Anonymous ID: bf8b1e June 3, 2018, 9:48 a.m. No.1618540   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>1618492

lawfag jr. normally the answer would be no but you make an interesting point worth talking about. If Q is authorized by the Executive office to make statements like "dig" "happy hunting" then it could be argued that anons are acting as an 'agent' of the executive branch. therefore obstruction could be an arguable charge. To establish and "agency' relationship, we would have to be doing it under the direction and supervision of the office. I don't think something like that would fly but I still like your argument, I find it creative