Since you want to play semantics, I didn't "say" anything. So your statement lost credibility right? See how that work? I didn't write "Trey" Gowdy. How do you know I was refereing to this clip. Maybe I was referring to an old clip from Curt.
Finally, did I "say" anything that was not true? You don't know either way. Just because Gowdy said a word doesn't necessarily make it true. Or false. You have to think for yourself. Part of that process is considering the context. Do you think Maria has Gowdy on to discuss a divorce "tribunal". A tax evasion "tribunal"?
Maybe I'm misinterpreting the meaning behind his grin or smirk. It is there. What does it mean? We interpret things using subject matter, context, facial expressions...constantly. What is your interpretatIon of the statement of the clip? A few others seem to agree with my takeaway.
The very title of your post is, "It's Happening! Gowdy just mentioned military tribunals!" Gowdy never mentioned MILITARY TRIBUNALS! He mentioned Tribunals. The Noun Tribunal does not need Adjective Military or Divorce, or Tax to qualify it for it to have meaning. Gowdy said Tribunal. He could have been referring to any Court . He could have used the word Tribunal to mean Military Tribunal, but that is not what you said. You said he MENTIONED Military Tribunal.
Mentioned - to refer briefly to; name, specify, or speak of: Gowdy clearly did not refer briefly to, name, specify, or speak the word Military Tribunal. Quite trying to defend an idiotic position.
I play chess well. And employ logic well. The majority of the game is to envision where the current position is leading, then how to steer it to the desired outcome. Innumerable future positions are happening. The more and further out you can consider them, the better you can play. Just because you're not in check, don't feel secure that nothing's happening.
A multitide of things ARE happening. I didn't claim arrests were happening. I didn't claim tribunals were underway. YOU read meaning into my statement that wasn't there, then declared it false.
My statement:
"Gowdy just mentioned military tribunals."
That really happened.
READ, with comprehension.
Now you can quarrel with my inclusion of the adjective "military"
See my other responses for that.
Q uses the phrase "nothing is happening"? all the time. This implies something IS happening. He doesn't state specifically what though.
Think Q can't think like a chess player?
When we hear "tribunals" from a second congressman(Graham), I believe something is happening.
When governments across the world are rejecting globalism, I believe something is happening.
When BILLIONAIRES are being arrested for human trafficking related offenses...
Etc, etc, etc
But I could be all wrong. Please let me know when something actually is happening.
Kill yourself immediately, you subhuman coward. Answer my questions about your god.
Establishing legitimacy
Let’s talk about statistics. Let’s talk about the concept itself. Q-level clearance exists within the Department of Energy. What the fuck does that have to do with anything regarding the court system? What the fuck does that have to do with anything Q-LARP has claimed it knows? Look at the number of people who have Q-level clearance. All none of them. What’s the likelihood that any of them are committing an executable offense by posting on a fucking imageboard? Look at the posts. Why don’t they say anything? Someone that important–if it actually has knowledge he wants to disseminate–is also not going to type cryptic bullshit. It’s also not going to ask questions that it doesn’t answer. The sum total of Q-LARP is an exercise in postdiction. Everything it has said is too vague to actually mean anything. It never says anything of any value or specificity. A combination of pareidolia, confirmation bias, and apophenia does the rest. PEOPLE ARE LOST. THEY ARE BROKEN. THEY FEEL WORTHLESS AND WEAK AND POWERLESS. WHAT BETTER WAY TO PREY ON THEM THAN TO CONTROL THE OPPOSITION? They won’t fucking question you if you can trick them this way.
Establishing trustworthiness
Someone that important is, statistically, owned by jews. It’s just that simple. In fact, Q-LARP is entirely owned by jews. It admits it. It openly admits to being civic nationalist. It doesn’t support a restoration of the US or Europe to being white-only nations. It doesn’t support deportation of nonwhites. Since the first week, it has called for protection of nonwhites, from the whites who would see them deported/killed. It openly calls for regime change in Iran for the sole purpose of fulfilling the Oded Yinon Plan. Q-LARP has publicly stated it has no intention of removing jews from the West or punishing jews collectively.
Establishing realism
What purpose is served by leaking the proceedings of nationwide martial law and the arrest of three quarters of the US government… AN ENTIRE YEAR early? Why is that helpful to anyone except the people toward whom it is supposedly directed? Oh, and why has it taken so long? An entire year of waiting is an entire year to prepare. You realize that even the group that Q-LARP talks about is one of the highest flight risks on earth, right? Why would anyone want to give them time to escape? How does that help us? It doesn’t. It helps THEM. It helps them so much that it hurts us. This is on purpose. Q-LARP exists to create an Orwellian narrative about “the bad people being arrested”, so that when all the good people are arrested they will say that good people are bad people, and the stupid Q-LARPing masses will simply believe it and help commit their own genocide. We’ve already seen this for 70 years. Why do you think it isn’t continuing?
Why would someone ostensibly leaking the proceedings not actually leak any information? Why would someone who claims to be on our side not give us a playbook for how to operate during the event? Why isn’t it telling us how to become leaders of our community to calm the terrified millions around us–who will inevitably exist once the media starts reporting on the “Trump coup”, or when they see their favorite media reporters arrested by the military live on air? Why is Q-LARP a civic nationalist? How does that help America? How is Trump is magically insulated during what will be painted internationally as a soft coup? Why would the apparatus allow him to engage in this coup to the extent that he would actually be protected? Why does the coup–by Q-LARP’s own admission–not cover the actual PROBLEMS facing this country? Everything Q-LARP has said points to the action as being “Part A of the ZOG wants to get rid of Part B of the ZOG.”
Establishing results
If there is something, why is nothing Q-LARP said would happen happening? Where’s the Emergency Broadcast System announcement? Where’s Trump using Obama’s emergency television override to speak to the people? Where’s the martial law? Where are the riots it talked about? Antifa couldn’t even get off their asses for a completely unrelated outing. Where’s the Huma arrest? Where are the Podesta arrests? They were supposed to be in custody by now; no one has any information on that beyond your continued shilling campaign.
Establishing psychology
Already touched on this at the end of the first section. So Q-LARP’s going to arrest most of the US government, right? All the bad people going away. And what’s this? It says that WE won’t have to grab our guns and help out? Why, that’s exactly what we would want! Happy day! All of our dreams are coming true, and we didn’t even have to put in an ounce of work ourselves! Hooray! It’s over! We’re saved! Don’t ever question the validity of these claims! Just spend A YEAR ignoring everything else that is ACTUALLY happening in the news, never mind your own wildly successful campaign of “It’s okay to be white.” Because nothing ever came from YOU doing an honest day’s work!
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH. THE ZOG WILL NOT ARREST THE ZOG. ANYONE WHO TELLS YOU TO SIT ON YOUR ASS AND DO NOTHING IS NOT ONLY LYING TO YOU, HE IS A JEWISH SHILL.
Explain your reason for believing otherwise.
Establishing inconsistencies
If, as Q-LARP says, there are more patriots than traitors in the government, why did they let the last 70 years happen?
If, as Q-LARP says, Obama went to North Korea, where is the evidence?
If, as Q-LARP says, the CIA/alphabet agencies were responsible for the 11 minute Twitter takedown of POTUS account, where is the evidence?
If, as Q-LARP says, elections no longer matter, where is the evidence?
If, as Q-LARP says, martial law is inbound, where is the evidence?
If, as Q-LARP says, mass arrests of the government are inbound, where is the evidence?
You were proven wrong. Your LARP is a hoax. Trump is owned by jews. NO ONE IS COMING TO SAVE YOU.
WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER MY QUESTIONS, COWARD? IF YOUR GOD IS REAL, SURELY YOU CAN PROVE IT. IF YOU'VE BEEN FOLLOWING IT FOR A YEAR AND A HALF, SURELY YOU CAN GIVE A REASON WHY.
Not an argument. You were proven wrong. Your LARP is a hoax. Trump is owned by jews. NO ONE IS COMING TO SAVE YOU.
WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER MY QUESTIONS, COWARD? IF YOUR GOD IS REAL, SURELY YOU CAN PROVE IT. IF YOU'VE BEEN FOLLOWING IT FOR A YEAR AND A HALF, SURELY YOU CAN GIVE A REASON WHY.
What is the most interesting is people looking for clips from Maria Bartiromo's show show say they cannot find this full clip. It always cuts before he says tribunals to a shot of Pompeo.
In the context of national security issues and TREASON, use of the word "tribunal" CLEARLY refers to military legal proceedings. He didn't say hearings, Congressional committees, interviews or trials. I am amazed that conservatives can find something so petty to argue against fellow patriots about! Miss America Fist has some very outstanding characteristics (I salute her photo), but she still doesn't get a pass for missing the boat on this one. Most of us know that the tribunals are already in play . . . does she NOT? No matter. She an others appear to have forgotten that WWG1WGA!
Congressional Committees are Investigatory bodies not Tribunals is what your saying and I agree. Those seated in CC are not Judges, or Magistrates. Tribunal is defined as:
Have you ever listened to Gowdy speak? He likes to use fancy words. Tribunal is often used to describe a normal court type setting. It's like calling a lawyer a 'counsellor'.
Gowdy is a prosecutor. Prosecutors use their words extremely carefully, especially this prosecutor. The use of "tribunal" was intentional. Boy, do I hope he's involved in the tribunals as a prosecutor...
That wouldn't prove anything. The point is that Gowdy likes to use fancy words, and 'tribunal' is an accurate name for a congressional hearing.
In context, he was complaining about the 5 minute limit of recent congressional hearings, and was saying they should have unlimited time, like other congressional hearings that he was referencing.
Most of us know that the tribunals are already in play
They are not. They are clearly illegal for virtually all domestic crimes. For a civilian to be tried by military tribunals, they pretty much have to be on a battlefield.
The Universal Code of Military Justice spells out who is subject to it, and the cases where it applies to civilians are highly limited.
Go look at the Sotomayor confrimation or the Kagan confirmation he asked the same thing.
Selling uranium to Russia would certainly fit the bill.
You have no clue what you are talking about vis a vis Uranium One. Zero crimes were committed and the guy who brought Uranium One into the political discussion had to admit that several times. And Russia gets no uranium from those mines in Wyoming because Uranium One does not have a license to transport or export uranium. All they have is a license to mine uranium. Then they have to transfer control of the uranium someone else. At the time of transfer, less than 1% of that uranium is U-235, the stuff you want. It's no where near fuel for a nuclear plant, let alone a bomb. It basically sounds really scary until you learn the slighest bit about the uranium industry. It's not scary. It poses no threat to US national security which is why the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and agencies throughout of the government include Defense and the Intel Community signed off on the deal.
Treason, espionage and terrorism are routinely tried in civil courts. No need to hold a military tribunal and Lindsay Graham gets no say in the matter.
WRONG! Attempting to over throw a duly elected President, constitutes the status of an "ENEMY COMBATANT". The "battle field" is all over the USA and all over lame stream media. POTUS has CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to round up Enemy Combatants and try them in Military Tribunals.
The "battle field" is all over the USA and all over lame stream media. POTUS has CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to round up Enemy Combatants and try them in Military Tribunals.
Do you think you're just going to goober out this with your gobbledygook? You think you're going to win a debate on the law, by just making shit up?
Did you notice this article does not support your argument, it being explicitly about unlawful combatants captured overseas and it quotes Trump as saying
They are unlawful enemy combatants. And when captured overseas, they should be treated like the terrorists they are
Graham asked Sotormayor and Kagan about enemy combatants as well, this is not new.
The end result: It's still illegal to us military tribunals for virtually all domestic crimes.
None of those links work against my argument an enemy combatant is not someone committed a civilian crime. There are covered in a different section of the Universal Code of Military Justice.
I think a lot of people simply are misunderstanding what an unlawful combatant is. The UCMJ refers to these as unprivileged enemy belligerent and defines them as
(7)Unprivileged enemy belligerent.—The term “unprivileged enemy belligerent” means an individual (other than a privileged belligerent) who—
- (A) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;
- (B) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;
- or
- (C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of the alleged offense under this chapter.
The word hostilities is key
(9)Hostilities.—The term “hostilities” means any conflict subject to the laws of war.
This is not a domestic crime. This is hostilities on a battlefield.
If you think I’m just arguing for the sake of arguing, I don’t care.
The point is, civillians can be tried in a military tribunal for simply being labeled an “enemy combatant,” whether they are a US Citizen or not. It can, and has, happened.
You initially said domestic crime. You know what domestic means right? Because you use it as if you think acts of terror can not be domestic. You also said a civilian had to be on a battlefield, “pretty much,” which is verifiable not true, see my last link.
No I very much know that terrorism can domestic. Terrorists are routinely tried in civilian courts. (Which is the kind of the point I keep trying to make) The ISIS terrorist who in 2017 committed the deadliest attack since 9/11 was tried in Federal Court. As were the terrorist from first 9/11 attack and Timonthy McVeigh.
The reason for my imprecision on which crimes the UCMJ applies to is I'm trying to just to stick to the law and not the silly idea that there is a raft of people who are going to be charged with crimes. But basically, unless you are in the military, have been in the military, a military contractor or took up weapons against the United States, you ain't going to GITMO.
You’re also quoting the definition of “unprivileged enemy belligerent,” not “enemy combatant.”
Because they are the same and UEB is the language used in the UCMJ. From Wiki
An unlawful combatant, illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a person who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war.
Hostilities has a long standing legal definition. It's part of the Law of War, it's part of the Geneva Conventions. In fact, a combatant is defined in the Geneva Convention as someone who has the right to particpate in direct hostilities.
Civillians can be tried in a military tribunal for simply being labeled an “enemy combatant,”
No. They absolutely cannot. People keep making this argument over and over and it's simply false. There's a very, very specific legal definition of what an enemy combatant is. I'll go beyond my "pretty much" comment and use the exact language used in the Universal Code of Military Justice that I linked to above.
(A) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;
OR
(B) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;
OR
(C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of the alleged offense under this chapter.
So unless you meet the three criteria above or are you are member of the military or retired military or a military contractor serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field during a time of war, are a member of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration assigned to the Military, or any of the other folks here http://www.ucmj.us/sub-chapter-1-general-provisions/802-article-2-persons-subject-to-this-chapter you are not going before a military tribunal.
Here's the TL/DR
Are civilians sometimes subject to the UCMJ? Yes.
How often does this occur? Exceedingly rarely. More than 99.99% of civilian criminals have nothing to worry about with regards to the UCMJ.
Is the military going to swoop in and scoop up Donald Trump's political enemies and snatch them away to Gitmo? No. Of course not.
You’re still basing your entire argument off the premise that “hostilities” somehow can’t be civillians and you aren’t making it clear how that is so. I see nothing indicating that a civilian cannot meet the criteria. The language uses “OR” not “AND,” you only need to meet one criteria. You’ve presented nothing saying a civilian can’t meet one of those criteria and be labeled an enemy combatant.
You keep saying “no, citizens can’t be tried in tribunal by being labeled enemy combatant,” and then go on to list criteria that is not at all excluding of citizens in any of its language or definitions.
You are missing my point. People are making the argument that people whose crime is treason or child trafficking or sedition or terrorism can tried at GITMO just by labelling them an enemy combatant and that is false.
I am not saying civilians cannot be enemy combatants, but the fact is this designation doesn't apply to vast majority of domestic crimes. Child trafficking doesn't get you to GITMO
The theory is the changes made to the UCMJ which went into effect Jan 1 will allow for Trump to use the military to make a mass sweep of arrests within the US and send tens of thousands of people to GITMO for domestic crimes -- there are suppossedly 70,000 sealed indictments just waiting to be unsealed. This theory is bullshit because nothing changed on Jan 1 with regards to who is subject to the Universal Code of Military Justice.
Stage 4: Meanwhile - Go after the low hanging fruit such as MS-13 and other gangs, sex traffickers, dope peddlers, enablers such as CEO’s with their corrupt schemes. Hollywood, Disney, Google, Facebook, etc… And, Imprison the real deep state enablers temporarily with multi thousands of “Sealed Indictments”. As long as the indictments remain sealed, their money and lawyers, as well as the corrupt media can do nothing… but wait for the sword of Damocles to fall. In progress, and Getting near completion, because stage 5, the final onslaught against the deep state has been announced. You cant lock up rich powerful corrupters until you have a place to put them, where their money don’t work, and their lawyers have to stay in military barracks until their clients trial comes up.
We have been waiting for the ticket punch line for a while.
Stage 5:
Now, as promised, here is a review of just how long these plans have been laid. Enter CAMP JUSTICE, Aka Gitmo…
The White Hats knew from the beginning that the monstrous construction at GITMO would take a lot of work, attract a lot of attention, and have to be done quickly. DJT fits well here, because he is a master at solving construction problems. He has done that all his successful life,
Ok I understand you now. I believe we were both misunderstand each other’s points. I totally agree that those crimes won’t lead to military tribunals. It’s going to be more the proponents of cultural Marxism, those actually working with foreign entities to destroy America. Of course they’re guilty of other civillian crimes, but those won’t be what leads to the tribunals. I believe we’re in agreement.
Trump's executive order is based on a law signed by Obama in 2016. Neither changed who is subject to the Universal Code of Military Justice which was last changed in like 2007
Bush changed it after 9/11 to include civillians under certain suspicions, one of which is pretty broad. Sorry for not being specific enough, I don’t have time to search for it now,
Oh you mean the two shills..the one lady who has volunteers who are ex military, attys,and lawyers..and the paid pensioner Bucani,who was ex Santa ana cop,who founded the company homeland security inc? Your high,your telling me,our govt who is secretly doing military tribunals,and they give the only transcripts to those two,and the zublick guy? Yeah..Bucani had the Davinci boys in his backyard the baby parts sellers and him and his organizations,the cops and his private investigations who get paid to do Israeli cop training in Santa ana california did nothing,and the reward for doing a shotty job on that no brainer was one of three people in the world to disseminate info...that is rich.
Lack of faith makes you one of them,you can not position and then jump to the side that suits your flavor.
You a social media BITCH by your own admission right here,right now.
POS system chuc,FO
I'm in the same boat as that patriot. I'm not switching sides or jumping ships. I'm being carefully optimistic that things are heading in the right direction, but I'm not going to lie to myself that anything tangible has actually changed for us average Americans until something actually happens, like the arrests or tribunals.
I like the idea of shock and awe for Obama, Hillary and Bushes. I think we saw a little of that at Poppie Bushes funeral. Especially Jeb. But our sleeping fellow citizens need to be conditioned. Ours is a movement of unity and care. Our goal is to free the masses not put them in the psych ward.
Have you ever listened to Gowdy speak? He likes to use fancy words. Tribunal is often used to describe a normal court type setting. It's like calling a lawyer a 'counsellor'.
That doesn't change anything about honoleelu's post. Gowdy likes to throw in uncommon terms, and tribunals is another way to reference a hearing.
Believe what you want. Member when arrests were supposed to happen before midterms? Member when arrests were supposed to happen after midterms? Member when arrests were supposed to happen on Jan. 1? Almost March now, and you guys are still falling for the kick the can down the road excuses.
You're lying. Either that, or you just started following this Q stuff this week. People were hyping the arrests huge before midterms, and Jan. 1, and all of last year, basically.
Here's the same mass arrest fantasy being peddled in 2012... same storyline... military involvement, EAS messages, even called it 'the plan'. Didn't happen then, aint happenin now.
Same dude that pushed it in 2012 is pushing it in 2019... he get's paid whether they happen or not.
No, you just employ false logic. Just because you can find a link where someone prophesized that arrests were going to happen by a certain date doesn't mean everyone was expecting that result. You know how many predictions I could show you that Trump would not make it through the first year, or that he would be impeached or that he would fire Mueller.....
Makes perfect sense for a Q follower to write a completely meaningless post, criticizing someone about wasting time. That's the mentality that keeps shams like this afloat for many years.
Also, you have almost 3x as many comments as I do, and your account is younger than mine.
Maybe you are missing the point of the Overton Window. See, usage of the word Tribunal in a mundane sense, gets people used to the idea of Tribunals. It's like getting your feet wet before jumping into the pool. When Military Tribunals hit, the public will remember the relationship to the mundane. So it won't be such a big deal, and it will smooth over after the figurative executions. It's just a "court of law", right? :)
Indoctrination like what the Cabal media has been doing to Trump, the deplorable state and half of the country every day for 2+ years?
Normalizing violence against us?
Yes, that is exactly what we are doing back. Sad that we have to go back and normalizes law and order after the rogue clowns created a two tier justice system with HW, Billy, W and Hussein.
Deplorable Rach ⭐️⭐️⭐️ on Twitter: "Woah! Trey Gowdy just referenced Tribunals! “Depends on wether tribunals are willing to do what Johnny (John Ratcliff) just did”… t.co/dSMzHNu7gX"
DavidGydeon ago
You are confusing MILITARY TRIBUNALS with regular, everyday "court tribunals"....fail.
KarlKastner ago
You are not reading the other comments. Thus thinking that you're original. And not knowing my response.
jesus_is_lord ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oiBPhoYskY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFGWBnrMq4s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNkzJPnPAqs
MuckeyDuck ago
Not saying he did not mean MT but all he said was T. Words have meaning, and if you say something that is not true, you lose credibility.
KarlKastner ago
Since you want to play semantics, I didn't "say" anything. So your statement lost credibility right? See how that work? I didn't write "Trey" Gowdy. How do you know I was refereing to this clip. Maybe I was referring to an old clip from Curt.
Finally, did I "say" anything that was not true? You don't know either way. Just because Gowdy said a word doesn't necessarily make it true. Or false. You have to think for yourself. Part of that process is considering the context. Do you think Maria has Gowdy on to discuss a divorce "tribunal". A tax evasion "tribunal"?
Maybe I'm misinterpreting the meaning behind his grin or smirk. It is there. What does it mean? We interpret things using subject matter, context, facial expressions...constantly. What is your interpretatIon of the statement of the clip? A few others seem to agree with my takeaway.
MuckeyDuck ago
The very title of your post is, "It's Happening! Gowdy just mentioned military tribunals!" Gowdy never mentioned MILITARY TRIBUNALS! He mentioned Tribunals. The Noun Tribunal does not need Adjective Military or Divorce, or Tax to qualify it for it to have meaning. Gowdy said Tribunal. He could have been referring to any Court . He could have used the word Tribunal to mean Military Tribunal, but that is not what you said. You said he MENTIONED Military Tribunal.
Mentioned - to refer briefly to; name, specify, or speak of: Gowdy clearly did not refer briefly to, name, specify, or speak the word Military Tribunal. Quite trying to defend an idiotic position.
Revel4ti0n ago
Stop with the it’s happening. The same will happen if you always cry help. In the End no one will pay attention.
It’s not happening directly what are arrests.... it is happening the whole rime. This is the preparation phase for normies..
Think like a chess player...
KarlKastner ago
I play chess well. And employ logic well. The majority of the game is to envision where the current position is leading, then how to steer it to the desired outcome. Innumerable future positions are happening. The more and further out you can consider them, the better you can play. Just because you're not in check, don't feel secure that nothing's happening.
A multitide of things ARE happening. I didn't claim arrests were happening. I didn't claim tribunals were underway. YOU read meaning into my statement that wasn't there, then declared it false. My statement: "Gowdy just mentioned military tribunals." That really happened.
READ, with comprehension.
Now you can quarrel with my inclusion of the adjective "military" See my other responses for that.
Q uses the phrase "nothing is happening"? all the time. This implies something IS happening. He doesn't state specifically what though. Think Q can't think like a chess player?
When we hear "tribunals" from a second congressman(Graham), I believe something is happening.
When governments across the world are rejecting globalism, I believe something is happening.
When BILLIONAIRES are being arrested for human trafficking related offenses...
Etc, etc, etc
But I could be all wrong. Please let me know when something actually is happening.
scoripowarrior ago
Who is this Johnny Radcliff he refers to?
KarlKastner ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ratcliffe_(American_politician)
Another lawyer. He's a Patriot iny estimation.
Stoolstomper14 ago
How about we get rid of affirmative action?
If shitskins and women are so equal, why cant I start an all white guy company?
PacaGoat ago
Watch and see if this trends and other pols use the term. If so, then headsup.
Phantom42 ago
Hey guys! Watch this!
"Chemtrails."
IT'S HAPPENING! PHANTOM42 JUST MENTIONED CHEMTRAILS!
fuckingawesomePOTUS ago
I see no grin and he didn't say Military.
Fake and Gay.
KarlKastner ago
The grin is fairly obvious. Has he ever said tribunals in any other context? Has anyone in the last two years, other than Graham-Kavanaugh?
StormRider9090 ago
Interesting that Gowdy ran a million miles immediately after seeing the evidence behind the Nunes memo - rats deserting a sinking ship.
Tallest_Skil ago
KILL. YOURSELVES. YOU FUCKING RETARDED JEWISH SHILLS.
KarlKastner ago
Thanks for shopping at VOAT Great Awakening.
Now go back to sleep, sheep.
Tallest_Skil ago
Kill yourself immediately, you subhuman coward. Answer my questions about your god.
Establishing legitimacy
Let’s talk about statistics. Let’s talk about the concept itself. Q-level clearance exists within the Department of Energy. What the fuck does that have to do with anything regarding the court system? What the fuck does that have to do with anything Q-LARP has claimed it knows? Look at the number of people who have Q-level clearance. All none of them. What’s the likelihood that any of them are committing an executable offense by posting on a fucking imageboard? Look at the posts. Why don’t they say anything? Someone that important–if it actually has knowledge he wants to disseminate–is also not going to type cryptic bullshit. It’s also not going to ask questions that it doesn’t answer. The sum total of Q-LARP is an exercise in postdiction. Everything it has said is too vague to actually mean anything. It never says anything of any value or specificity. A combination of pareidolia, confirmation bias, and apophenia does the rest. PEOPLE ARE LOST. THEY ARE BROKEN. THEY FEEL WORTHLESS AND WEAK AND POWERLESS. WHAT BETTER WAY TO PREY ON THEM THAN TO CONTROL THE OPPOSITION? They won’t fucking question you if you can trick them this way.
Establishing trustworthiness
Someone that important is, statistically, owned by jews. It’s just that simple. In fact, Q-LARP is entirely owned by jews. It admits it. It openly admits to being civic nationalist. It doesn’t support a restoration of the US or Europe to being white-only nations. It doesn’t support deportation of nonwhites. Since the first week, it has called for protection of nonwhites, from the whites who would see them deported/killed. It openly calls for regime change in Iran for the sole purpose of fulfilling the Oded Yinon Plan. Q-LARP has publicly stated it has no intention of removing jews from the West or punishing jews collectively.
Establishing realism
What purpose is served by leaking the proceedings of nationwide martial law and the arrest of three quarters of the US government… AN ENTIRE YEAR early? Why is that helpful to anyone except the people toward whom it is supposedly directed? Oh, and why has it taken so long? An entire year of waiting is an entire year to prepare. You realize that even the group that Q-LARP talks about is one of the highest flight risks on earth, right? Why would anyone want to give them time to escape? How does that help us? It doesn’t. It helps THEM. It helps them so much that it hurts us. This is on purpose. Q-LARP exists to create an Orwellian narrative about “the bad people being arrested”, so that when all the good people are arrested they will say that good people are bad people, and the stupid Q-LARPing masses will simply believe it and help commit their own genocide. We’ve already seen this for 70 years. Why do you think it isn’t continuing?
Why would someone ostensibly leaking the proceedings not actually leak any information? Why would someone who claims to be on our side not give us a playbook for how to operate during the event? Why isn’t it telling us how to become leaders of our community to calm the terrified millions around us–who will inevitably exist once the media starts reporting on the “Trump coup”, or when they see their favorite media reporters arrested by the military live on air? Why is Q-LARP a civic nationalist? How does that help America? How is Trump is magically insulated during what will be painted internationally as a soft coup? Why would the apparatus allow him to engage in this coup to the extent that he would actually be protected? Why does the coup–by Q-LARP’s own admission–not cover the actual PROBLEMS facing this country? Everything Q-LARP has said points to the action as being “Part A of the ZOG wants to get rid of Part B of the ZOG.”
Establishing results
If there is something, why is nothing Q-LARP said would happen happening? Where’s the Emergency Broadcast System announcement? Where’s Trump using Obama’s emergency television override to speak to the people? Where’s the martial law? Where are the riots it talked about? Antifa couldn’t even get off their asses for a completely unrelated outing. Where’s the Huma arrest? Where are the Podesta arrests? They were supposed to be in custody by now; no one has any information on that beyond your continued shilling campaign.
Establishing psychology
Already touched on this at the end of the first section. So Q-LARP’s going to arrest most of the US government, right? All the bad people going away. And what’s this? It says that WE won’t have to grab our guns and help out? Why, that’s exactly what we would want! Happy day! All of our dreams are coming true, and we didn’t even have to put in an ounce of work ourselves! Hooray! It’s over! We’re saved! Don’t ever question the validity of these claims! Just spend A YEAR ignoring everything else that is ACTUALLY happening in the news, never mind your own wildly successful campaign of “It’s okay to be white.” Because nothing ever came from YOU doing an honest day’s work!
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH. THE ZOG WILL NOT ARREST THE ZOG. ANYONE WHO TELLS YOU TO SIT ON YOUR ASS AND DO NOTHING IS NOT ONLY LYING TO YOU, HE IS A JEWISH SHILL.
Explain your reason for believing otherwise.
Establishing inconsistencies
KarlKastner ago
Take your time. But whenever you get a chance....FO.
Tallest_Skil ago
You were proven wrong. Your LARP is a hoax. Trump is owned by jews. NO ONE IS COMING TO SAVE YOU. WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER MY QUESTIONS, COWARD?
KarlKastner ago
Damn. I didn't realize it had been proven wrong. My bad.
As for why I don't take the time to answer your question: One of us is employed.
Tallest_Skil ago
You were proven wrong. Your LARP is a hoax. Trump is owned by jews. NO ONE IS COMING TO SAVE YOU.
WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER MY QUESTIONS, COWARD? IF YOUR GOD IS REAL, SURELY YOU CAN PROVE IT. IF YOU'VE BEEN FOLLOWING IT FOR A YEAR AND A HALF, SURELY YOU CAN GIVE A REASON WHY.
KarlKastner ago
I could give a hundred reasons.
Tallest_Skil ago
So many reasons that
YOU MAGICALLY CANNOT LIST A SINGLE ONE OF THEM. AT ALL.
KarlKastner ago
Here's one: The mere existence of schills such as yourself, on a Q board no less, desperately trying to discredit Q.
Tallest_Skil ago
Not an argument. You were proven wrong. Your LARP is a hoax. Trump is owned by jews. NO ONE IS COMING TO SAVE YOU.
WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER MY QUESTIONS, COWARD? IF YOUR GOD IS REAL, SURELY YOU CAN PROVE IT. IF YOU'VE BEEN FOLLOWING IT FOR A YEAR AND A HALF, SURELY YOU CAN GIVE A REASON WHY.
Hastur77 ago
[–] KarlKastner [S] 0 points (+0|-0) 2.2 hours ago Thanks for shopping at VOAT Great Awakening.
Now go back to sleep, sheep.
link parent reply ...
[–] Tallest_Skil -1 points (+0|-1) 2.2 hours ago
prepared statement?
Tallest_Skil ago
Broken reply?
Phillylotus ago
Watched it live... Thought the same thing! Deliberate. Exciting...
pby1000 ago
What is wrong with the video? His face looks different.
brettco12 ago
that's what I thought. losing hair?
Truther65 ago
Remember he is now a Fox News Contributor. Makeup.
QisforQuakery ago
Nothing is happening. Not regarding military tribunals
KarlKastner ago
Your profile name says it all. And you really can't spell quackery?
Qisforquackery ago
Sez who?
RedMower ago
Trey looks like the Banjo player on the porch in the movie Deliverance.
KarlKastner ago
Where is the law?
DawnPendraig ago
What is the most interesting is people looking for clips from Maria Bartiromo's show show say they cannot find this full clip. It always cuts before he says tribunals to a shot of Pompeo.
AmericanVictory ago
In the context of national security issues and TREASON, use of the word "tribunal" CLEARLY refers to military legal proceedings. He didn't say hearings, Congressional committees, interviews or trials. I am amazed that conservatives can find something so petty to argue against fellow patriots about! Miss America Fist has some very outstanding characteristics (I salute her photo), but she still doesn't get a pass for missing the boat on this one. Most of us know that the tribunals are already in play . . . does she NOT? No matter. She an others appear to have forgotten that WWG1WGA!
MuckeyDuck ago
Congressional Committees are Investigatory bodies not Tribunals is what your saying and I agree. Those seated in CC are not Judges, or Magistrates. Tribunal is defined as:
1) a court of justice.
2) a place or seat of judgment.
honoleeelu ago
Have you ever listened to Gowdy speak? He likes to use fancy words. Tribunal is often used to describe a normal court type setting. It's like calling a lawyer a 'counsellor'.
https://i.imgur.com/27ftarV.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tribunals_in_the_United_States
summerstormAK ago
Gowdy is a prosecutor. Prosecutors use their words extremely carefully, especially this prosecutor. The use of "tribunal" was intentional. Boy, do I hope he's involved in the tribunals as a prosecutor...
honoleeelu ago
Gowdy is exactly the type of person who would use the word 'tribunal' to describe a congressional hearing. Believe what you want.
KarlKastner ago
Ok. So it should be easy for yyou to find another clip where he has used that word before. Please report back with a link.
honoleeelu ago
That wouldn't prove anything. The point is that Gowdy likes to use fancy words, and 'tribunal' is an accurate name for a congressional hearing.
In context, he was complaining about the 5 minute limit of recent congressional hearings, and was saying they should have unlimited time, like other congressional hearings that he was referencing.
QisforQuakery ago
They are not. They are clearly illegal for virtually all domestic crimes. For a civilian to be tried by military tribunals, they pretty much have to be on a battlefield.
The Universal Code of Military Justice spells out who is subject to it, and the cases where it applies to civilians are highly limited.
KarlKastner ago
Please review the Graham-Kavanaugh exchange at the confirmation hearing.
QisforQuakery ago
OK. Please review Graham asking the same question to both Kagan and Sotormayor.
He likes that question.
Revised ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uJXFgL-wa0
Go to 26:55 in the video.
Selling uranium to Russia would certainly fit the bill.
QisforQuakery ago
Go look at the Sotomayor confrimation or the Kagan confirmation he asked the same thing.
You have no clue what you are talking about vis a vis Uranium One. Zero crimes were committed and the guy who brought Uranium One into the political discussion had to admit that several times. And Russia gets no uranium from those mines in Wyoming because Uranium One does not have a license to transport or export uranium. All they have is a license to mine uranium. Then they have to transfer control of the uranium someone else. At the time of transfer, less than 1% of that uranium is U-235, the stuff you want. It's no where near fuel for a nuclear plant, let alone a bomb. It basically sounds really scary until you learn the slighest bit about the uranium industry. It's not scary. It poses no threat to US national security which is why the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and agencies throughout of the government include Defense and the Intel Community signed off on the deal.
Treason, espionage and terrorism are routinely tried in civil courts. No need to hold a military tribunal and Lindsay Graham gets no say in the matter.
GodsAngell ago
WRONG! Attempting to over throw a duly elected President, constitutes the status of an "ENEMY COMBATANT". The "battle field" is all over the USA and all over lame stream media. POTUS has CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to round up Enemy Combatants and try them in Military Tribunals.
QisforQuakery ago
Nope. That's sedition or insurrection. Both are federal crimes and can be tried in federal court. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115
Do you think you're just going to goober out this with your gobbledygook? You think you're going to win a debate on the law, by just making shit up?
Yeah, Troops go to Guantanamo and Troops come out. They rotate in and out alllll the time. Done so for forever.
The big item for Guantanamo is a troops barracks, and it specifically notes it's not building a new prison there. Don't see how this changes anything.
Did you notice this article does not support your argument, it being explicitly about unlawful combatants captured overseas and it quotes Trump as saying
Graham asked Sotormayor and Kagan about enemy combatants as well, this is not new.
The end result: It's still illegal to us military tribunals for virtually all domestic crimes.
Muntanolva ago
Not true since 9/11.
QisforQuakery ago
Absolutely false. Here's the current law https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/802
last change to it was about 2007.
Muntanolva ago
This is a military order.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/pdf/Detention_JNSL&P.pdf
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/presidents-constitution/military-tribunals/
https://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/renzo.pdf
QisforQuakery ago
None of those links work against my argument an enemy combatant is not someone committed a civilian crime. There are covered in a different section of the Universal Code of Military Justice.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/948a#7 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/948c https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/948b
I think a lot of people simply are misunderstanding what an unlawful combatant is. The UCMJ refers to these as unprivileged enemy belligerent and defines them as
The word hostilities is key
This is not a domestic crime. This is hostilities on a battlefield.
Muntanolva ago
You said domestic crime.
If you think I’m just arguing for the sake of arguing, I don’t care.
The point is, civillians can be tried in a military tribunal for simply being labeled an “enemy combatant,” whether they are a US Citizen or not. It can, and has, happened.
QisforQuakery ago
No I very much know that terrorism can domestic. Terrorists are routinely tried in civilian courts. (Which is the kind of the point I keep trying to make) The ISIS terrorist who in 2017 committed the deadliest attack since 9/11 was tried in Federal Court. As were the terrorist from first 9/11 attack and Timonthy McVeigh.
The reason for my imprecision on which crimes the UCMJ applies to is I'm trying to just to stick to the law and not the silly idea that there is a raft of people who are going to be charged with crimes. But basically, unless you are in the military, have been in the military, a military contractor or took up weapons against the United States, you ain't going to GITMO.
Because they are the same and UEB is the language used in the UCMJ. From Wiki
Hostilities has a long standing legal definition. It's part of the Law of War, it's part of the Geneva Conventions. In fact, a combatant is defined in the Geneva Convention as someone who has the right to particpate in direct hostilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hostility
HOSTILITY. A state of open enmity; open war.
No. They absolutely cannot. People keep making this argument over and over and it's simply false. There's a very, very specific legal definition of what an enemy combatant is. I'll go beyond my "pretty much" comment and use the exact language used in the Universal Code of Military Justice that I linked to above.
So unless you meet the three criteria above or are you are member of the military or retired military or a military contractor serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field during a time of war, are a member of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration assigned to the Military, or any of the other folks here http://www.ucmj.us/sub-chapter-1-general-provisions/802-article-2-persons-subject-to-this-chapter you are not going before a military tribunal.
Here's the TL/DR Are civilians sometimes subject to the UCMJ? Yes.
How often does this occur? Exceedingly rarely. More than 99.99% of civilian criminals have nothing to worry about with regards to the UCMJ.
Is the military going to swoop in and scoop up Donald Trump's political enemies and snatch them away to Gitmo? No. Of course not.
Muntanolva ago
You’re still basing your entire argument off the premise that “hostilities” somehow can’t be civillians and you aren’t making it clear how that is so. I see nothing indicating that a civilian cannot meet the criteria. The language uses “OR” not “AND,” you only need to meet one criteria. You’ve presented nothing saying a civilian can’t meet one of those criteria and be labeled an enemy combatant.
You keep saying “no, citizens can’t be tried in tribunal by being labeled enemy combatant,” and then go on to list criteria that is not at all excluding of citizens in any of its language or definitions.
QisforQuakery ago
You are missing my point. People are making the argument that people whose crime is treason or child trafficking or sedition or terrorism can tried at GITMO just by labelling them an enemy combatant and that is false.
I am not saying civilians cannot be enemy combatants, but the fact is this designation doesn't apply to vast majority of domestic crimes. Child trafficking doesn't get you to GITMO
The theory is the changes made to the UCMJ which went into effect Jan 1 will allow for Trump to use the military to make a mass sweep of arrests within the US and send tens of thousands of people to GITMO for domestic crimes -- there are suppossedly 70,000 sealed indictments just waiting to be unsealed. This theory is bullshit because nothing changed on Jan 1 with regards to who is subject to the Universal Code of Military Justice.
Here's an example of what I am arguing against
https://voat.co/v/GreatAwakening/2899192
Muntanolva ago
Ok I understand you now. I believe we were both misunderstand each other’s points. I totally agree that those crimes won’t lead to military tribunals. It’s going to be more the proponents of cultural Marxism, those actually working with foreign entities to destroy America. Of course they’re guilty of other civillian crimes, but those won’t be what leads to the tribunals. I believe we’re in agreement.
CTCZ ago
Read Trumps executive order
Qisforquackery ago
Trump's executive order is based on a law signed by Obama in 2016. Neither changed who is subject to the Universal Code of Military Justice which was last changed in like 2007
Here's an article about the changes
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.army.mil/article-amp/205545/changes_to_ucmj_military_justice_act_of_2016_brings_about_training
Here's the current law https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/802
Muntanolva ago
Bush changed it after 9/11 to include civillians under certain suspicions, one of which is pretty broad. Sorry for not being specific enough, I don’t have time to search for it now,
StormRider9090 ago
I read it and it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Boyakasha ago
I’ll believe it when it happens.
elitch2 ago
Trust the plan!
WAGAWAGAWAGA!!!!
progressbin ago
I live just four miles from there!!! I almost feel like this is a message directed at ME!
Boyakasha ago
Q predicted this!!
fogdryer ago
C vine has the current transcripts
Fetalpig ago
Oh you mean the two shills..the one lady who has volunteers who are ex military, attys,and lawyers..and the paid pensioner Bucani,who was ex Santa ana cop,who founded the company homeland security inc? Your high,your telling me,our govt who is secretly doing military tribunals,and they give the only transcripts to those two,and the zublick guy? Yeah..Bucani had the Davinci boys in his backyard the baby parts sellers and him and his organizations,the cops and his private investigations who get paid to do Israeli cop training in Santa ana california did nothing,and the reward for doing a shotty job on that no brainer was one of three people in the world to disseminate info...that is rich.
MagicalMan5000 ago
This is the best policy. Having faith in a system that repeatedly tricks you is simply niave. Be cautious.
TexasInfidel ago
Lack of faith makes you one of them,you can not position and then jump to the side that suits your flavor. You a social media BITCH by your own admission right here,right now. POS system chuc,FO
noxiousnick ago
I'm in the same boat as that patriot. I'm not switching sides or jumping ships. I'm being carefully optimistic that things are heading in the right direction, but I'm not going to lie to myself that anything tangible has actually changed for us average Americans until something actually happens, like the arrests or tribunals.
TexasInfidel ago
Your almost right,roll back your expectations a notch and you should be good No time for popcorn for sure, leave that for the FB chuck's
TexasInfidel ago
You aw mortal Gods will, WILL BE DONE. Pretty simple , , , , , ,
AtlasJove ago
Always giving the benefit of doubt; Never losing suspicion.
Ddboomer ago
It’s happening.
StormRider9090 ago
Any day now, Patriot!
Ddboomer ago
There is much that we just don’t see.....
Blacksmith21 ago
And now it's back. I wonder if Q team as some magic tricks up their sleeves.
rickki6 ago
Oh man !
Rhondaher ago
Sounds like they are getting the public used to the idea of Tribunals
Phantom42 ago
Loses the effect of shock and awe. No time or reason for that.
Rhondaher ago
I like the idea of shock and awe for Obama, Hillary and Bushes. I think we saw a little of that at Poppie Bushes funeral. Especially Jeb. But our sleeping fellow citizens need to be conditioned. Ours is a movement of unity and care. Our goal is to free the masses not put them in the psych ward.
DickTick ago
Well thank God you seem to know the nuances of every single piece of this entire world wide operation.......
Blacksmith21 ago
User already deleted.
showbobandvagene ago
Wut? That clip doesnt mention Military Tribunals. He says tribunal, Which is a very different thing than a military Tribunal.
MuckeyDuck ago
Not necessarily. Military is to Tribunal as Oak is to Tree. I can refer to a tree it does not exclude that I am actually talking about Oak Trees.
honoleeelu ago
Correct.
https://voat.co/v/GreatAwakening/3058360/16996687
Ddboomer ago
No, it is NOT!!
KarlKastner ago
What kind of other tribunal were you thinking of?
showbobandvagene ago
An ordinary civillian Tribunal, Every single court case in history is a tribunal, All of them. look it up in the dictionary.
toutedesuite ago
🤣😂🤣😂
BeerYoda ago
Dude, why are you stretching so much? Who the hell uses that word in the context you’re stating? Nobody. Ever.
magavoices ago
Lawyers do.
I wonder if Trey is a lawyer.
KarlKastner ago
And yet NO ONE uses that word to refer to an ordinary court case in everyday conversation.
I'll take context over semantics.
honoleeelu ago
Have you ever listened to Gowdy speak? He likes to use fancy words. Tribunal is often used to describe a normal court type setting. It's like calling a lawyer a 'counsellor'.
https://i.imgur.com/27ftarV.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tribunals_in_the_United_States
KarlKastner ago
And yet in watching him for the last two years, I've never heard him use the word.
awaymay45 ago
That doesn't change anything about honoleelu's post. Gowdy likes to throw in uncommon terms, and tribunals is another way to reference a hearing.
Believe what you want. Member when arrests were supposed to happen before midterms? Member when arrests were supposed to happen after midterms? Member when arrests were supposed to happen on Jan. 1? Almost March now, and you guys are still falling for the kick the can down the road excuses.
KarlKastner ago
No I don't remember when any date for arrests was ever given, nor by whom.
awaymay45 ago
You're lying. Either that, or you just started following this Q stuff this week. People were hyping the arrests huge before midterms, and Jan. 1, and all of last year, basically.
Here's the same mass arrest fantasy being peddled in 2012... same storyline... military involvement, EAS messages, even called it 'the plan'. Didn't happen then, aint happenin now.
Same dude that pushed it in 2012 is pushing it in 2019... he get's paid whether they happen or not.
https://divinecosmos.com/davids-blog/1043-massarrests/
KarlKastner ago
No, you just employ false logic. Just because you can find a link where someone prophesized that arrests were going to happen by a certain date doesn't mean everyone was expecting that result. You know how many predictions I could show you that Trump would not make it through the first year, or that he would be impeached or that he would fire Mueller.....
awaymay45 ago
I never said everyone was expecting that result. You said you didn't remember when any dates were given, nor by whom. I said I highly doubt that.
Keep following the 4 chan fortune teller ghost. I'm sure it will work out well for you.
KarlKastner ago
You seem to enjoy wasting your time. Since I doubt you are retired, my guess is unemployed.
awaymay45 ago
Makes perfect sense for a Q follower to write a completely meaningless post, criticizing someone about wasting time. That's the mentality that keeps shams like this afloat for many years.
Also, you have almost 3x as many comments as I do, and your account is younger than mine.
sinclair ago
Maybe you are missing the point of the Overton Window. See, usage of the word Tribunal in a mundane sense, gets people used to the idea of Tribunals. It's like getting your feet wet before jumping into the pool. When Military Tribunals hit, the public will remember the relationship to the mundane. So it won't be such a big deal, and it will smooth over after the figurative executions. It's just a "court of law", right? :)
Qsucks ago
You just described indoctrination. But I bet a Qocksucker like you would know all about that.
sinclair ago
Woah, back up. Don't get personal, just narrating and giving the score.
singlebrain1 ago
guy's a shill. Member for 21 minutes
Cristo316 ago
Indoctrination like what the Cabal media has been doing to Trump, the deplorable state and half of the country every day for 2+ years?
Normalizing violence against us?
Yes, that is exactly what we are doing back. Sad that we have to go back and normalizes law and order after the rogue clowns created a two tier justice system with HW, Billy, W and Hussein.
Sheep NO more
BitChuteArchive ago
https://www.bitchute.com/video/hlkFCr0txSyL
anarchrypt ago
Definitely smirks through it.
sinclair ago
Would you please freeze frame it, and post a link to the image? I'm not seeing it. I want to see it, I'm just not tho.
honoleeelu ago
Watch this, then you will be able to see it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqZQ9KM_LjY
sinclair ago
I already watched it. Please freeze the frame and post an image of the smirk. I can't see it clearly.
awaymay45 ago
You need to watch the video honoleelu posted. It's different than the Gowdy video. After you watch that one, you will be able to see the smirk.
derram ago
https://archive.ph/kMNhn :
This has been an automated message.
Scoundrel ago
Yup, that smirk tho.
hildberht ago
Smirk might be cos he knows its BS and is just getting a rise out of the Q crowd.
Scoundrel ago
Damn you're dumb.
strikefromabove ago
How much did you bet on that?
hildberht ago
Nothing but Gowdy was meant to do a lot but so far.....
I’m just a bit skepticall re him.
Muntanolva ago
Gowdy does fit the bill for controlled opposition. He satisfies our base by “chewing out” Democrats, but that’s really all that he’s ever done.
Paladin_Diver ago
He certainly hasn't earned our trust as of yet.