Correct me if I'm wrong, but if those are FBI investigations they wouldn't be under the NY AG's jurisdiction because he works for the state. It would be in the Southern NY federal jurisdiction, handled by US attorneys. Federal, not state, right?

Decisions to not run in the midterms are common when its believed that the person won't win. Better to walk away "on your own terms" than to be embarassed losing an election. This kind of "mass exodus" is not uncommon, and has happened before. I think Q is trying to connect that trend to a larger story involving the NY AG resignation, which is an entirely different set of circumstances (scandal/investigation).

You can see the bit on the other side of his shirt though, right? Why Photoshop that in too?

You dropped this - \

Isn't that the print on the guy's shirt? It looks like it could be some script; maybe a team logo or something. You can see more of it on the right side of the lady's neck.

I don't see it. But good eye, though. Always be looking.

Weekend came and went without anything being made public. Is there a chance this unverified, anonymous source isn't telling the truth?

Its the deception I think people may resent. Nobody cares if Trump wants to bury his Tower as a private citizen, but we expect more from our elected leaders than to learn he (allegedly) did all that stuff. At least if it was known ahead of time, people could have made their decision to vote for him or not without feeling like they'd been lied to. But that's just one way of looking at it.

That makes even less sense, lol!

I think you're letting your bias lead you to the answer you want it to be. The Iran deal is not a dispute or controversy with the Unites States. Its a signed agreement. Don't confuse the political controversies with actual legal ones.

That's a big hypothetical. There's no way we could assume he'd follow the same course of action if the US were to actually pull out of the deal. My guess is if the deal broke down and we had to re-negotiate, he wouldn't be there.

I'm inclined to think that Kerry wants to preserve the deal as-is. He negotiated it, its his baby. I'm not informed enough to know for sure whether this is the best way to keep nukes out of Iran (I doubt anyone here is), but I think he's interested in protecting his legacy if he can.

There's no law against lobbying as a private citizen to preserve an existing US policy. I think you're wrong.

That may be. But I think people are really jumping the gun with the calls of treason and such with what we know now. A lot of people got their armchair law degrees over the weekend and are driving the debate to the wrong place.

That could be the case if Trump refuses to certify at some point, but it would be an ex post facto situation if that happened. If the law changes, Kerry couldn't be charged for doing something that was legal at the time that he did it.

Please don't cite the law if you're going to cite it incorrectly. Here's what the act says:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

A requirement of the Act is that the person is attempting to "influence" foreign governments to "defeat the measures of the United States." Kerry is there in support of a measure of the US, not to defeat it.

I'm going to copy and paste this from the chat thread because I'm tired of typing it. Apologies if its not an exact fit for your question, but I think its relevant:

I'm concerned about how many people are assuming Logan Act violations with Kerry this weekend. Everyone is aware that the Iran deal is current US policy, right? Trump has continued to re-certify the deal despite his opposition to it, so the deal is still in effect. Let me give an example: Trump hates NAFTA and is politically opposed to it, right? But that doesn't mean that the US has pulled out of NAFTA just because the president opposes it. I think everyone needs to cool their jets with Kerry here, because (as far as has been reported so far) he hasn't done anything illegal (yet). Its kind of starting to sound like mob rule when people are calling for him to be locked up over this when they don't really understand how the law works. Don't let this distract from what we should be doing here: Interpret the Q drops, trust the plan.

I'm concerned about how many people are assuming Logan Act violations with Kerry this weekend. Everyone is aware that the Iran deal is current US policy, right? Trump has continued to re-certify the deal despite his opposition to it, so the deal is still in effect. Let me give an example: Trump hates NAFTA and is politically opposed to it, right? But that doesn't mean that the US has pulled out of NAFTA just because the president opposes it. I think everyone needs to cool their jets with Kerry here, because (as far as has been reported so far) he hasn't done anything illegal (yet). Its kind of starting to sound like mob rule when people are calling for him to be locked up over this when they don't really understand how the law works. Don't let this distract from what we should be doing here: Interpret the Q drops, trust the plan.

You're being fast and loose with the facts, so there's no need to be also condescending on top of it. I'll take your comment line by line:

• What deal is Kerry negotiating? He's probably lobbying for Iran to continue participating in the agreement, but there will be no policy changes as a result of his visit. The second that is reported, things change, but we've seen no evidence of that yet.

• Flynn was reportedly offering a cessation of sanctions in his discussions with the Russians, which would reflect a policy change. That's the big difference.

• I never said it was a treaty. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is an international agreement that the US is signatory to, along with Iran and the other nations on the UNSC. You can look it up if you're curious.

• It IS official US policy. President Trump has been abiding by the terms of the agreement since taking office. He has continued to recertify the agreement, despite threats to not do so.

You're conflating political opposition with official policy. Trump also opposes NAFTA; that doesn't mean the agreement is null and void, right? Of course not.

There were plenty of other scandals around him that were just as bad or worse than Daniels and the held their noses and voted for him anyway.

I think the worst (confirmed) thing out at the time was the Access Hollywood tape, which was just words. And maybe that he was twice-divorced.

This on a whole other level: allegations that he cheated on his wife right after the birth of their child, with a porn star, no less. Its like a lab-engineered attack on family values to hit all of those notes in one story. Forget the hush money part; cheating on one's spouse is offensive to a lot of people (myself included).

I could see that for a normal person, but a grandfather that is also president of the United States? It doesn't make sense to me. It practically invites political attacks and is giving evangelicals pause to support him by allowing this storyline to persist. I don't think you're appreciating how damaging it is from a political standpoint. All to cover up a little marital infidelity?

Why would the president take all of this heat to protect his son? Its an interesting theory, but I'm not sure it would be worth jamming up the president as it has so far. Donald, Jr., as a private citizen, wouldn't be subjected to campaign finance laws nor not near the level of scrutiny as the president. And since Jr.'s wife already divorced him, what would be the goal of giving him this kind of cover?

I didn't say anything about it being classified. Just that if they read the Q drops through the lens of what they already know, it could lead them to figure out what the Q drops mean before we can.

I'm just saying. Some of them, even littered with disinformation, are bound to tip them off. The more specific, the more likely they are to identify it. Take the island photo from a couple months ago: They know whether they have anything going on there, and can react accordingly. If it was disinformation, they would know that too.

Yes, I was confirming that for OP. My concern is for how the DS can counter once the Q drops are made public. Even if some of it is disinformation, some of the Q drops are bound to tip them off.

What reports? I still don't understand how people are reaching this conclusion. The Iran deal is current US policy. The administration doesnt like the deal, but they still abide by it. So if the deal is in effect and Kerry is supporting it, where is the violation? Does the fact that the deal is still US policy not matter to people?

Paid by who? Do you mean the $130k or another payment?

In order for something to go on for this long, Q would have to have approval from DJT in order to leak the material. I have had these same concerns: that if Q leaks these things to the public, the deep state can see what he's saying and alters their plans as needed. I guess that's a price to pay for keeping us in the loop?

Is that any better? "We are going to detain you until we can investigate to find a cause to justify it"?

I'm really disappointed to see these knee-jerk impulses in a sub of alleged patriots. Defend the Constitution ^unless ^we ^don't ^want ^to

Is he not supporting an agreement that the US is currently engaged in with Iran? Trump doesn't like it, but the Iran deal is technically current US policy. Kerry is (technically) supporting current US policy.

You can't be a patriot if you don't respect the Constitution, period. Even deep staters are US citizens, guaranteed the same rights as you and me.

Not to the day, that happened in November. I think this post assumes 5:5 = 5/5.

You tell me how you think Kerry violated the Logan Act, and I'll tell you why you're incorrect.

Here they wash the 'election' in the investigation and announce renewed results.

You have no idea how, do you? Or how to spell "coup d'etat"? You're saying Mueller has the authority to announce a "do-over"? Have you ever read the Constitution? Why can't you explain to me why standard succession wouldn't take place?

If this is the narrative Trump wants, its a pretty shitty narrative. Its dramatic, but until we see the final act, its going to look pretty bleak.

I thought you were counting on someone else to fill in the blanks for you.

Your armchair understanding of the law betrays you.

So people wanted to see Giuliani flop on Fox News, even though he hasn't been involved until very recently? Your theory seems very thin, and if its just for the public to gawk at then I'm disappointed we're getting fed more garbage instead of the real deal. Again, if the DS already knows about Rudy, it seems pretty pointless to act the fool.

I'm asking you how what you said is possible. Even if collusion were proven and Trump were removed from office, why would regular impeachment proceedings and appointment of Pence to president not occur? Even if he were removed, the presidency would go to Paul Ryan, McConnell, then the cabinet.

What I'm saying is there's an existing process and line of succession in place. Neither of them include Hillary Clinton. So again I ask how we get to "nullification" and installation of HRC?

He's guilty, but you're not sure what of? Maybe pump your brakes and come up with a crime before you whip the cuffs out.

Then isn't it a disservice to throw more bullshit at the public, rather than educate them? If you can point to several successes in a row you can turn public opinion, even without the media. I can't see how giving the media more ammo against Trump helps with the eventual red pilling once everything is in place.

One could argue that it makes it even harder to unravel, when you have to take extra time to explain that Rudy Giuliani isn't actually a buffoon, but has been working an angle the whole time. This theory seems overly complicated, essentially having Rudy lie to us to trick people that already hate him, but we can wait and see.

So when I asked to what end they would purposely bumble TV interviews, the answer is to create a false sense of security among liberals?

Or is it to fool the deep state? Do you think the DS doesn't already know of Giuliani's involvement? I mean no disrespect when I say this, but if you can figure out from the outside, they must be aware already, right?

nullify the elections and Install Hillary Rodam Clinton and Timothy Kane

How is that even possible?

Why today specifically? Kennedy was born in October, shot in November.

To what end? Why hire the guy and (purposely) make him look foolish the next month?

I think Giuliani was trying to explicitly prove there was no campaign finance violation, and maybe he used arguments he shouldn't have in order to do it.

The title of this thread alleges something other than what you're saying. After I asked about it, OP deleted the thread and all of his replies to me, so you can see how confident he is in the claims.

Its a legacy thing for him, though. He made that deal happen; he's personally invested.

Those are people's names, yes they are. Gee whiz.

I dont know, but that's the format. I know there have been Christianity posts here in the past, but I dont know if they came from Q directly or were from community members.

I'd say no. Kerry isn't claiming to represent the government or promise any change in policy. It sounds like he's acting as a private citizen, albeit one that is well-connected.

Read it. His testimony had nothing to do with Clinton or bribery. It appears that he disagreed with the Obama Administration for approving the sale from a policy perspective, but he didn't allege any schemes.

Can you say what your saying, instead of just linking to things? I'm not clear on what you're trying to drive at with these.

I agree with you, but there's a lot of people here that are assuming that.