>>116098 (pb)

>By now, most anons are sick of the Russia hoax - although it's still a story waiting to break in the mainstream, obviously.

This makes sense, and I suppose some anons would wonder why I am going back to these "old" topics.

Sometimes I wonder that myself.

But in going back over this stuff, I find I am noticing all sorts of things that slipped by me at the time.

I think my "Q skills" have gotten way better.

>>116098 (pb)

>Patel Patriot does a good job in translating complex relationships into sentences people can follow and covers similar territory pretty well.

His stuff is quite interesting, and this guy too that someone recently posted here: https://slagfa.substack.com/

I liked the analogy with the Philippines just before Japan arrived.

That said, what I am aiming to do in this decode/dig is complementary to what they are doing.

They are focusing on how Trump prepared for the "election steal" and set a trap that would enable his return.

I assume there must be some story there, and they seem to be developing good ideas.

But I am looking in a different direction, at political/DOJ stuff from the past and seeing if there isn't a somewhat heterodox but Q-based interpretation of stuff that happened then that helps to make better sense of what is happening now, which is rather frustrating to many.

In short, maybe there was much more winning in the past few years than many anons think.

People like Tom Fitton or Brian Cates who focus on the DOJ stuff would probably think I am crazy, but they have their role and it is a crucial role I think.

But they don't "do Q" and I think the Q-analysis of things is liable to turn out much wilder than guys like that suspect.

>>116098 (pb)

>Flynn firing was b4 my time, another reason i have no strong opinion.

I see what you mean.

At the time my thought was: that's "above my pay grade".

I got into all this with the email leaks and Pizzagate in Summer 2016.

It made me realize just how bad the corruption was.

Before that I hated current politics and didn't pay much attention to the details.

I didn't really know who Flynn was until he seemed to endorse Pizzagate, and then I figured he was likely to be one of our key guys.

But when he got fired just into the first term it made no sense.

I didn't really delve into it since I figured someone else must be better equipped to sort that out.

But I have progressively realized that we anons have quite a bit of power in the big scheme (as much as daily life might suck), and sometimes you've just got to dive in and "do it yourself".

>>117057

[This post is part of an extended sequence.

Prior segment start points, pb: >>115813, >>116087]

Last post, pb: >>116093

>But if the Russia hoax is ultimately a good thing...

... then maybe the person who got it going is actually on our side?

His name is Jim Comey.

I am going to argue that Comey is a straight-up white hat.

He threw the 2016 election to Trump, thus eliminating the need for a miltary coup.

Of course, Trump and Q have depicted Comey as one of the ultimate bad guys, one of the chief agents for the deep state within the federal bureaucracy.

But perhaps they set him up this way precisely to disguise the fact that he was our guy, and to get the enemy to continue trusting him?

The chief knock against Comey is that he was a chief mover in the Russia hoax.

But if that was actually a trap for the enemy (as I argued above)... then the chief obstacle to Comey being a white hat seems to dissipate.

Recall some crucial events from 2016:

The FBI had been investigating Hillary's use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State.

On July 5, 2016, Comey held a highly unusual press conference.

He announced that the investigation was complete and recommended that Hillary not be prosecuted.

He also basically said she was guilty.

On October 28, he sent a letter to Congressional leaders noting that the FBI had acquired a vast trove of new information relevant to the case.

On November 6, two days before Election Day, he announced that the new information had been reviewed, and that Hillary still should not be prosecuted.

On November 8, Trump won, to the great surprise of many.

After Obama told her to do it, Hillary called to concede around 2:30 AM.

If I am right, then Comey didn't merely swing the election.

It matters that he dropped a surprise.

They didn't have suitcases full of ballots ready to discover.

And Obama never saw it coming, and figured he could best save his own "legacy" by telling her to submit.

I think this story works.

But to actually make the case that it is something like the true story will require a complex set of arguments.

>>117058

fixed link:

>>116087 pb

>>117058

The centerpiece of the graphic here is the prepared transcript for Comey's July 5 press conference.

While overtly exonerating Hillary, Comey made many remarks pointing to her guilt, and this was a topic of much discussion by all sides.

Was Comey "covering his ass" by "admitting the facts" even as he aimed to "save" Hillary by rejecting prosecution?

Or did he mean to highlight her guilt, while declining to prosecute lest he face career repurcussions?

I remember being extremely perplexed at the time.

I had no idea what to think.

It struck me as obvious that the "private server" fiasco implicated Hillary in serious crimes.

But I had no idea what to make of Comey's remarks that day.

(One immediate result was that my interest in all these topics redoubled.)

I am not certain if I had reread Comey's statement since that summer, and I wasn't initially planning to even include it in this dig.

(The reopening of the email inquiry seemed much more important.)

But even though I now think it quite likely that Comey is "our guy", I have been struggling with how to begin making the case.

I thought I might just start with the July 5 statement as a reminder that Comey quite clearly did point to her guilt.

I remembered a Q post where Q made some "annotations" to a Comey tweet (probably disinfo I now suspect) and figured why not do something like that with the July 5 speech?

But then I got into actually doing it and I found many more oddities than I had remembered.

What is surprising is just how much he seems to be saying, so long as we read between the lines and consider that he might be intending for us to do so.

Again, it wasn't like at least some of this didn't end up being a topic for debate way back then.

But it was all overshadowed by the fact that Hillary was escaping punishment yet again.

And yet in the big picture, if Comey was on the white hat team focused on the election, then punting on the prosecution makes sense.

I am not sure where to go with all the observation in the graphic, but I figured I should post what I've got to see if there is any feedback.

I do have much more in the works on Comey and related topics.