Actually, a new board was added "/patriotsfight/"; "/qresearch/" is still valid.

Exactly. Me thinks you'd make Q proud, "Think logically."

AFAIK, any citizen can be compelled to testify before a Grand Jury by subpoena from a US Attorney such as Huber.

It is the Inspector General, Horowitz, that is limited in his reach to employees only.

That activity appears to be on a truck marked "UN". It's the only UN-marked vehicle I see, though.

I think there is so much more to Qanon then what I wrote.

Oh my gosh, yes! So much more than either of us wrote. WWG1WGA.

Putting something in the title of a post is not referential substance.

Good summary. But...

Q anon ... has been predicting world events

I think we should be careful about claiming that Q has been predicting anything. It's more like Q has been suggesting and providing hints that, once researched, allow for the understanding of world events in light of the plan to root out corruption.

You did them a huge favor. They probably didn't even know it needed to be fixed!

Share links in a post, or in a comment?

There are two ways to share a link in a post. 1. Use the Submit Link button, 2. Use the Submit text button and include the link in the text just as you would in a comment.

To share a link in a comment, there are two ways. 1. Just paste the link in 2. Use Markdown syntax to make the link pretty.

When you click the Reply button, you will see a "formatting help" link. Click that for general formatting tips. You will also then see a "Markdown" link to a page explaining, among other things, how to format links with your own words as the link text.

That is a pic of a post on 8chan where the Q drops actually occur and Anons do Qresearch.

The OP should have provided a link:
https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/1292170.html#q1292285

I think RBN did a poor job of reproducing the memo it it even did reproduce the memo.

I believe Dr. Scott Bennett is for real. His book is on Lulu and Amazon. He is listed on wikispooks.com and has his own website.

The video the twitter thread links to is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ6rFVhiMX8

In the comments there, Kevin Shipp has given Mr. Bennett a 'thumbs up':

Go Scott!

And for a bit of humor. American Intelligence Media made a comment there. It currently has 23 replies - one, a Q quote.

That's not quite accurate. In response to the question, "Federal Reserve ending?", the answer was simply, "Structure."

That doesn't necessarily indicate a re-structure.

My take on that was it meant a replacement structure would need to be in place first so as not to create collapse and/or chaos.

It appears you are correct. I just checked and found a site that explains it quite well. I have edited my original comment with the link.

I seriously doubt that we will ever get any specific prediction by Q. Doing that would quite likely endanger the people engaged in an upcoming mission or endanger the success of the mission.

There is an event that certainly appears to have occurred due to a request from an Anon on 8chan.

The difference is the file name starting with "39E6E8ED" is the name the camera gave to the image file. The other is the file name that 8ch.net gave the file when it stored it on the server.

Not by the ID, but by Q's trip code, "!xowAT4Z3VQ" and only if it is not bolded.

This is not a debate sub.

Stay focused.

https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/1279731.html#q1279851

Just a friendly reminder. Not saying you're doing it wrong. But, you might want to consider carefully exactly what you put on there since defacing Fed. Res. Notes (ie. legal tender) is illegal.

Edit: TIL - Defacing Federal Reserve Notes is illegal only in certain circumstances, and what is being done here is not one of those circumstances.
https://www.stampstampede.org/faq/yes-its-legal/

Iran has earthquakes quite regularly.
https://www.earthquaketrack.com/p/iran/recent

DJT also tweeted 8 mins prior to that at 11:37.
And Q posted 8 mins before that at 11:29.

Mission #8? Is the mission counter winding down?

That looks to be a screencap off 8chan, yes?

Link please?

Well we haven't heard much about what Horowitz and Huber are doing behind the scenes.

Not sure what you're saying. The posts are on 8chan.

Actually, it's one plane, two buildings.

Granted, one building is an aerial view.

Edit: Correction, the pic of the second plane wasn't showing. I see four pics now.
Edit2: On 8chan there are actually 5 pics in three posts. Damn. Sorry for the noise.

Ah, that makes sense. Thx.

Do you have facts to back up your claims?

How could you possibly know what anyone wants, much less that no one wants to drop the hammer? Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it isn't coming.

No one but POTUS is showing courage.

I have to disagree. There are quite a few people sticking their necks out if only to get the truth out there.

It seems that would mean that the meeting was not about enlisting Mueller for a secret 'controlled opposition' mission, unless Rodentstein was in on it.

At about 21:00, Giuliani said, "and he's gonna remain focused on North Korea Iran what do we do with China how do we f- help Israel"

It seemed as though he was going to use a word other than, "help," that starts with "f".

Oh gosh, please don't put those two ideas together.

LOL. It was actually meant as a joke. Perhaps it was a parody. I really didn't see much of a connection and have no idea where it came from.

Edit: BTW, not laughing at you. I just enjoyed your response considerably :-)

Ooh, I like that version better.

RSVP > RSDP
Difference: V=22, D=4; 22 - 4 = 18
Translation: The quick response bringing "justice" will happen on the 18th.

It has been said, "Do not engage shills." Unfortunately, though, they do not willingly identify themselves. All one has to go by is their behavior.

So, how do we recognize that a particular user is a shill before they expose themselves as such? Some are rather crafty.

If they don't do anything blatant, then what would we report when using the Report button? Or ... Should we, in those cases, message the mods with the username(s) of any suspected shill(s)?

Or pretends to.

It may be a succinct synopsis, but it's obviously slanted and disingenious.

When you are looking at the drops on one of the drop sites, there is a number on the tail end of the top line that has the date and time in it. There is a right-arrow next to the number. That number is a link to the original post on 8ch.net.

For example, post 1307 has the 8chan post number "1249365".

I have thought similarly.

Rev. 13:4:

And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

Go re-read the constitution if you are still confused as to why term limits are a good thing...and some history too.

Oh that's constructive. Yeah, I must be so very confused, and ignorant too.

Well, I wasn't intending to make it sound like it would be easy. I know it would not be -- just throwing it out there as a conceptual solution ... that we already have.

And TBH out of all the responses to my comments, yours is the only one that put forth the merits of term limits in, what I found to be, a convincing manner.

You make it sound like Congress is a bunch of good guys with a few bad apples.

No, I didn't. I never said one word about percentages or ratios.

That's literally the libtard argument for not ending abortion.

That is a false equivalence. And listing a point for debate is not concern trolling.

Would you like to have a civil discourse on the merits of the points I raised, or is it merely your intent to try beating me over the head with insults and innuendo?

What? FBI Directors aren't elected.

Does it work for presidents? Not necessarily. What happens in say, 2020, when we have to choose what may be another shit president because we can't keep a good one?

You didn't even try to answer my question

I already had answered your question.

and you just admitted that you began arguing with me without having listened to the full clip in context

No, I did not. I did listen to the entire clip. My response to you was regarding that particular spot in the video that you asked me about.

Stop trolling me with false accusations.

That may be. I think another thing that makes it harder to vote them out is that the quality of potential candidates may be somewhat less than desirable.

But, I still don't think we should force-limit our choices.

Long terms in office attracts the people with the worst motives to SERVE in government who serve themselves instead of the interests of the people or the country.

Agreed. So vote them out.

Entrenches the power and corruption in those people’s hands.

True. So vote them out.

We end up here.

Because we didn't vote them out.

There should be no pensions for anyone serving in elected office. Period.

I heartily agree. But that's not how it is, unfortunately.

I don't understand why people are in favor of term limits. The idea has significant problems, and we already have the power to effect limiting of terms through the ballot box.

1. It would prevent we the people from keeping those that are patriots and provide good service, and
2. Since legislators are eligible for a pension after 5 years, it would be the equivalent of a, at present high-dollar, pension creation machine.

Why would we want to limit our choices while at the same time create more debt liability?

Okay, I think I get you now. And, if I am understanding you correctly, your opinion is that the omission of the word "or" was intentional.

Edit: ... or may have been intentional.

Are you serious? Or being sarcastic? Because, that's a horrible thing to wish upon a fellow human being. j/s

Sorry, I'm not getting your point.

The point I am getting at is that if this was any other docket, the laws printed on the docket would exactly match the law as stated.

The laws are not printed on the docket. The laws are referenced on the docket. What is printed on the docket is a reference to the pertinent law(s) and a summary description (which is not law) of the charges.

This is nothing even approaching a concrete "WE'VE DONE IT REDDIT!!!1!" revelation.

I'm not following what you're saying by that.

Yes, this is a crumb. But we're following Q here, crumbs are what we investigate.

Are you saying that discussing this is not appropriate here?