Anons maybe know from the other day that the shitbag Clinton judge in FL dropped the shitbag FBI team from POTUS' civil RICO suit, citing the Westfall Act, that basically the five of them (Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Clinesmith) were acting in accordance with their jobs. So technically it's the "United States" against which POTUS is filing his grievance, not the FBI shitbags personally.

So some questions come to mind:

1) Why isn't Rosenstein included with them? He was employed by the government for at least part of the conspiracy.

2) Why didn't POTUS name Mueller, Weissmann, and the rest of the SC in the suit? The other DOJ/FBI shitbags? Obama, Brennan, Clapper, etc?

3) Is it possible POTUS was attempting to prove something about Durham to the public?

Working answers:

1) The FBI shitbags are like a mafia family and essentially Rod went against the family. Comey and McCabe were on record throwing him under the bus long ago. Comey's Lawfare lackey Wittes as well. So nobody's cutting Rod any slack here. Why? You can draw your own conclusions.

2) If the Westfall Act is valid for the FBI shitbags, I'd guess it's valid for all the other Executive branch officials involved as well. So POTUS including like another 20-30 people in the suit was always going to be MOOT and just inflammatory to the idiots and shills.

3) So this all brings out the blackpill: can anything be done to punish the guilty fuckers? Maybe that's the point. Yeah, yeah, Military is the only way. But normies are slow. How do we get them there? They apparently need to understand that if you can't even do CIVIL conspiracy charges against government officials, you probably can't do CRIMINAL conspiracy charges either. Which begs: what the fuck is Durham doing then? Well, maybe the blackpilled just have to think bigger as far as conspiracies go. Yes, the truth about the Dossier HAS to come out, but what if instead of just laying out the attempted bloodless coup, Durham intends to lay out an attempted BLOODY coup as well? No DOJ precedent or protection for that, is there, assholes? That then might be the trigger for the Military to take over for Durham and try government officials as enemy combatants. And to think, the shills still whine about DOJ not charging Comey and McCabe for LYING. HFS, you guise.

'Member King Henry and Thomas Becket? "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" Think mirror.

"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome Ultra MAGA King?"

>https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/22/politics/trump-comey-mccabe-lawsuit/index.html

>https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22111955/trump-v-clinton-ruling.pdf

TYB

>>16799635

Good point.

>>16799568

>>16799650

Hmmm…they gonna Whidbey her ass?

>>16799673

Comfy.

>>16799702

>>16799773

>is it still the same tripcode?

Newfag or newsfag detected.

>>16799779

>"trip code compromised".

So if you know the drops well enough to know that happened, you can compare posts/trips from different dates. If the trip changed, then there's a story behind it and confirmation was given. If not, then presumably nothing was compromised and it's fine.

>https://8kun.top/projectdcomms/res/20.html

>>16552853 pb

>>16799805

>You elected us to do the heavy lifting.

What does that entail then, if "no one's coming to save us?" There's an insidious blackpill in there somewhere…something about putting too much faith in man.

>>16799838

Gave 'em one more shot in the arm kek.

>>16799859

I see this shit on Twatter all the time. People who look down on anons, but then retweet random shit with less sources than anything Q ever posted. Always with the same "I'm smarter than you" attitude. As if they'll handle things on their own like Rambo. If they're not shills, they just strike me as severely disillusioned and/or selfish cunts.

>>16799874

>BO just explained that it´s still the same Q and he did not actually check if the person using the tripcode is legit.

The owner of 8kun, Jim Watkins, made the notables and everything:

>>16581551 pb

>>16799951

If you listened to chatter back when, any Q after the jump to 8ch, and then later January 5, 2018, was allegedly fake. Mind you, this was WITH Q giving the direct proof you want now. There were plenty of other re-proofs after that, to the point Q razzed us for still needing moar proof. But doubtfags and shills are never satisfied, are they? All "proof" here can be construed as subjective actually. If you think the CIA can spoof any and everything, then Q hasn't been legit for a long fucking time. If ever. Your perspective depends on what the eyes want to see. And faith. Disclaimers won't change that. Humans are gonna human. And if you think anons give a fuck about "looking stupid" at this point, then you're not asking questions in good faith, and the sheep who need disclaimers to decide are gonna have a real rough time with shit more serious than "is this Q post legit?" Hopefully I'm making this clear to actual newfags, that nothing here is ever 100 percent, including (your) judgment. Use discernment and don't speak for others.

>>16800031

If newfags are reading, hopefully it helps to sharpen them. Thinking anons GAF about others' opinions of them is the giveaway. If we did, we wouldn't be here kek.

>>16800122

>proof like pics attached did not happen

Agreed, and yet you act as if most anons aren't reasonable enough recognize this, tentatively decide one way or not, and then change their minds later on when/if more info becomes available. We made due without Q for a year and a half, and it's not like the new posts incited violence or something anons are against. I'd say chill, but I doubt you will.

>>16800102

>bc it was just obvious to anyone.

Define subjective. Unless you think literally every Q hater in the world has been or is still a paid shill. Some won't ever get this stuff. You just seem to want everyone to agree with you, which comes off as fake and controlling. Thinking for yourself doesn't require validation from others.

Lord, I'm out…shills are frenzied again, I see…