I see many anons harshing on Bret Baier. Let me explain something that will pull it together for you. - The Great Awakening

I see many anons harshing on Bret Baier. Let me explain something that will pull it together for you. 🤔💭 Theory 😲💡

posted 37 days ago by jhartz39 37 days ago by jhartz39 +190 / -3

Q told us the military was the only way. Dave from X22 has told us a thousand times, the military is the only way. When you think about the vast number of evil entities attempting to destroy the USA, (MSM, 3 letter agencies, corporations, social media, Zionist, Marxist, Globalist, UN, WEF, ect), can you understand why the military was the only way?

However, the Posse Comitatus Act bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement on American soil.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/posse-comitatus-act-explained

Certain laws had to be lifted to allow the military the authority to conduct operations on domestic soil. The Insurrection Act is what gave the military the authority.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807

Trump needed a coup or a Insurrection to sign the Insurrection Act. Trump could not get the military and military intelligence participation if he WON the election.

Military intelligence takes over control of 3 letter agencies after the Insurrection Act is signed. The prerequisite to signing the Insurrection Act had to be a stolen election.

Bret Baier participated in the Democrat Insurrection but you have to ask yourself if he was instructed to call the Arizona election results before the votes were countend. Who instructed him?

I said earlier, Bret was a well respected conservative journalist before calling the Arizona election. Calling the election early for Biden would almost guarantee Trump the ability to engage the military.

Given the way he grilled Kamala couple days ago tells me he has been working within the Democrat party as a counter insurgent.

You must read Q post 14, 22, 23, 28 and 34. Q tells you what was going to happen, before it happened.

Have a good day!

78 comments

78 comments share save hide report block hide replies

To The Great Awakening

We are researchers who deal in open-source information, reasoned argument, and dank memes. We do battle in the sphere of ideas and ideas only. We neither need nor condone the use of force in our work here. WE ARE THE PUBLIC FACE OF Q. OUR MISSION IS TO RED-PILL NORMIES.

This is a pro-Q community. Please read and respect our rules below before contributing.

WHY Q?

"Those who cannot understand that we cannot simply start arresting w/o first: ensuring the safety & well-being of the population shifting the narrative removing those in DC through resignation to ensure success defeating ISIS/MS13 to prevent fail-safes freezing assets to remove network-to-network abilities kill off COC to prevent top-down comms/org, etc. etc. should not be participating in discussions." Q

Comments (78)

sorted by:

▲ 5 ▼

– Karmlik 5 points 37 days ago +5 / -0

I didn't see that. I saw her trying to control the conversation by not answering yet continuing to talk. He would have to interrupt just to get a question in.

permalink parent save report block reply

– killerspacerobot 5 points 37 days ago +5 / -0

I definitely agree. The interviewer is obliged to ask clear questions. The interviewee is obliged to give clear answers. If the Interviewee veers off on some tangent, the interviewer has the right (and responsibility) to get the interviewee back on topic. How can you "interrupt" a non-answer? Time was fleeting and the interview had already been pre-emptively cut in half.

▲ 2 ▼

– ZerroDefex 2 points 37 days ago +2 / -0

Yep it was especially obvious when she kept rambling on over him that she was trying to give the answers being fed to her via earpiece but he wasn't letting her do so.