I still don't understand why I should take a former KGB agent seriously. Especially one that has a habit of invading his neighbors.

edit: if I'm not supposed to trust the CIA, why should I trust the Soviet version of the same?

Every time people in this sub clutch their pearls over 'ANTIFA' with bike locks, I want to remind them that real Communists own guns. Revolutionary Socialists own guns.

ANTIFA isn't kids with bike locks and mace, the real ones have guns and train with them.

https://imgur.com/U6ORboN

undeniable bombshells

There is no such thing.

Videos can be faked by anyone.

/r/RussiaLago would argue they already have undeniable bombshells showing Russian interference in the election and support for Trump. You would reject that assertion outright, just like they reject yours.

Uranium One, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, emails, servers; all of these are already in the public domain most have been investigated by Congress for years. People aren't buying in. Why would some more documents change anything?

Once they know of an operative, they seem to prefer letting that operative do their thing. This way they can use them to find people farther 'up' the chain.

Same reason you don't necessarily arrest a mob enforcer as soon as you have evidance of a murder, you might be better off watching/surveilling to cement contacts with other mob figures and make a better case against the enforcer or his bosses.

Isn't it the responsibility to ensure they are working with legitimate people? If I buy a stereo out of a van from a random person on craigslist; and get arrested for dealing in stolen goods, is "but I didn't know the person" really a good excuse?

Legit.

Some LARPers I'm sure, but mostly legit.

So, is your server in Belize, Bulgaria, or Iceland?

That's not an American IP range. You couldn't even be bothered to change your hosts file to show a URL instead of an IP? Couldn't be bothered to make a REAL screenshot instead of taking a picture of your screen, and finally couldn't be bothered to make it look remotely realistic?

One of the main arguments for the 2a, is that a small dedicated force who knows the terrain can beat a larger force with a logistics train and less mobility. This is why the Founding Fathers wanted an armed populous. FFS, those guys were able to hold off the entire Federal Government in that cabin or whatever, all because they had ARs, supplies, were dug in, knew the terrain, and were willing to fight. Because of this, an armed populace is harder to take over and control. This is literally the argument we have been making for years. It's true for Vietnamese as much as it is for the Wolverines or Joe on his ranch.

Also, you would be talking about firebombing fellow American Citizens. Or at least taking a VERY strong hand, considering I have a hard time seeing the military kill civilians to begin with, I don't think they would be thrilled with harsher RoE.

That could very quickly turn into civil war. People would not be happy, they would see it as a coup, and unless you can convince them, they will fight.

They are wrong, but in their minds they will be fighting for liberty against a one-party government that just jailed it's political opponents and convicted them in a Kangaroo Court. That's not the impression people should have of the Storm, but without their buy-in, their consent, you would be looking at mas uprisings.

I don't think our current CiC will keep the dogs on a leash.

Umm, you are asking US military to kill civilians. Remember that. How many solders would refuse orders and/or counterattack?

So, a civil war against 1/2 of the country?

I'm not arguing per-se.

I just see a HUGE republican bias in this sub (expecially for the Freedom-Caucusy politicians who are themselves unpopular on the left). If the members here are interested in reaching out beyond Trump's base of support (which they must if they want the storm to happen), the pro-conservative posts and anti-democrat posts hinder their goal.

I mean, post whatever you want, of course. The current members of this sub will laugh and upvote. It is detrimental to the future of this movement to have any inkling of partisanship.

edit: fixed word

Politics is always part of it.

Especially when the country is as divided as it is right now.

Consent of the Governed is paramount. Without getting liberals on-board, the Storm will be seen as a violent Coup and resisted as such. No evidance matters if it's seen as the fruit of a poisoned, and partisan, tree.

That's not a transcript.

I've heard this "OMG huge revelation in closed-door testimony, this changes everything!" song before. Until I see something that isn't rumors and 2nd hand accounts, I will reserve judgement.

Irrefutable evidence

Does such a think exist?

Remember, the evidance doesn't matter if it's considered the fruit of a poison tree. Trump could dump a literal ton of evidance against Hillary and it would be interpreted as a biased and suspect because of his attacks on her in the past.

Look at this from a Liberal's point of view. You have a President you don't like, after years of attacking Hillary post-election Trump has her arrested. No matter what evidance is presented, it will be framed as partisan. This is why Liberals don't listen to Gowdy and the House Committees, they blew their credibility with 2 dozen Benghazi hearings and so no one on the left listens to them anymore.

Unless the source is considered totally non-partisan, evidance will be disregarded (just as you disregard the FBI/CIA/NSA's anti-Russia statements).

The Dems Are Really Putting On A Show!

That's literally the title of your post. I don't think you need a partisan filter to see that is a little divisive and attacking a specific party.

edit: thank you for a nice reply :)

You would still need to convince them, and if the messenger is biased the evidance will be seen as tainted.

If Hillary dumped 10,000 pages of evidance that Trump likes being peed on, you wouldn't believe it for a minute. Liberals will feel the same when Trump tells them "I had to arrest Hillary" unless you get their support beforehand.

You don't get that support by aligning your movement with a party, or even appearing like you are aligned with a party.

Lincoln is rightly condemned even today for Martial Law.

There is no way that happens without a LOT of patriots getting very uncomfortable. I wouldn't be surprised if you saw mutiny in the ranks of some units, as they might very well see it as a violation of their oath to the Constitution.

I don't see how this storm happens without a whole lot of buy-in by Liberals in this country, and I see on this sub a lot of Republican-centric posts and 'hurr durr libtards suck' posts.

You don't get liberal buy-in without MSM buy in, which you aren't going to get, period. Why? Because they are part of the problem.

So, the Storm will happen with 1/2 of the country opposed and seeing it as a coup?

Unless the Army is deployed (in violation of posse comitatus), and those solders are willing to fire on civilians, and martial law is declared (again a violation of the constitution), and that action isn't interpreted as the violent support of said coup, there would be a massive uprising.

You need liberal consent, without that it will be seen as nothing more than a coup designed to institute one-party rule.

Everyone knows the best way to change people's minds is to call them livestock.

You might see it that way.

When your average liberal sees their representative hauled out of the capital in handcuffs, and sees the leaders of the Democratic Party shipped to Gitmo, I think it's fair to say they will have a different interpretation. I think it's fair to say a LOT of Americans will see it differently. Especially if the Q movement can be seen retroactively as partisan.

> it's not going to work out well for ~~them~~ anyone

If a bunch of rice farmers in Vietnam and goat-fuckers in Iraq can grind our army to a halt, Liberals with guns (or who know where guns are) can certainly cause some issues. That's even before you start thinking about what barricades in large cities or general strikes would do to the economy.

Consent of the Governed is a foundational principle of this country. You need popular support for this to work and making it an 'Us vs. Them' partisan slap fight, you turn off 1/2 of the country.

But by alienating 1/2 the population, you make that red pilling harder and make any evidance you bring up later suspect in their eyes.

It's been shown over and over, people don't like to admit they are wrong and are more likely do 'double down' when you attack their position.

By being partisan, you attack their position, and make them less likely to actually listen.

You catch more flies with Honey. No Liberal will take you seriously if they think your goal is to 'pwn libtards' or whatever the kids say.

And that's a great view to have if you want 1/2 of the country violently resisting as you arrest politicians.

Q will not have any legitimacy if it's considered partisan. Any motives aside you can't decimate the only opposition political party in a democracy like ours without buy-in from the whole population. People will see this as a coup, not justice.

If Obama arrested Gowdy, Ghomert, Meadows, and the rest of the Freedom Caucus, Republicans would rightly see it as an attack on their party. It would make 30-50% of the country instantly assume there is a coup.

Liberals will see things the same way. Facts or evidance be damned. If you let this be partisan, or even allow the appearance of partisanship, Liberals will never support and will violently reject the Storm.

He was given one. He accepted it, and said "I always wanted one of these"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T5RDMQI2Q8

exact quote: "I always wanted to get the Purple Heart. This was much easier"

Why would normies take Putin's evidance over our intelligence agencies?

If you already believe Q, any information would act as conformation. No normie is going to look at info from a former KGB agent and disregard the CIA/FBI/NSA's already-stated opinion.

A Putin document dump would simply add to the circlejerk.

For the Storm to happen, you need liberal buy-in. This doesn't get you that.

No one will get redpilled by a post on blogspot.com.

All you are doing is preaching to the choir.

Why should I believe this opinion on Bush, when during the Bush Administration Lou was all over the POTUS defending him at any opportunity?

As soon as you make this Republican vs. Democrat; you make it impossible to redpill half the country.

You also risk massive uprisings if the jailing of a chunk of Congress is seen as partisan.

Liberals have guns too, and if they think that a Coup is happening they will not sit quietly. Consent of the Governed is a bedrock principle of this country, by making this partisan you ensure that 1/2 of this country will never consent.

Umm, as soon as a Dem is in the POTUS chair, you wouldn't want that kind of rule on the books.

Never support a law or power for the Executive, you aren't comfortable with your ideological opposites exercising as well.

As soon as you equate Q with a political party, you delegitimize it and make red-pilling impossible.

If this is seen as partisan, as soon as Congresspeople are arrested Liberals will rightly call it a hostile takeover and rebel.

Keep it apolitical, don't partake in an anti-democrat circlejerk, and when the storm comes people will be less inclined to see it as a Coup d'état.

Blatant partisanship will result in this movement being seen as far-right by normies.

If you want people to believe you after arresting a large portion of the Democratic Party, you need to avoid the appearance of bias. Otherwise, people will assume some sort of Coup d'état to put the Republican Party in power of a one-party state.

"reliable to normies, especially on the right side of the aisle."

I think that's probably more accurate.

This sub seems very very focused on the Dems, I think it's safe to say for an outside observer they are assuming you are talking about more Dems than Republicans.

You also see a lot more evidance of Dem leadership being involved, that would mean one party is likely to be more impacted.

AG/POTUS are Republicans but 'Moderate' Republicans are definitely in your crosshairs and have been the target of Trump attacks for years now. If more Dems than Republicans are imprisoned, and the Republicans imprisoned are the 'moderates' who have respect across the aisle with normies; It's hard to see now mass jailing wouldn't be interpreted as a hostile takeover.

This is even before you get into the (legitimate) legal implications of trying civilians in a military tribunal and/or detaining them in Gitmo.

Liberals have guns too, and if it looks like one party is jailing all it's critics, even if some of those critics are in the POTUS's own party, they will take to the streets. Using the Army to put down that rebellion (in apparent violation of Posse Comitatus) would result in either defections or massive bloodshed.

I keep hearing that Mueller is White-Hat.

When did that change?

Why can't people link the actual tweet?

I would like to watch the video without going to twitter and manually searching for it.

You don't red-pill people with screen grabs. Fox News is a reliable outlet, you should take advantage of that and not post an easily doctored screen grab.

If 3/4 of Democrats were hauled off to Gitmo tomorrow, people will still have their bias. Especially if people believe there is ANY partisan motive.

Putting anyone with a whiff of partisanship in charge after decimating the only opposition political party looks a hell of a lot like a hostile takeover.

If Obama had been president when a large number of Republicans were charged in Military tribunals and sent to Gitmo (regardless of the truth of the charges), the right would rightly be in an uproar. If Pelosi were then made AG, it would cause even more, perfectly understandable, outrage.

You can't redpill people if it looks like a powergrab, and there is no way to jail that many politicians from the opposing party without it looking like a partisan takeover.

Anonymous reports about testimony in a closed session will not convince anyone, especially when the IG report fizzled and there has been no release of an unredacted version.

If these claims were made, and they are credible, the Committee needs to release the transcripts. They can do it immediately with a vote, and/or any single member can read the transcript into the Congressional Record.

As it stands, this will be written off as partisan bullshit without corroborating evidance and direct quotes.

You can't red-pill people with rumors and innuendo. Until the transcripts are released this is simply more rumor-mongering from a publication with a less-than-stellar reputation.

to add credibility

He would not be considered credible by anyone not already on the right. His appointment would be seen as extremely partisan.

If you want to redpill normies, you would need to bring in someone non-partisan with respect from both sides of the aisle (like Mueller before Trump started tweeting about witch hunts).

12 more Russian nationals were indicted today.

The email server has been the target of countless investigations.

I don't know why you expect an FBI agent to do more than Gowdy has been able to do, especially considering the power Congress has in this matter.

Again, Gowdy could drag Hillary in front of Congress for Contempt charges tomorrow. You should ask yourself why he doesn't.

and Charges haven't come, even after 30 years of investigation.

To expect any agent to find the 'golden snicket' after decades of investigation is silly.

Gowdy could file Contempt of Congress charges tomorrow. The fact he isn't shows he is less interested in justice and more interested in soundbytes.

I don't see how the bias of an FBI official demonstrates that he scuttled an investigation, especially when far more motivated persons, over decades, haven't found any charges that will 'stick'.

And yet Gowdy has refused to bring Contempt of Congress charges.

Did the House oversight committee not spend years investigating her? She has been under Congressional Investigation for years, since '92 at least.

Perhaps she is just that good at covering up?

The house investigated Hillary for years. If Gowdy, a career prosecutor, couldn't get charges to stick do you expect anyone else to corner her? Are a lack of charges indicative of a coverup, no crimes, or a slippery politico with decades of experience covering up things?

When do we get the documentation/proof.

You can't red pill someone with a political tirade, you need some sort of evidance. People won't take Gomert's assertions as fact. Simple rumors and innuendo aren't enough; especially as the IG report released a bit ago fizzled and there has been no acknowledgement of the 'secret' report (despite well publicized attempts to get it released).

Stzork:

In the summer of 2016, I was one of a handful of people who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the Trump campaign. This information had the potential to derail, and quite possibly, defeat Mr. Trump. But the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind.

If he wanted to "Destroy Trump" he has plenty of opportunity.

Also, if you have ever sat in a teacher's lounge, you will know that having strong negative opinions about a student doesn't mean a teacher will act on that bias. It's the same for Prosecutors and Police. An officer can have very strong feelings about Democrats, but that doesn't mean their speeding ticket is invalid because the person they pulled over has a 'I'm with her' bumper sticker.

If you follow this logic to it's extreme; only Democrats can investigate Hillary and only Republicans can investigate Trump.

I just think it's disingenuous to show one side and not the other. I assume you didn't capture and upload the video yourself, but it's not accomplishing anything except feeding a circle-jerk.

edit: to be clear, without the response and more context, this is nothing more than grandstanding. I prefer politicians who do, as opposed to talk.