This is an old post now, but I wanted to follow up and essentially re-ask my question. I asked this:
Can you elaborate on just how this works, for say, Obama or Gates? If Obama were arrested, what does 'must remain active' mean? Are you saying Obama has been arrested but is being coerced into 'playing along' so as to prevent enemy countries from taking advantage? How about Gates? Are you suggesting they are being blackmailed?
Today, I caught an ad on TV for an interview with Obama about his new presidential library / museum. So here we have a situation were Obama is going on mainstream TV (Good Morning America, I think it was) to talk about his library, his legacy, etc. Is this consistent with your idea of him being 'arrested'? To me, he's doing what any ex-president does - make appearances. He also spoke out in favor of Newsom as part of the California recall. These don't sound consistent to me with being 'arrested', even in an abstract sense.
Thanks for the reply, but I'm still not understanding. Are you saying that Obama himself was actually arrested, then ... what ... blackmailed while in custody (shown pictures/documents, etc), and then released into the wild again (so normies don't get concerned), with VERY specific instructions as to how he must behave ("do what we say or we'll release info ...")? So for example, Obama appeared in TV ads recently in support of Newsom in California, speaking aggressively against Trump and in support of Newsom. Was that 'allowed' under the terms of his arrest/release? Similarly, Bill Gates has appeared numerous times in the media, saying pretty much what he's always said about vaccines, viruses, etc.
So my general conclusion is, these people are 'doing what they've always done', and that doesn't seem to meet the definition for being 'arrested' or 'suppressed'.
This is an old post now, but I wanted to follow up and essentially re-ask my question. I asked this:
Today, I caught an ad on TV for an interview with Obama about his new presidential library / museum. So here we have a situation were Obama is going on mainstream TV (Good Morning America, I think it was) to talk about his library, his legacy, etc. Is this consistent with your idea of him being 'arrested'? To me, he's doing what any ex-president does - make appearances. He also spoke out in favor of Newsom as part of the California recall. These don't sound consistent to me with being 'arrested', even in an abstract sense.
Thanks for the reply, but I'm still not understanding. Are you saying that Obama himself was actually arrested, then ... what ... blackmailed while in custody (shown pictures/documents, etc), and then released into the wild again (so normies don't get concerned), with VERY specific instructions as to how he must behave ("do what we say or we'll release info ...")? So for example, Obama appeared in TV ads recently in support of Newsom in California, speaking aggressively against Trump and in support of Newsom. Was that 'allowed' under the terms of his arrest/release? Similarly, Bill Gates has appeared numerous times in the media, saying pretty much what he's always said about vaccines, viruses, etc.
So my general conclusion is, these people are 'doing what they've always done', and that doesn't seem to meet the definition for being 'arrested' or 'suppressed'.