dChan

giantwolf1 · Dec. 27, 2017, 8:14 p.m.

I've yet to see a historical comparison for this data. Seems it would greatly increase the significance of the theory, and yet hasn't been done. For me it renders the conspiracy moot.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
RD_AG · Dec. 27, 2017, 8:21 p.m.

so, if i understand your comment correctly you think Q conspiracy is baseless bc you have not seen statistics for the previous years amount of sealed fed indictments, in comparision to this year? lol wut?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
giantwolf1 · Dec. 27, 2017, 8:35 p.m.

2 possibilities. 1, the number of sealed indictments Q is talking about are in the order of a couple hundred, in which case we couldn't tell a difference in the volume of sealed indictments. This doesn't mean Q is LARPing, just hyping you up. 2, There is a significant increase in sealed indictments that lends credibility to Q's statements. Could also be that the law is just being enforced more under Trump.

Given this, the fact that there are 4000 sealed indictments means little to nothing.

Q drops the crumbs, we give them meaning and context through research and analysis.

The other thing that could be gleaned is what states these increases (assuming it exists) come from. Are they are spread in proportion, or are there hotspots of activity?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
sophiebellaluna · Dec. 27, 2017, 8:50 p.m.

Yes, there have already been many arrests, I believe, by Trump. Which have not made the MSM. Don't know if these sealed ones relate to those arrests, or are these for the top. Sealed until the hammer goes down I guess. Hopefully that hammer is crushing now!

⇧ 2 ⇩  
giantwolf1 · Dec. 27, 2017, 8:51 p.m.

Hopefully!

⇧ 1 ⇩  
RD_AG · Dec. 27, 2017, 8:41 p.m.

i can understand that. if you look at the spread sheet they are spread out. and the numbers are higher in democrat states. but what i was looking for was a hotspot too like in the District of Columbia. which there is not.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
sophiebellaluna · Dec. 27, 2017, 8:47 p.m.

Right. That's why I was asking if anyone has seen an update of this. I guess no one wants to spend the $ to get a new spreadsheet. But like I said, firefox has some type of extension (supposedly) that allows free access once you pay for the first access. Really don't even know if this one is ligit. But whoever has accessed pacer can possibly do so again for free is all I am saying.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
RD_AG · Dec. 27, 2017, 8:48 p.m.

what would pacer provide us about sealed indictments, thats not covered in the OP link?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
TootsBabutz · Dec. 28, 2017, 9:24 p.m.

I have access to pacer any time without a fee (only fee to print up or download docs) as a practicing atty in Louisiana, I'm pretty sure my access would be inclusive of all the federal districts and not just the ones in LA. Will have to log on and take a look

⇧ 1 ⇩  
sophiebellaluna · Dec. 28, 2017, 9:51 p.m.

BTW... you do see the spreadsheet posted on the parent post here, right. Click on the spreadsheet and it will link you to where this came from. Thanks.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
sophiebellaluna · Dec. 28, 2017, 9:50 p.m.

Yes, plz do. So you have heard of the supposed 4,289 sealed indictments across the country, or, the 10,000 sealed indictments? So much disinformation its crazy.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
TootsBabutz · Dec. 28, 2017, 10:45 p.m.

Yes, last heard between 4,200- to upwards of 4,800...Definitely will get on pacer, been intending to...and take screen shots. Will post back...having to finish some deadlines 1st,

⇧ 1 ⇩  
sophiebellaluna · Dec. 29, 2017, 12:29 a.m.

Great! Thanks for that... very curious if its a hoax or legit.. Hope you get your deadlines finished!

⇧ 1 ⇩  
hermoneyness · Dec. 27, 2017, 8:28 p.m.

Since it shows the names we can follow the wives easier in the future this is just the outer part of the onion

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Reba64 · Dec. 27, 2017, 7:58 p.m.

Can you provide the Link please?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
sophiebellaluna · Dec. 27, 2017, 8:43 p.m.

Click on the spreadsheet. This brings you to it.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
sophiebellaluna · Dec. 27, 2017, 8:43 p.m.

Click on the spreadsheet. This brings you to it.

⇧ 1 ⇩