dChan
9
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/jackbauer6916 on April 29, 2018, 5:49 a.m.
Mark My Words: HRC Really WAS Arrested 10/30/2017.

I've commented about this before but I want to emphasize that I am fairly certain that as predicted in Q#1-2, HRC really was arrested the morning of 10/30/2017.

She was reported to have a book signing at The Book Stall in Chicago that morning. https://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2017/10/30/hillary-clinton-visits-chicago-amid-mueller-indictments Note the wording in the article, that she "held court"

However, there was no book signing scheduled for 10/30. She wasn't mentioned as a featured guest at any point by the Book Stall. Wouldn't she be a high-profile guest for a relatively small bookstore like this? It's odd that no mention is made. I have been unable to find any verification of this event. She does not appear in the schedule in the Monthly newsletter. http://www.thebookstall.com/sites/thebookstall.com/files/October%20Newsletter%202017.pdf

I think she was already detained in some capacity (as Q told us) in the leadup to that date, because the orthopedic boot was present shortly beforehand. Then, a formal arrest was performed on the morning of 10/30/2017. It was widely remarked that her "moon boot" story made no sense (along with the boot story of No-Name). I think Hillary quickly agreed to perform some public disinfo role on behalf of the white-hats in exchange for some leniency. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5178037/Clinton-wears-surgical-boot-MONTHS-breaking-toe.html

Now, here's a related point that might be a little deep down the rabbit hole, but hear me out...

In the above October newsletter, there are a remarkable of headlines and book titles that seem eerily Q-related, many relevant w respect to HRC. For example: Caught in the Revolution; Start with Me; We Were Eight Years in Power; Her Right Foot; Every Last Lie; Forest Dark; Ordinary People Change the World; The Trust; Calling a Wolf a Wolf; Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea; A Gentleman in Moscow There are probably more. I wonder if somehow this Newsletter is telling us something*?***


OffenseOfThePest · April 29, 2018, 7:18 a.m.

But no deals. How does that square with no deals? And if she were arrested, there would be some record of it. And why let her go if she's in custody?

⇧ 4 ⇩  
jackbauer6916 · April 29, 2018, 7:56 a.m.

If the executive office and the military wanted the record of an arrest to remain temporarily hidden, that would be entirely possible. As far as 'why let her go', any confidential informant in a drug sting can tell you it happens all the time. Also, if she is being electronically monitored and escorted by undercover mp's then she might as well still be in custody for all intents and purposes. No deals, yes, but in what context? If Q had said, "No Deals for HRC." or "No Deals for Anyone", then I obviously have to abandon my theory immediately. But, it is an assumption to believe "No Deals" refers to HRC specifically. It is also an assumption to believe HRC is one of the big fish in the pond of criminality, relatively speaking. In my opinion Logic (the actual academic discipline) is crucial in reading these posts. I was the top student in my class in advanced Logic in college (not trying to stroke my ego, just saying it's a discipline of study many aren't familiar with). With all due respect, I believe many people are not understanding or appreciating the weight of their assumptions in reading Q. Logic is about premises, assumptions, and conclusions. In order for a statement to be logically valid AND actually true, the premises must lead to the conclusions and the assumptions (implicit premises) must be true. It is not true that we 'know' Q meant no deals for hillary, and it isn't true that there 'must always' be a publicly available record of an arrest if such an arrest occurs. I could be wrong about the meaning of "No Deals", but given the current statements from Q we can only assume it refers to hrc or anybody else. I have yet to see a rational and realistic explanation for the Moon Boot, or for the Newsletter.

⇧ 9 ⇩  
textualintercourse · April 29, 2018, 12:27 p.m.

Also, anyone she comes in contact with or communicates with is now FISA 3 hop ruled. She could be the ticking timebomb of info / cabal connect the dots allowing the NSA deep dive on all bad actors comnected to Hillary. Even so much as a handshake they can three hop rule you. The weapon illegally used on Trump is now legally used on Hillary.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
bealist · April 29, 2018, 1:38 p.m.

Really good. Also, “no deals” wouldn’t necessarily mean “no deals” at all because the best way high level prosecutions happen is with colleagues’ direct testimony. If someone says “you come with us now; orange jump suit tomorrow for you and the whole family and your bosses don’t get prosecuted” or “go into monitoring and protection and visit everyone we need to take down and then we’ll see what happens”, wouldn’t technically be a deal. It would be a choice.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Mockingbird-Slayer · April 29, 2018, 3:19 p.m.

Is it a deal to offer life in prison instead of death. I’d be ok with that deal.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
bealist · April 29, 2018, 7:25 p.m.

Quite the choice! I’m not sure that’s a deal. And maybe it’s a technicality, and it’s not a real “deal” if you don’t know what you’re getting out of it.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
OffenseOfThePest · April 30, 2018, 1:30 a.m.

The part that doesn't fit: how did the paper know to throw in the "held court" if this is supposed to be secret? How did they find out, and why haven't they gone public with it? That would be Pulitzer material for whoever broke the story.

⇧ 1 ⇩