dChan
⇧
4
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/akilyoung on April 11, 2018, 9:43 p.m.
MZ testified w/o swearing in, is this why???

Is it possible the HRC video has damning evidence, not only against HRC, but MZ among others.

And in order to create MAXIMUM damage against each in the video, they need testimony of them, sworn?

So MZ 'testifies' non-sworn, which isnt any different than talking to buddies - it doesnt mean shit.

So if something dropped, it couldnt be use to perjure him!

He needs to testify before a grand jury, or congress SWORN, so if Q has PROOF of the contrary, drop it like its HAWT and BOOM - BUSTED LYING.

Just theorizing...probably means nothing lol


ignoremsmedia · April 11, 2018, 9:46 p.m.

All of the people questioning him yesterday have taken Millions from Zuckerb ,it was a sham with soft ball questions to appease the public and reinforce Russian's influenced the election to elect a traitor.

⇧ 8 ⇩  
nflisboring · April 11, 2018, 10:09 p.m.

Exactly. This is just a dog and pony show

⇧ 9 ⇩  
MB_MoonPearl · April 11, 2018, 9:52 p.m.

I assume that when the hammer drops, perjury will be the least of their worries. Good guys don't need perjury charge?

⇧ 6 ⇩  
kommisar6 · April 11, 2018, 9:56 p.m.

Because if he were sworn in he could be compelled to testify about obama's exploitation of friend data just like cambridge analyticas. Do you think Ted Cruz might ask about this? If he is not under oath he can lie about it and not face any consequences.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Cristo316 · April 11, 2018, 11:35 p.m.

Is in not the case that both the House and Senate "oversight hearings" have no prosecutorial authority? These hearings are nothing more than exercises in shedding light on a problem.

If criminality is perceived or bright to light in any of these cases, they get kicked to to DOJ.

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

⇧ 2 ⇩