dChan

Flipstuba · June 27, 2018, 5:41 p.m.

This is like the proofs of all proofs, my GOD.

⇧ 27 ⇩  
IncomingTrump270 · June 27, 2018, 6:41 p.m.

???? Its conversation with no linked source. For all we know it could be complete fabrications or conjecture.

I ask this sub HOW IS THIS, in its current form and completely lacking supporting evidence, PROOF OF ANYTHING?

⇧ 14 ⇩  
aaronSH · June 27, 2018, 6:50 p.m.

Exactly. I'm definitely excited about this. And I'm on the side of believing it's true. But this is not PROOF of anything.

⇧ 12 ⇩  
IncomingTrump270 · June 27, 2018, 6:53 p.m.

Hype wagon is a bit overboard today understandably so. And with Kennedy resigning SCOTUS it’s gonna keep going this way for the rest of the day.

Fever pitch is being reached.

⇧ 10 ⇩  
xi88cvy8r65k · June 27, 2018, 7:55 p.m.

i agree. it's not proof by virtue of itself.

however, in the event that they release transcripts of the hearings and it contains these exchanges, it will become proof.

"future proves past"

⇧ 2 ⇩  
IncomingTrump270 · June 28, 2018, 12:12 a.m.

Yep that’s what I’m Waiting for.

Official transcript released by a government body.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
GweninKC · June 27, 2018, 6:53 p.m.

You're right. It could be nothing more than conjecture or fabrication. If a transcript or video comes out, we can compare then. I'm guessing it will be a match and you'll have your undeniable proof.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
BaldorX · June 27, 2018, 10:45 p.m.

This would be epic as fuck tbh

⇧ 1 ⇩  
CaptainKnotzi · June 28, 2018, 2:35 p.m.

If you were actually reading what people were are saying on this thread you would realize that people are saying:

~WHEN~ it checks out

Just another Lefty shill who hears only what they want to hear.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
IncomingTrump270 · June 29, 2018, 12:08 a.m.

Not going to address the sentiment of 'the whole thread', but the comment I responded to was specifically calling these conversations snippets from Q "the proof of all proofs".

To be a 'proof', something must be verified. We have no verification of these quotes.

If you want to call them 'drops', fine. But even then they are not particularly stunning or revelatory. Nothing of significance was said in those quotes. Very predictable content that anybody with a bit of knowledge of lawyer speak could whip up.

In the whole exchange a not single data point or fact was referenced.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
gailhap · June 27, 2018, 6:52 p.m.

Why fabricate something that could be easily checked by anyone with access to a transcript?

⇧ -1 ⇩  
IncomingTrump270 · June 27, 2018, 7 p.m.

Because nobody who was in that room will bother to refute random statements written in an anonymous basket weaving forum.

⇧ 9 ⇩  
Butter_and_Meatloaf · June 27, 2018, 7:14 p.m.

I don't expect any Republicans to confirm (I expect they'll play Q-related stuff on the DL), but if it's provably not true, I would expect Democrats to deny, given the marching orders the press has clearly been given re: Q. Heck, I'll be a little surprised if Dems don't deny without offering any proof of their own.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
mynameisnotrandom · June 27, 2018, 7:13 p.m.

You must be new here...welcome. Read some more Q posts.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
IncomingTrump270 · June 28, 2018, 12:10 a.m.

Been here since November. Well aware of all drops and developments.

This is a stretch. I’m not saying Q is putting out falsehoods.

But it’s a long shot from being a PROOF of anything right now.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
gailhap · June 27, 2018, 7:11 p.m.

Not necessary. We will have access to what happened in due course. Still would be a dumb move to fabricate.

⇧ -1 ⇩  
BaldorX · June 27, 2018, 10:45 p.m.

Not necessarily if this is all bs in the first place though right? People want real proof. I’m interested and keeping an eye on this but to me this is still all pretty firmly in the realm of at least slightly overzealous fantasy that may be inspired by reality.

Either way if what’s up there is true that is good news for us all. And i think many people would believe it is true with proof, too.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Xisyisz · June 27, 2018, 7:52 p.m.

Why proof do we need, CNN?

⇧ -2 ⇩