Judges have immunity against prosecution by means of judicial immunity unless the violate the Judicial Cannons. We have some activist Judges rendering bad decisions lately but not in and of itself a violation/ Flynn's Judge on the other hand, certainly came close . Or did he cross the line? He recused himself or was recused immediately after a public hearing identifying the dossier was used to secure a FISA warrant ( he sat on the FISA Court) If the dossier was fraudulent in any way ( Strzok placed a new heading on it to make it look like it was an intel doc) then it would be Fraud Upon The Court. If a Judge had a reasonable suspicion that FUTC took place, he had ot recuse himself and not rule 1 more time in that case. It also VOIDS all rulings from his Court if proven true. That makes Flynn's entire Court case void. If this new Judge finds exculpatory evidence for the crime Flynn pleaded guilty to and throws his guilty plea out, Mueller's team is forced to charge him for the crimes he may have been afraid of so he plead down to. They would have a hard time proving that case if Flynn requested a Bench Trial seeing as though they railroaded him into a guilty plea using fraudulent documents. Most likely he would file a civil case against Mueller for vindictive/ malicious prosecution and win. The other possibility is he was protecting his son and cut a deal to spare his son.I am leaning in that direction because of how heavy his son pushed the pizzagate. I think Mcabe's comments about first we fuck Flynn should get him his money for attorney fees back
someone commented about Q not confirming posts anymore. Did you ever consider that Q was confirming the ID to others as being true while confirming what they say? Maybe he flagged those who were in question or received confirmation of being loyal. I know I received a (you) from Q that was a no brainer concept. I shouldn't have been singled out for confirmation about what I had to say. Q's (you) might have a different level of importance to Q. I know what I had to say was not important enough to be highlighted
I didn't take it personal. I know what I said was common knowledge so it proved to me that Q highlighting was not always for saying someone was right but might be for a different reason. His need to do so might no longer exist. I was responding to a post complaining Q no longer confirms. If there was a need to confirm he /they/she/ it would still be doing it
he often times just posts the thread number. He sometimes comments a statement like interesting or is it a coincidence. Normally I would look at all rt and see if I find a pattern of behaviors. I have been paying attention to it and I have an idiocincrisy in my personality traits that flags patterns . It is random enough to suggest to me that we have behavioral patterns of more than one person controlling the Q posts. There is a pattern of random style J/s