>>6520625 pb

Speaking of bad grammar, I have been looking for a time to bring up the following very early Q post #16 to ask Anons what they make of it:

16

MAGA Promise

Anonymous

31 Oct 2017 - 8:31:00 PM

Get the popcorn, Friday & Saturday will deliver on the MAGA promise. POTUS knows he must clean house (gov't) in order to 'free up' and demonstrate who has authority in order to pass important legislation. This was always the priority. Remember, AG Sessions cannot look like an impartial player that is out to get all former Obama team members as we need him for other important work. All will come into focus and for anyone to think POTUS is not in control is kidding themselves. Also, he's 100% insulated with zero risk of impeachment (fact). (End of Q post)

I am not an English teacher so I won’t be using official descriptions of grammar errors unless I know the terms. Let’s start.

>POTUS knows he must clean house (gov't) in order to 'free up' and demonstrate who has authority in order to pass important legislation.<

In the sentence above, Q appears to use the first part of the sentence to as a condition (POTUS cleaning house (gov’t)) so that, it appears, 2 things can occur: 1) “in order to free up…(FREE UP WHAT? Is that an incomplete thought before mentioning the second item?) 2) “and demonstrate who has authority - in order to pass important legislation”

In the next sentence, I think I will do better. Here goes.

>Remember, AG Sessions cannot look like an impartial player that is out to get all former Obama team members as we need him for other important work.<

In the sentence above, Q is either falling into the misuse of a double negative, which would entirely change the meaning of it so that it doesn’t make sense, or Q wants us to see a glaring need for substitution of entire words, and maybe inserting new ones. I will explain.

When Q says that “Sessions cannot look like an impartial player that is out to get all former Obama team players”, it makes no sense because one does not want to appear “partial”, but rather one does want to appear “impartial”.

The sentence only makes sense if we change the word CANNOT to be MUST, and change IS to ISN’T by adding NOT, as follows:

“Remember, AG Sessions MUST look like an impartial player that is NOT out to get all former Obama team members as we need him for other important work.

>All will come into focus and for anyone to think POTUS is not in control is kidding themselves<

(Poorly written)

Should be written as “anyone WHO think(S) POTUS is not in control is kidding themselves.” Is there some code being used?

>>6521359

You know I had that feeling too- that the first couple of days were a kind of John the Baptist kind of precursor with the “Anon” saying the Word was coming.

I had mentioned this on another bread but was told by an Anon that “Q doesn’t make errors.” Glad to hear someone else say that maybe there are Qs on the team who are not well versed in some areas. Can’t remember now but there was a legal term or concept that a Q did not get right and another, probably a civilan Q who called POTUS “Conmander AND Chief”. The differing members of might explain some things.

Thanks.

>>6521543

What do you mean not breaking news? Probably was hand-lettered with coloration and gold filigree by a bunch of Episcopalian monks working double shifts. Took time. And someone might have got something wrong. Had to start all over again.