Just Some Random Anon's Thoughts (1/2)

I think I figured out Horowitz' IG report: it's all about optics.

In order to retain credibility with moderates and Liberals, Horowitz needs to

be unbiased and fair–strictly going by the letter of the law. People's faith

in the federal government will becoming increasingly important as The Plan

advances–if people believe that politicians are being thrown in jail by a

bunch of partisan lackeys loyal to POTUS, the inevitable riots will be that

much worse.

I think this is obvious to many of us. It is hard not to be disappointed when

these underwhelming, bean-counting reports come out…but I am telling you now

that they will all read like this–there will be no leap from "FBI agents

showed political bias" to "Warrant has been issued-lock her up." It's going to

be baby steps each time…and we should all be smart enough to both expect that

and take satisfaction in a well-planned step toward winning the war.

Consider this: the IG report states that being politically biased didn't

disqualify the FBI agents from doing their job, nor did it disqualify the

evidence provided by biased sources. By way of extension, the President was

justified in doing his job when he asked Ukraine to investigate corruption,

and the evidence that Rudy Giuliani is gathering will have weight.

The report also states that upper management in the chain of command should

have recognized that protocols were not being followed–that will justify their

arrest, as they are ultimately responsible. The difference here is that POTUS

had solid grounds to justify asking Ukraine to investigate Burisma–even

without military intelligence, there was the video of Biden saying he had

pressed them to fire the investigator in exchange for aid, Peter Schweizer's

book outlining everything, Devon Archer's prior conviction for fraud, and more.

Crossfire Hurricane? Like Barr said–some drunk volunteer in a bar said

something.

We don't need insiders to bend the rules in order to get justice done–POTUS has

installed a bunch of stalwarts into those positions because a) he knows they

will follow the law to the letter, and b) he knows that when the law

functions as written, inputting evidence renders predictable results.

Now, about that evidence: I read a pretty amazing article that really puts

everything into context–including why Lyndsey Graham won't be calling any

witnesses. I recommend everyone look it over:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/08/wow-oan-stunning-lutsenko-interview-outlines-marie-yovanovitch-perjury-george-kent-impeachment-motive-lindsey-graham-motive-to-bury-investigation/

In a nutshell, the article explains that the reason Graham won't allow

witnesses is that they could shine a light on the whole corrupt establishment

(of which he is a big part). So he'll just cut the trial short and let the

Senate vote…which is where the real uncertainty lies.

From that article:

>So when we think about a Senate Impeachment Trial; and we consider which

>senators will vote to impeach President Trump, it’s not just a matter of

>Democrats -vs- Republican. We need to look at the game of leverage, and the

>stand-off between those bribed Senators who would prefer President Trump did

>not interfere in their process.

The Senate requires a 2/3 super majority to convict. There are 53

Republicans, 45 Democrats, and 2 Independents. If everybody votes, that means

that the Democrats will need both Independents and 20 Republicans. If

President Trump is convicted, he will be removed from office immediately unless

the Supreme Court steps in (which they never have). Pence will then take over.

So, given that there are so many corrupt politicians in the Senate on both

sides of the aisle, doesn't that mean that there's a good chance POTUS will

be removed? I don't know what to think here, except to say that I know there

is a plan in any case.

When Q told Lyndsey Graham that "The Senate was the target," it can be taken a

number of ways. Perhaps Graham was told to hold a trial, which would give

/ourguys an opportunity to shine a light on everything. Maybe he was told to

do exactly what he is doing–skip the trial and let the Senate vote. Personally

I believe it's the former, with the caveat that POTUS knew Graham would never

hold up his side of the bargain. Nobody that has watched Graham over the

years would expect him to do something like that–it would be like asking a cat

to jump in a lake. So to me, it could be a precursor to Graham's removal, or a

way of securing additional leverage for something bigger down the line

>>7485213

(2/2)

In the event that Graham was told to cut the trial, one scenario is that

POTUS expects the Senate to vote down the conviction; that is still in keeping

with Q's proclamation after the last election that "The Senate was the

target," as it indicates this impeachment was planned for and we secured

victory by getting enough good guys in there. It might indicate that POTUS

would prefer a more gradual awakening of the public to corruption leading up

to the next election–more time to lay out DOJ reports, more time for us to

redpill our fellow Americans, less likely some of them will riot when the

arrests start en mass.

Another scenario, far more frightening, is that POTUS expects the Senate to

vote to convict. If that's the case, then we really know things are bad. It

would mean that POTUS will have had to have drawn out the enemy through the

Senate vote, in order to show the US that our system is corrupt beyond anything

any of us might have imagined. For 20 Republicans to stab POTUS in the back,

after everything they've said and done, would be a wake-up call to say the

least…but even that could be part of the plan.

Consider the following, from the linked article:

>This open-secret system of “Affluence and Influence” is how the intelligence

>apparatus gains such power. All of the DC participants are essentially

>beholden to the various U.S. intelligence services who are well aware of their

>endeavors.

>

>There’s a ton of exposure here (blackmail/leverage) which allows the unelected

>officials within the CIA, FBI and DOJ to hold power over the DC politicians.

>Hold this type of leverage long enough and the Intelligence Community then

>absorbs that power to enhance their self-belief of being more important than

>the system.

Who controls the most powerful intelligence apparatus in the world? Who truly

"has it all?" /Ourguys do. God forbid, if the public suddenly sees 20

Republicans vote to convict Trump over this bullshit, there would be an uproar

like we've not seen in our lifetimes. Pence would take office–personally, I

trust him…but even if he's corrupt, it won't matter. If he takes over and

doesn't pull the trigger, I am sure that /ourguys would.

Think of it this way: if Obama holdovers remained loyal to him after

leaving office, how much more so would /ourguys remain loyal to POTUS? The

military loves him. Yes, the military is bound to obey the sitting

President…but they are also sworn to uphold the Constitution. With Q team

stringing every last bit of dirty laundry across every line of communication,

there would be no question that our Constitution had been ripped and tossed

aside by criminals.

This is the cabal's greatest fear–an angry, armed, and informed public pulling

them out of their ivory towers and tearing them apart. Such an affront to

public sentiment would create a backlash that would make 9/11 seem like a

public nuisance; POTUS would likely be swept into power by a military coup, and

the public would demand heads. POTUS would likely be granted wide powers via

public mandate, and change would come quickly. But at a time like this,

cooler heads would need to prevail.

Given that last scenario, with all its turmoil and potential destruction, one

is left to ask "what if that is what the cabal wanted all along?" If it ever

gets to that point and things turn south, then you pick up a Bible, read,

pray…because otherworldy forces will have played a hand. No human being

could have orchestrated all that and stood to benefit.

The point is, knowing what we know and seeing what we have seen, it isn't hard

to imagine how almost any scenario leads to victory. We have two years of

experience watching the cabal work, and it's like Q said–"these people are

stupid." We know they will backstab each other to gain advantage, that they

lust over worldly things, and that they have no loyalty to anything beyond

self-indulgence. They've been beating us at a game we didn't even know we were

playing, and they got cocky because of it.

Well, now we know…thanks to Q+. And the pain is coming…