146981635
Hillary Clinton will be arrested between 7:45 AM - 8:30 AM EST on Monday - the morning on Oct 30, 2017.
Q
HRC extradition already in motion effective yesterday with several countries in case of cross border run. Passport approved to be flagged effective 10/30 @ 12:01am. Expect massive riots organized in defiance and others fleeing the US to occur. US M’s will conduct the operation while NG activated. Proof check: Locate a NG member and ask if activated for duty 10/30 across most major cities.
Q does not say "10/30/17", Q says "10/30". That could mean 2017, 2018, 2050. "Yesterday" in Q speak could literally mean anything. Implicitly I would take this to mean 10/30/17 because it is in response to a different statement about that date, however, that is NOT "explicit", that is "implicit".
Regardless of that clarification, how do you know she wasn't arrested then? Just because we've seen her, doesn't mean she wasn't arrested and controlled. And in truth, I have no idea what I've seen.
I've seen real masks of people (I don't mean Biden, I mean in general, I know they exist and are convincing as fuck), I've seen deepfakes so convincing there is literally no way to know. I've seen HRC doubles that I am about 99% sure have been used at major events. I've seen evidence of coercive control structures in place for the enemy. "Controlled Opposition" doesn't just work for one side. It could be that we have seen her, but she was under complete control, being a good little puppet for team Patriot.
The point is, there is no reason to believe that Q has lied that I have seen. Suspect? Sure, absolutely. I am suspicious, but I have yet to see evidence of an actual Q falsehood that meets a standard of "preponderance of the evidence" much less, "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Not Q
Q
Q does not say "10/30/17", Q says "10/30". That could mean 2017, 2018, 2050. "Yesterday" in Q speak could literally mean anything. Implicitly I would take this to mean 10/30/17 because it is in response to a different statement about that date, however, that is NOT "explicit", that is "implicit".
Regardless of that clarification, how do you know she wasn't arrested then? Just because we've seen her, doesn't mean she wasn't arrested and controlled. And in truth, I have no idea what I've seen.
I've seen real masks of people (I don't mean Biden, I mean in general, I know they exist and are convincing as fuck), I've seen deepfakes so convincing there is literally no way to know. I've seen HRC doubles that I am about 99% sure have been used at major events. I've seen evidence of coercive control structures in place for the enemy. "Controlled Opposition" doesn't just work for one side. It could be that we have seen her, but she was under complete control, being a good little puppet for team Patriot.
The point is, there is no reason to believe that Q has lied that I have seen. Suspect? Sure, absolutely. I am suspicious, but I have yet to see evidence of an actual Q falsehood that meets a standard of "preponderance of the evidence" much less, "beyond a reasonable doubt".