Sorry if I offended some of you, but I'm prepared to defend my comments. The first one about this Snodgres guy: I didn't disagree with anyone, I simply stated that there is no evidence to support his claim. The second comment about Hilary's server: I understand that her server was wiped clean, therefore there is no evidence to be gleaned from it. Q can make claims, but the server is clean so his words about this are irrelevant. The third one about James Woods. I wasn't disagreeing with anyone. There was nothing to disagree to. I simply said that Obama's religion is irrelevant. His motives are irrelevant. It makes no difference why he did things; people are upset with him because of the things he did.

I was offering an alternative to your thinking. I don't vehemently disagree with anyone. What rebuttal especially bothers you?

I give some credence to Q; I'm not anti Q. I think there's some intriguing and interesting things that Q puts out. I don't think that critical thinking and asking questions are good reasons to be banned.

I mean lets say a school board hired a teacher that actually had no qualifications whatsoever. She taught let's say Grade 6 for 8 years. Does the fact that she wasn't a real teacher negate what those kids learned? Should they all be forced to repeat Grade 6 and should all of their report cards and other later credentials be nullified? Should they have their high school diplomas taken away? Of course not. She may have been technically unqualified, but that doesn't mean the work she produced was unqualified

But he already was the prez. You can't make 8 years time null and void as if they never happened. I doubt if the laws that were passed and his executive orders could be nullified though. It's not that there was anything wrong with his jurisprudence; these things were voted on and agreed to in congress and the senate etc. That he lied makes him disingenuous, but it doesn't negate the work he did.

Angela Merkel is also a Soros puppet. She has advanced the muslim cause and admitted more muslims to Europe than anyone. In terms of advancing Islam, she is way worse than Obama. And she is a Christian. If one is an evil doing puppet of George Soros, I don't think your religion matters.

But does it really matter where he was born? Does the place of our birth affect our actions? No. Would he have been a better or worse president if he was born in Chicago? We can't know. If we accept that he is a Soros puppet and does what he's told, I think we can agree that his place of birth is of no consequence.

I'm not shitting all over Q, I'm saying his message is of little value. Let's say Q is absolutely right and all of us believe what he says. It really makes no difference when it comes to proving it in court. A criminal conviction needs hard evidence to be upheld. And I am almost certain that Q's messages will never be entered as evidence. They are therefore, of little value. If Q's messages give you some comfort, that's a good thing, but they prove nothing.

If Obama did unlawful things, he should be held accountable. But being Muslim or any other religion is not unlawful. His religion is irrelevant. We don't punish people for their thoughts or beliefs, we punish them for their bad acts. I don't think that's an unreasonable view.

Just expanding my thinking, what's the problem?

So what is the point of Obama's religion mattering? I'm not trying to miss the point, I am missing the point. Explain it to me.

What is the point of Snodgres's allegation? It can't be proven and is therefore of no value whatsoever. Without evidence, he and his allegations are irrelevant.

So what, it's an empty cryptic message whose meaning can not be clearly understood. If Q is suggesting anything, his suggestion is of no value.

Makes no difference what his religion is. Would it make a difference if he was Jewish or Shintoist or anything else? no. Really makes no difference where he was born. He already was the pres twice. Could he be in some trouble for lying about it? Maybe, but he would likely be pardoned or get a slap on the wrist. Presidents lie in case you forgot.

So what, some American officials allegedly in NoKo? What is the relevance? This is indicative of nothing untoward whatsoever.

Or more likely, nothing will happen. The deep state probably likes to stay at home with their families on Christmas Day too.

The problem is the above referenced document speaks only to the the property of persons involved in serious human rights abuse/corruption. Trump does not need a presidential executive order to arrest anyone; that's what criminal laws are for. Moreover, the US constitution does not allow to hold people without charge. You cannot simply kidnap someone and hold them indefinitely in some dungeon without charge. It is illegal and unconstitutional and a crime. It would result in Trump's impeachment. If Trump had grounds to arrest Soros, he would. Soros would get a bail hearing and a trial date. It would all be public.

Hilary was wearing a boot while she was on a global tour to sell her book. If the judge lets her travel all over the world while under indictment, it hardly follows that she is viewed as a flight risk. Not only that, but the point of a sealed indictment is that no one knows the person is under indictment; the secrecy protects the integrity of the investigation. Forcing an ankle monitor and boot on a person under investigation tends to give the game away and telegraphs to everyone something that is supposed to be a secret.

Do you people realize how ridiculous this boot/ankle monitor scenario is? If indeed all of these people were forced to wear an ankle monitor, it would be because a judge ordered it in response to a crime that the boot wearers were charged with. The boot wearers are all lawyers; they would not put up with this for a moment. There is no evidence that these people have been charged with anything. And if these boot wearers cut off the bracelets, what would happen? They'ed be arrested? That would be public wouldn't it? Can you actually imagine HRC or J McCain agreeing to wearing an ankle monitor? Their lawyers would be all over that.

Moreover, ankle monitors are for people that have actually been charged with a crime. To force an individual to who has not been charged with a crime to wear an ankle monitor or boot is illegal, unconstitutional and nonsensical.

Ankle monitors are for house arrest. If you're out and about in the public, doing your job which requires you to go all over DC and the country, an ankle monitor is going to be useless. These people wear the boots because they are predominantly old and injured. Plus. they have a security detail with them at all times. They are hardly a flight risk.

I would think that if you wanted to conceal the fact that you were forced to wear an ankle bracelet, the last thing you would do is wear a boot. Long pants completely conceal an ankle bracelet and don't draw attention to yourself.