Fellow ANONS,
First of all, thank you for all of your work. It’s truly inspiring and has changed my life for the better. I’ve been following Q since mid-November but have not understood the magnitude of the movement until recently, when I have been regularly lurking. I am in awe of this place.
I am the one who wrote the Hatch Act analysis that is in the global notables (see attached sauce). It appears to be causing a lot of angst and confusion (sort of here, but also on VOAT). I realize most probably don't give a fuck about the Hatch Act or already understand it, but I'm posting this because I think it might provide some helpful clarification.
That analysis was VERY limited. That analysis did not speak to whether Q is or is not military/government or is or is not subject to the Hatch Act. I won’t speculate.
I wrote that analysis because I thought it was important for all of us (including mostly me) to remember that AG Sessions would not countenance either the appearance or reality of a violation of any law in connection with any FEDERAL arrest or prosecution.
The Hatch Act would apply if an EMPLOYEE of DOJ (or any other non-exempt executive branch office) used his or her OFFICE to INFLUENCE an election. The key is INTENT, which is usually proven by CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (no one says, “I’m going to go violate the law now”), so courts almost always rely on circumstantial evidence to prove intent.
Watch this clip (or read the provided quotes) from Jonathan Turley on why he thinks FBI Director Comey DID NOT violate the Hatch Act – note that Turley doesn’t say Comey was exempt but instead talks about the CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/01/turley_pretty_silly_to_say_comey_is_trying_to_influence_election_hatch_act_violation_absurd.html
If CROOKED HILLARY/HUSSEIN et al. were arrested or their indictments were unsealed tomorrow for their previous crimes (assuming they have no applicable secret pardons to save them), the CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE would be very strong that such arrests/unsealing of indictments was politically motivated given the proximity to the election.
The Hatch Act in and of itself is not a very strong law, as its most severe punishment is removal from office. That being said, if an arrest or unsealing of an indictment took place that implicated the Hatch Act, it would totally screw over any the underlying prosecution or case. It would be bad not just for the prosecution itself and the office holder (Sessions or anyone else in DOJ), but it would also LOOK BAD / CORRUPT (exactly what we are here to FIGHT AGAINST).
The moment that the last polling place closes a week from Tuesday, there will be no way to prove INTENT to affect/influence an election using an EXECUTIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEE’S OFFICE. As such, a prudent FEDERAL prosecutor would wait until after then to unseal an indictment or make an arrest (in my view).
That being said, there are many caveats (listed in my original analysis). Another caveat would be public safety. If, for example, HUSSEIN or SOROS could be directly linked to the pipe bombs or the migrant caravan, then TIMING vis-a-vis the midterms would not be problematic at all. Again, it boils down to proving INTENT, and if arrests took place this week based on an imminent threat to public safety, there could be no Hatch Act violation.