>>10779841 (pb notable) SS guy identified

>>10779846 (pb notable) anon posted ID graphic "not Tom Barrack"

>>10779878 (pb) anon with good Q

I think I might have an angle here. The puzzle is why the USSS guy is in the Q pic in 4759 (left of Dan)and also in some pics Dan recently posted. Why is he pictured with comms people like Dan and Hope? SS is not supposed to be involved in that stuff, right?

Break it down: what does Q say in 4759: "Never forget those in the background."

Maybe he is talking DIRECTLY about the Secret Service, and saying they had the goods on the traitors all along. (Think Bongino.)

To make this work, I think Q 4760 actually goes with 4759. (Know that anons worked other angles, but muh double meanings.)

The plane pic in 4760 has the filename with the date 8/9/2018.

And what does the pic show? It shows a plane on a tarmac.

Now jump back to Q1828 (date: 8/9/2018). Read it closely. Q is talking about the tarmac meeting between BC and LL. Supposedly he offered her the SC seat if she played ball. (NO COINCIDENCES! Q is dropping the goods right when we have a SC vacancy!)

BC claimed it was all a coincidence and they talked about their grandkids or whatever. But WHO knows he is lying? The SECRET SERVICE! They had to keep quiet until they could trust the Commander in Chief!

And now Q is telling us it is "go time" and these "background warriors" are about to drop the goods!

>>10780319 (me, includes bigger version of pic from pb anon)

>>10780447

Anon, that is a good point.

I don't think there has been a definitive identification of this person, and I'm not sure if we should be doxxing SS agents anyway. I am picking up on the work of another anon who connected the different images (see pic), and I have to say the guy in question certainly LOOKS like a Secret Service agent, especially in the pic where he is behind Dan on the tarmac. I am hard-pressed to see why we are not supposed to make that connection. It may be relevant that Dan has actually been repeatedly posting these "tarmac walkout" vids for the recent rallies. I thought it was just because they looked cool, but maybe he was aiming to highlight the Secret Service all along.

>>10780624

Nice graphic.

Felt like a moron for not knowing three people off the bat, but mabye that is part of the "game" Seems like there is quasi-consensus on two, but let dissenters have their say as well.

Baker notable?

>>10780667

Anon, as far as marker [9] goes, I think it is worth pointing out that this was a "double post"… so basically it was two 9's. Just like in the pic.

I suspect Q team used to make such things look like "accidents", but if you look at all the "digit coincidences" in the last drop, I suspect they know how to "manufacture" these things.

>>10780704

I really don't know what is going on wiith that guy.

Some anons think he must be being "forced" to play a role. But I'm not sure if he could handle it. If he was really basically the professional "pol" he seemed to be his whole life, could he pull off a totally new "acting" job. And likewise with HRC and all the rest. I'd expect some of them to "break" or to try to "deal" with the baddies who (seemingly) haven't been totally defeated yet.

By contrast, my inclination is that AOC is full-on acting. But she BRINGS IT. Most of the rest act like LOSERS, and if they weren't literally trained as actors, I suspect it would be hard to pull that off.

>>10780762

>featured Steve Nicks