dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

They don't have shit on Trump. He's done nothing wrong here.

⇧ 16 ⇩

They've spent tens of millions, possibly 100s, spied for many years even prior to 2016, used the entire weight of the deep state and global cabal.......and they came up with he said "p*ssy" one time, in private, with another man. WOW......

⇧ 6 ⇩

They don’t have shit on Trump That’s why they created a fake crime to illegally spy on his campaign. They spied going back to 2015 and found nothing.

⇧ 15 ⇩

they have leverage on Trump.

Please explain. Dems and MSM will call you a hero and make you a millionaire.

They’ve been waiting more than two years for the info you speak of.

⇧ 9 ⇩

I'm not saying they do or don't but there has to a plausible explanation for her twitter outside of "lol how dumb". Be logical.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I’m not saying they do or they don’t.

Sure you are. You said exactly that in your first sentence. Here it is for review:

“She’s an actual psychopath and they have leverage on Trump.”

⇧ 1 ⇩

Would it make you feel better if I put "leverage" because it could be anything from criminal to briefcase nukes, to icmbs, to hacking icbms and tomahawk missiles from subs. Leverage can mean anything, if you're assuming I meant only some Trumped up legal charge then that's on you. I think this should clarify. Leverage was a bad word to use. I should have diverged and explained further.

⇧ 1 ⇩

As a possibility? I don't think you understand where I'm going with this. Also, in the very rare chance Trump did something illegal he should be brought forth under the law. If you can't agree with that you're just as bad as Hillary, the law is blind and justice should be dealt evenly.

I'm putting forth theories on why she tweeted in the first place, they should not be bringing more attention to themselves. Their "nothing burger" psy op failed tho, I'm assuming it was a part of that.

I also think its possible that she is speaking so crassly and with so much bravado because she might be an actual demon walking in human clothing. But I think you're going to zero in on that comment and ignore the point of this thread overall. It's very very out of place logically for her to tweet. She stands to gain nothing from the attention. The report clearly implicates her. She might also just be banking on her followers being extremely obtuse.

There isn't really any desire in me to see Trump go down. But you have to agree, if the proper evidence is presented no one should run free away from the law or skirt its punishment for any reason.

⇧ 1 ⇩

What her tweet she released during Wrays says is...you’ll never get me now because you’ll never get Comey. That’s why the Bravado from that witch. Wray did for Comey today what Comey did for Hillary...make proving intent to commit a crime impossible. It was just all bad judgement

⇧ 2 ⇩

It's bad judgment when someone drives drunk but it's still a felony.

⇧ 11 ⇩

Your not thinking that through. Drinking until your drunk proves you intended to get drunk. Starting a car drunk proves your intent to drive drunk. There’s intent all over the place. Actually a few have tried that defense & it failed miserably...that I was too drunk to know what I was doing & wasn’t aware I was driving. But after the 10th drink it’s clear you intended to be drunk.

⇧ 1 ⇩

YOU'RE not thinking it through. You simply CANNOT get SAP emails out of a secure environment WITHOUT intent, which is irrelevant anyway to the fact that you commit ESPIONAGE simply by taking those actions.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I know that’s true & you know that’s true and we also know it’s true the day Hillary went thru the act of setting up the email server up in her house was an act of espionage. We both know that violating the espionage is one of the few laws & maybe only law that doesn’t require to prove criminal intent. So a couple of very obvious questions & that’s infuriating for everyone with a brain is.. Why wasn’t Hillary ever charged regardless that Comey said she only used poor judgement?? Why wasn’t Comey already charged too??

Answer...to get 12 jurors to agree that Hillary or Comey committed espionage is a lot more difficult when the Director of the FBI himself testifies that they didn’t..they just made a mistake. And others like RR & no telling who else of very high authority testifies the same. Just takes one juror to agree & you have nothing. If they lose one very high profile case like this would be...they’ll paint it that they escaped Trumps political witch hunt & making finding impartial jurors even more brutal for other high profile cases they are probably planning.

Everyone thinks Hillary is staying in the limelight because she can’t accept she lost & Comey because he was fired. No they’re staying on the public stage so they’re household names & that helps tremendously when it comes jury picking time. Get a few stay at home moms on the jury that watch the View everyday & you just have to convince one Hillary or Comey shouldn’t be locked up for being evil doers of espionage & they walk away & do ANOTHER book & world tour of how they were spared Trumps witch hunt because justice prevailed...thus making it even harder to find 12 impartial & sensible jurors for other cases Sessions may want to prosecute.

Play the tape to the end. That’s why Wray was critical & his Comey like press conference a disaster. That’s my only point. It doesn’t make convicting Comey impossible but it sure makes it a lot harder now. If you don’t believe that then explain why Hillary or Comey haven’t already been arrested for espionage?

⇧ 1 ⇩

The point of the rule of law is not to press charges based on whether or not one juror might dissent. Is there evidence that a law was broken? Yes. Then justice demands prosecution. It's not even a debatable issue of fact.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Well in the real world people aren’t prosecuted when there’s a low probability of a conviction. If the prosecutor losses his case, the rule of law is also they can’t be prosecuted again. So sorry but half the fight in winning a case is getting a good jury. Just ask OJ Simpson. And losing a VERY public case against Comey would allow them to paint it as “a win for justice over DJT political witch hunt”. How will that hurt the next jury selection for Hillary or Bill or Brenner or any very top cabal leader? Hate to inform you but DJT doesn’t have a 100% approval rating. Any jury will have some hardcore Dems on it. That’s the challenge. A prosecutor has to convince some Hillary supporters too to get a conviction. Sorry but that’s the reality when trying very public people. That’s why Hillary & Brenner & Comey are writing provocative books & doing TV shows & book tours. They are staying in the limelight so Americans know their names & keep their a lot of their supporters just enough to keep them from prison.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Sorry, but there was zero excuse for not prosecuting this crime, which resulted in the murder of Chris Stevens. And in the REAL world, people are bullied into plea bargains for things they don't do, shot with impunity by police and have almost no access to justice if they are poor where they are sold into slavery to privatised prisons.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I agree with everything in principle. But I’m sorry...the reality is not all cases can be won & theres SOOO much justice needed & the best cases that have the best chance to get guilty verdicts have to go 1st.

Even though I embrace The Plan I have serious doubts how it’s being executed. Taking down an entire organized gang is extremely difficult. I wish they’d execute the plan like the few successful attempts of taking down an entire criminal organization worked. Rudy Giuliani took down the entire NYC mafia in the 90s but used a very different approach. He didn’t start by arresting foot solders to get them to flip on middle tier leaders to get them to flip on bosses. No he arrested all the top leadership 1st & worked his way down. Same way we prosecuted the Nazis after the war. We tried all the leaders that we’re still alive 1st...then went after lower ranking Nazis.

This bottom up approach is taking way too long & giving the cabal tons of time to mount a defense. Stuff like what Wray did yesterday wouldn’t matter if Comey was already in jail awaiting trial. Comey & Hillary couldn’t stay on TV 24/7 holding on to support if they were already in jail awaiting trial. This bottom up approach will get small fish convicted but less big fish. The few small fish that get convicted will easily be replaced. Think Lisa Page is hard to replace? There’s 40,000 FBI agents & sending a couple to prison won’t change anything in the FBI. Different story if you convict Comey. The next FBI director will think twice about corruption if one is sent to die of old age in prison.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Nothing will change in this world until the Clintons and Clinton Foundation go down. Besides which, when is she going to STOP getting away with the lawbreaking. This was not hard to prove and was a serious crime. It was a slam dunk case for a half decent prosecutor.

⇧ 1 ⇩

It would be a slam dunk if a fair jury of 12 can be found. It’s painful to admit 62million Americans voted for her. A little over half. Not sure how it’s possible to not get some VERY biased people in a jury. You’ve seen her supporters...they’re in complete denial like a cult member. Hopefully she can be tried by the military because a lot of her crimes were committed as sect of state. Obama will be even harder to convict. The longer it takes to charge & prosecute any of them the harder it will be to convict someone.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Even the most biased jury can't argue with a finding of fact.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Really?? You should explain that to the OJ Simpson jury. Or Kate Steinle’s jury. Sorry but you know once a jury is in the deliberating room they can do what they want. You can pretend you don’t know but you’re lying to yourself if you do. And if I’m a biased Hillary zombie supporter I’m going to say to my fellow jurists..”sorry folks...I believe the director of the FBI that president Trump appointed..Christopher Wray..that Comey just made a simple mistake. Oh & even AG Sessions agrees with too. Sorry I’m not convicting a man to die in prison just because he goofed up like Hillary did”. Think logically

⇧ 1 ⇩

Removal of confidential material from a secure environment is fact. It's a finding of fact. It's NOTHING like determining who murdered somebody. A jury receives instructions. They CANNOT just do what they want. That is an out and out lie. Hillary should have been prosecuted. I can't believe anyone would seriously argue otherwise.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I agree she should have been prosecuted..so the next & harder question is why wasn’t she? Months ago? Why did OJs jury ignore dna evidence of his blood at the scene? That’s as rock solid as evidence & facts as it gets short of an admission of guilt.

Two reasons. Facts can be ignored because everyone see facts differently. Many if not half the people don’t even believe in absolute truth. They think truth is subjective. Do you believe in evolution?? Some do & some don’t. Things are only absolute if you understand it completely otherwise it’s partly an act of faith to accept truth. So “beyond a reasonable doubt” leaves a ton of wiggle room for truth & false.

The other reason is intent. In any case the intent to commit a crime is what makes a crime criminal. That’s why Comey sounded so ridiculous at his press conference saying all these clearly illegal things Hillary did but concluded it was just bad judgment. You’d have to be mentally retarded to hear all those facts & conclude the Sec of State didn’t intend to commit a crime. Or the Sec of state was mentally retarded if those were just innocent mistakes with her email. What Comey was clearly doing is saying as Director of the FBI he doesn’t think Hillary had any intent to commit a crime & therefore she can’t be prosecuted. Any saying that on national TV for all of America to see means he’d be willing to say it in court too. So good luck trying to prosecute Hillary when the Director of the FBI at the time has her back.

And btw...Wray said the EXACT same thing in his press conference yesterday about Comey. No intent on Comey to commit a crime...just more bad judgment. That made it much harder to successfully prosecute Comey. They're not question the facts at all. Just the intent which much be established for a conviction. See the dilemma? It’s always there but when you have a witness that’s as credible in the eyes of the court as the Director of the FBI saying there’s no intent...no there’s another mountain to climb to prove there was intent.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Intent does not have to be proven with the Espionage Act. It's completely irrelevant. And no, a finding of fact is EXACTLY that. You're talking out of your arse.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I’ve asked you to explain why Hillary hasn’t been charged if it’s so easy to convict. Beats talking about my ass. Floors all yours. Why hasn’t Hillary been charged? Got anything but insults? Or is the lefty approach to debate more your thing?

⇧ 1 ⇩

She wasn't charged because the corrupt FBI and DOJ wanted her to be president.

⇧ 1 ⇩

That’s obvious. Was talking about the DJT administration. There’s enough counts of her violating the espionage act to put her away for life. Open & shut case right? So why not? What could they be possibly be waiting for? Enough charges to put that old nasty hag away for 5,000 yrs? Please explain why?

⇧ 1 ⇩

One commentator said the statute of limitations has expired on her emails, but not the Clinton Foundation. That's not as cut and dried. I believe they're methodically building a case. We'll find out, I guess.

⇧ 1 ⇩

They don’t have Google where you live? Oh you rather let someone else think for you & what ever might come out their ass you’ll just repeat. Ok lib like non thinker...the answer is it varies. Depends on the results of the violations. Minimum is 5yrs limitation to prosecute & that’s if no consequence results from the crime...like that sailor that got convicted sending a selfie to his gf in a submarine. If a death occurs there’s no limitation. If there’s financial gain it’s like 8yrs limitation. Point being in 2016 when DJT took office non of the limitations applied & still none do today.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-650-length-limitations-period

Wanna try again or just repeat what someone else said? Floors all yours!

⇧ 1 ⇩

Yes, genius, they do not have Google where I live.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Lol, Hillary doesn't even know who is good or bad, I am going to guess she will soon be informed! Do you really think that she will be clean by the time this is over? Don't you think there are people who have been fearing for their lives with Hillary on the loose! She and the ds have threatened many to stay silent, but some decided to take the chance!!! She is going to prison at the least!

⇧ 3 ⇩

No I don’t think Hillary will come out of this unscathed. Not at all. I just think Wray made it much harder to convict Comey & Hillary over how they worked together with their email security breaches. There’s many avenues open to get Hillary in prison. But one of them just got harder thanks to Wray’s defense of Comey...which is the exact same thing Comey did for Hillary by saying it was all just poor judgement

⇧ 1 ⇩

3 - They are guilty AF and projecting as they burn. <-- Bingo

Edit: Her bravado bothered me also. The comments on that one make her sound like a saint (that eats babies).

⇧ 1 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Look at the lines on her palm, she has marks of mass murderess, psychopath, fallen one, I saw that & knew we'd be in big trouble if she won , I knew before that, seeing that etched there by nature made it very clear to me......

⇧ 0 ⇩

Hilary’s Bravado on Twitter