>>3701817

>>>/patriotsfight/379

So Q has clearly advocated for a particular party, as per >>>/patriotsfight/319

So in order to not be in violation of Hatch Act, then either the law has been amended or somehow lifted temporarily, or Q is not a part of any of the listed agencies or the Executive branch.

What other ways around this are there?

>>>/patriotsfight/380

PDT cap

http://time.com/5324130/most-influential-internet/

>>3701953

That seems plausible (not that I'm interested in doxxing, just figuring out how this is possible)

>>3702028

I believe there are DoD Directives that have similar restrictions to the Hatch Act:

http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/134410p.pdf

>>3702281

>Q has not said "Go vote for the Republicans"

>>>/patriotsfight/319

How do you figure this isn't saying exactly that?

>>3702334

Your single post in this bread is to jump in to tell me to GFY when I'm simply asking a question to help us determine how Q is legally protected.

Quite the contributor you are…