Would it not be fair to start a thread about the C's misses as well, to discuss and trace the accuracy of the information coming through?
The C's said that the chances for Trump to win were pretty good and that he would institute martial law for a brief time after the election, but I think we can say with some confidence that this is unlikely to happen at this point?
I think, the C's answers follow a very precise flow of logic. Just like
logical electric circuits in school. Often a participant answers a question, which the reader mistakes for the C's answer: (my comments are in blue)
Session 10 October 2020:
Q: (L) Okay, here's the $64,000 question:
Is Trump going to win the election?
*{this is question "A" to the C's, which remains "on hold" to be answered, when others jump into the conversation:}
(Joe) We asked that last time!
(Andromeda) They said yes.
(Joe) They said there's a very good chance.
(L) Are his chances getting better?
*{This is question "B": another active query "on hold"}
A: Yes
*{Question "A" OR "B" has been answered.
If this was a yes to Question "B":
"(L) Are his chances getting better?"
that is still perfectly valid! For example if Trump had a 25% chance of winning 4 months before the session and now at the time of the session his chances improved to 35%, this perfectly means a valid mathematical yes to: "his chances getting better." }
Q: (Joe) How likely is it that there will be some major public chaos or civil chaos if Trump wins?
A: Very likely and will lead to martial law.
{Trump won the election. For us, its normal to assume that he remains in the Oval Office then, yes? But the Deep State steps in, turns the country upside-down and kicks Biden into Trumps rightful place. So Biden showed in to become prez, but patriots get very angry about the Steal, so "there will be some major public chaos or civil chaos". Which the C's answered.
Nobody asked if Trump remains in office after he wins the election, because normally a US president goes to the Oval Office if he wins.. in an "Old Normal" world, to which we were accustomed. That was the lesson for us here.}
Q: (Joe) Imposed by Trump.
(Pierre) Yeah.
(Joe) So he's going to fulfill the role that they have given him of dictator! But is a lot of the chaos...
{These are the participants discussing the topic, not the C's answering.}
(L)
One suspects that it may have been planned that way: he's being driven into the corner by all of the events in order to do what they want him to do.
{I underlined what the C's, I think, chose to answer with a perfectly logically valid "Yes" below. They must observe the Law of Free Will. Also the rest here of what Laura says, lines up perfectly with the C's (logically valid and preserving Free Will) Yes answer. Read back what was said. }
A: Yes
Joe and Pierre said that, not the C’s.
Exactly! Thank You!
Whenever there is the "danger" of breaching the Law of Free Will, I think, the C's answers become very carefully configured to remain
A perfectly logical answer and
A valid answer and also they remain within the Law of Free Will. If their answer would endanger the questioner - would be a direct answer giving top secret Deep State info or the answer would prevent learning lessons, then they choose
A logically perfectly valid answer, which preserves the questioner's Free Will, like: "Semi." "Maybe." "Vague.", etc..
Or they usually give a clue, which is perfectly on topic in their 'Vast Dictionary of Logically Valid Meanings Pertaining To The Topic', so that the clue given might result in a hopefully fruitful understanding later.
Here on Earth, in STS Land, we know politicians all too well, who skillfully avoid giving any straight answer in a full interview to protect their employers interest (Deep State). Lawyers do the same on most occasions for very selfish and dishonest reasons.
The C's however are showing us, how giving logically valid answers and - for our protection - giving us
non-straight logically valid answers are done in an STO way, perfectly preserving our Free Will.
