>>7866857 (LB,Q)

>They are attempting to protect themselves from prosecution and prevent the public from discovering the truth.

How does a sham impeachment serve this purpose?

It can preoccupy the senate and the media in the very near term. And in the long term it might have an effect on the Nov election to tip the senate to the Dems, which would frustrate judicial and cabinet appointments (their apparent logic, not mine). But I don't see how this would affect disclosure/prosecution in the medium term between the end of the impeachment trial and the start of the next congress.

So this implies that we should expect to see any action for at least the rest of the year. Bummer.

>>7872396

Impractical outfit. Can't cook.

Go on a few min ago.

Q posted in the UK thread today. Unusual. Was there a baking mishap or more technical issues at that time?

>>7872473

>Go

*Got

>>7872522

>Does Q not have a solid enough case against them?

Of course. But there are a few problems:

First, most of it is likely based on evidence collected by the NSA without a warrant. It's inadmissible in court. So Q needs us to find enough evidence from public sources to justify a regular criminal investigation so they can 'rediscover' it legally.

Second, the public isn't ready for it. They are too deep in the Matrix; and the stock would be too great. If Q & Co rounded up thousands of household names who have been critical of POTUS today then the public wouldn't believe that the charges are real and they'd Trump as a tyrant throwing all of his enemies in a gulag. Their crimes need to first be public knowledge. The media isn't going to be any help. So that's where we come in.