ITALY.

Could turn the SPEAKER into a sort of Prime minister with greater clout than a President. Like in RUSSIA, maybe.

>>11777079

To turn the SPEAKER into a Prime MINISTER, effectively, would undermine the CONSTITUTION such that the President becomes moar ceremonial.

Don't know how such a wrenching woud take place but suspect that the power of impeachment would be used like a sort of vote of no-confidence as per PARLIAMENTARY systems.

This would concentrate power in ways the CONSTITUTION deliberately blocked against.

>>11777091

And with that in mind, think what it means if the election of Presidents became moar and moar subject to the power of the HOUSE.

Is POTUS walking into a trap whereby the HOUSE decides the election? If this became moar frequent method, then, closer and closer to making the HOUSE both the selector of Presidents and the possible remover of Presidents via the impeachment or forced resignation channel.

There is the text and the framework of the CONSTITUTION and then there is the abuse of judicial review and the blurring of lines based on conventions being discarded/ undermined. Both parties are guilty of undermining the CONSTITUTION in practice.

>>11777094

Didn't the two-party system evolve from the election of President and the runner-up being the VPOTUS? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back.

>>11777052

Hindsight, 20/20. Comes to mind, agreed.

Other possibilities?

20/20 means 1.

RATIO of 1:1.

And so one and one does not equal two.

Wasn't there a Q post along those lines?

>>11777057

You have a point. But Presidential pardons can be applied pre-emptively. See example of Ford pardoning Nixon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon

Nixon's resignation had not put an end to the desire among many to see him punished. With his resignation, Congress dropped its impeachment proceedings against him but criminal prosecution was still a possibility both on the federal and state level.[11]

The Ford White House considered a pardon of Nixon, but it would be unpopular in the country. Nixon, contacted by Ford emissaries, was initially reluctant to accept the pardon but then agreed to do so. Ford, however, insisted on a statement of contrition; Nixon felt he had not committed any crimes and should not have to issue such a document. Ford eventually agreed, and on September 8, 1974, he granted Nixon a "full, free, and absolute pardon" that ended any possibility of an indictment. Nixon then released a statement:

I was wrong in not acting more decisively and more forthrightly in dealing with Watergate, particularly when it reached the stage of judicial proceedings and grew from a political scandal into a national tragedy. No words can describe the depth of my regret and pain at the anguish my mistakes over Watergate have caused the nation and the presidency, a nation I so deeply love, and an institution I so greatly respect.[12][13][14]

>>11776619

Who'd scoff?