>>1396975 (pb)

>>>1395776 (pb)

Sorry, little late to the last bread…

If I read correctly (and I often don't) Then either Iran or US exposes the corrupt.

I like the ideal that we (the US) exposes the corruption, but then it does away with a certain 'plausible deniability' that the white hats have maintained thus far. This scenario lends itself better to the truth, and is what I'm for consequences be damned.

On the other hand, if Iran exposes the corrupt, white hats maintain the narrative that we're cleaning house as we discover new corruption… that is Drain the swamp. However, we don't look like we're in control as much.

Could there be a third option? One in which a statement is coordinated with Iran in which the US points out the corrupt and Iran confirms. It would go a long way toward collapsing any sociopolitical structures that are oft used to spin the narrative by social/mainstream media. In this scenario, we agree to ease some sanctions on Iran in exchange for them cooperating in naming names. Win/Win. We keep an eye on the actors over there that we know are still playing and set up allies that can act against them.

I'm not good at this game, I trust that, however it goes, Q/POTUS/White Hats have our backs.

Godspeed Patriots.!