>>4871283 PB

>>4871235 PB

Reposting the query regarding Trump Admin nominations-in-waiting:

Anons, I'm playing catch-up on the following two points.

1. POTUS to adjourn (or convene) Congress as a matter of national emergency,

1. which would allow him to put all of his current backlog of nominations in place without any approval process.

Wouldn't the whips of both Dems and Repubs understand these two points or is there some unresolved question about application under current circumstances?

That is to say, I would expect the whips to know the rules of the game, but are these rules settled and clear in being in effect when invoked by the POTUS? How would disputes about the application of these rules be decided – by joint hearings/votes/resolutions and such in Congress? Surely the SC does not decide a dispute between the other two branches of government or for one branch (legislative)?

For Anons in general who are up on this topic, is there an authentic constitutional crisis in the offing should POTUS act on point 1 or 2 or both?

FBI Director Nomination Hearing, Senate, 30-JULY-2001.

Mueller, Nominated.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?165420-1/fbi-director-nomination-day-1

>>4871677

She'll get media attention and that is worth a great deal to the DEMS. Now, is it the type of attention the leadership really wants/needs? Don't think it is what they need, to be fair, but I do think it is what they really, really, really want (spice girl theme).

>>4871822

The person occupying the papacy is just a man, Anon. As flawed as is the rest of humankind. This is not the fault of Christ's teachings which Christ guards, promotes, secures through the agency of the frail human being, flaws and all, who serves in His name. There have been truly lousy popes, yes, and saintly popes, yes, and some very wise princes among them, but not one of them was perfect in the politics of the world.

Blessings.

>>4871610

One God, three persons, without beginning, without end.

>>4871532

Anon, Q 128 is one of the most interesting posts and I return to it repeatedly.

TY for bringing it and your query to the current bread(s).

By my count there must be three dozen or so "future proves past" instances in Q Posts to-date. Yet only the one "future provides past". It happens to be amongst the earliest instance of Q's use of "future" in posts. Its appearance in Q 128 is the 8th instance; the next (9th) is in Q 177 and appears in the phrase "Future shows past." And that immediately precedes the admonishment, "Learn to read the map. Everything has meaning - EVERYTHING."

Hence I agree with you that these distinctions you have raised are intended to have meaning.

—

For example, re-read Q 178 and Q's response to Anon's reply to Q 177.

Anon: >Guide to reading map?

legend, past provides the future, questions provide the answers

Anon added:

answer the questions

build the big picture

break it back down

make memes for the normies to calm & educate

so we'll be ready for the Storm

—

Re-read Q 183 for a continuation of the guidance from Q on what a map is and what is its purpose and what role(s) Anons play in comms.

Anon's summary illustrated these things and was confirmed.

Anon:

Q gave us this crumb beforehand, and also wrote a message to LdR (we can hear you breathing).

This was a map. Q told us that future shows the past meaning that a future event (Captain Mike Green doing something with a helicopter to Rothchilds) will explain these keywords and confirm that Q knows top secret information.

—

Other variations on Q's use of future:

Q 220 Future answers past.

Q 365 Future unlocks past.