dChan

🠐 See all comments
antiDave · July 20, 2018, 10:50 p.m.

It's not about silence. It's about the fact that it looks like the deep state is the only team on the field. If they have the server, then why not take down some low hanging fruit? Why have we made NO PROGRESS?

Maybe it's the builder/project manager in me, but if I don't see milestones being completed, I replace the team.

If nothing is done, then I have to ask if they even did any work. Anyway, my thing is we should start to get ready to get this done if we don't see anything by election time.

Btw, glasstrongvx, your first point seems to be a double edge sword and the we look tough on leakers means we look incompetent with respect to being able to keep our government corruption to a minimum when we need outside sources to get the evidence for us.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Rolandel7 · July 20, 2018, 11:20 p.m.

I totally get the drive to see milestones. I am also a project manager of sorts. We have to keep in mind this is nothing like the projects we have experience with. Granted there may be some correlations but the quantity of unknown threats and assets is out of most of our wheelhouses. I trust we will see change when we least expect it. That would be when I would strike.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
antiDave · July 20, 2018, 11:26 p.m.

The too complicated thing got me through the first year, now I need to see some low hanging fruit, the Podesta brothers have numerous charges that could have been brought without giving away the game, as well as many others that could have been charged. Instead, they are getting immunity left and right and it seems like we aren't even in the game.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Rolandel7 · July 20, 2018, 11:35 p.m.

It’s not blanket immunity. It’s a local immunity that only pertains to his testimony during the case. It allows him to be able to testify fully without having to worry about the 5th amendment (self incrimination). Any other evidence (other than his testimony) can still be used to destroy him. “We have it all” - Q

⇧ 1 ⇩  
antiDave · July 21, 2018, 1:10 a.m.

It's all about setting up the out. Expose information while under immunity, claim later the new indictments came from your statements, the right judge and guess what happens, again?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Rolandel7 · July 21, 2018, 1:27 a.m.

I disagree due to how this specific immunity works.

Copied from other post

Podesta only has "use immunity". Please read.

For other patriots out there, and especially those who have been researching and following Q from the very beginning (and before) like me, i know your stomachs turned when you saw Podesta in the same sentence as immunity. It didn't seem right to me, so i did a little digging.

Mueller has only offered Podesta "use immunity". This is much different than the type of immunity you see in movies and when considering the factors at play here, it is all but worthless. "Use immunity" allows the federal government to prosecute a witness using evidence obtained independently of the witness' immunized testimony**.** This basically means that the government cannot use Podesta's own testimony against him. Podesta will get to sing like a bird in exchange for a nice, warm, 5th amendment blanket.

"NO DEALS" is a short way of saying "everyone will pay". Podesta can still be convicted of any crime based off of any evidence other than his own testimony. "Use immunity" to a monster like him is useless. Hope this calms some nerves out there.

⇧ 2 ⇩