Maybe it's "yesterday, but you'll find out tomorrow" or something?
Q also said "use logic." Unfortunately, most don't know how to do that.
Q does use logic, btw, and frequently makes statements that are
very logical, but typically mis-interpreted by anons that don't know
how to do otherwise. Lawyers do that, all the time. Their language is
actually very precise, but they know the average person will see
what they say differently. Look at all the statements from the people
Trump hires that get "re-interpreted" later… It's what they do.
>which simply put, means indictments are soon to follow.
Hehe, it means the investigation isn't ongoing anymore - it's already done.
>There is no rule that ANY player on the board will always be white or always be black
There's a rule on the board that says compromised investigators
and prosecutors result in cases that get thrown out by those that are implicated
or those that are "cleared." If it turns out the people clearing Trump are complicity
in any of the wrong-doings we know about, all of this has been for naught.
Trump hired people that believe in the rule of law, judges, prosecutors, and
investigators alike. To think he did otherwise means thinking he doesn't believe
in the rule of law. That dog don't hunt, monsignor. And another investigation don't hunt, neither.
>out by those that are implicated or those that are "cleared."
By judges, which nullifies the verdict for those implicated or cleared.
What makes Rubini's conjecture, and he makes it clear he's just offering
a hypothesis, fact? For that matter, as was discussed when this
all went down in the first place, how do we know the "anonymous"
resister wasn't John Miller?
>as was discussed when thisall went down in the first place,
I should be clear, when it was first discussed nobody knew if it was a legit
"resister" or a hoax. A hoax would be John Miller. Look that name up.
Lol keks!
You can't even use proper English to explain to me whatever it is that I don't know.
How convincing do you think you really are?
I support Trump, Trump supports the Constitution. That means Trump
supports the rule of law. If you don't support the rule of law, why do you
pretend to support Trump?
That's a curious question you tyrants can't answer.
I'll give you others a hint: you don't support Trump OR the rule of law.
You're a Hillary shill. You people are so transparent. And stupid.