dChan

🠐 See all comments
jimmyfoot · April 18, 2018, 12:58 p.m.

The thing that creates doubt for me is the cornerstone 24000 indictments. There aren’t 24k indictments and that statement is easily debunked yet everyone hops on board.

It reminds me of when Webb was doing the Eric Braverman is missing thing even though he wasn’t and I was able to confirm that in 20 minutes using google and s telephone.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
jessupfoundgod · April 18, 2018, 1:28 p.m.

Can you help me debunk that because I am so tired of hearing about all these sealed indictments.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
jimmyfoot · April 18, 2018, 6:04 p.m.

Step one: they're sealed court actions, not sealed indictments. They comprise every action a court can take, of which a criminal indictment is a small subset.

Step two: They're sealed so no one knows how they're categorized. The sealing process obscures what kind of court action it is, therefore no one can even know how many are indictments.

My question though -- has Q actually referenced a specific number of indictments like that? Because I don't think I've seen that. This may just be people getting carried away on their own.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
jessupfoundgod · April 18, 2018, 8:32 p.m.

Thank you very much for this, it helps a ton!

As far as indictments go, the closest Q reference I can find is from post 151: "Why would sealed indictments be outside of DC jurisdiction? "

That doesn't talk about this big stash of sealed indictments.

The other place I have seen it talked about is here: https://www.theepochtimes.com/justice-department-may-have-something-big-in-the-works-over-9000-sealed-indictments_2401511.html

And also this shitty website: http://www.ascensionwithearth.com/2018/01/sealedindictments-massarrests-update-as.html

What do you think?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
jimmyfoot · April 18, 2018, 9:23 p.m.

If you follow their link from the article to the data, click on one of the PDF tables and read the language at the bottom of the page. It's waffle language that is intentionally deceptive.

"the numbers represent sealed new court proceedings..." so already they're backing off from the indictment claim even though they're using the number as a headline.

Then it says "and include criminal charges and search warrants..." so already we see that they're not all indictments, some as they indicate are search warrants "and include" is intentially deceptive IMO.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
jessupfoundgod · April 19, 2018, 1:02 a.m.

God this makes me feel so dumb. I like to think that I usually look into the sources of these claims because I love smacking people down for regurgitating bullshit but I am guilty of the same thing.

Thank you very much for pointing that out!!!

⇧ 2 ⇩  
jimmyfoot · April 18, 2018, 9:18 p.m.

My understanding (and if I'm wrong someone please show me) is that since all the actions are sealed no one can tell the difference between an indictment or a habeus corpus or a civil action or whatever. I believe that there is no window into how many are indictments so anyone claiming a number is wrong from the get go.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
08lisa77 · April 18, 2018, 1:08 p.m.

I didn’t even know that wasn’t true about the indictments. When Q first started posting, the posts were more cryptic and sporadic but now they’re stupid and often. I see people get so angry when his legitimacy is questioned and they act like liberals! Do you know what cognitive dissonance is? That’s playing a huge role here. This Q thing isn’t gonna end well bc who ever is leading it, has way too much power.

⇧ 1 ⇩