>>1505274

>>1505247

hey guys, i want to weigh in on your well balanced conversation.

i've been on the fence about RR the whole time.

the idea that his vote was sooooo lopsided, i think, speaks to the trust which the establishment has in him.

Q has defined that if RR is clean, then RM is clean, and vice versa.

it's in the interest of a secretly-pro-trump investigation of [abc] orgs that it appear to be on the up-and-up, and that it appears to be going against trump.

could trump/sessions expect that RMs investigation was going to dig on important things it finds and not laser focus on trump, just letting it go on its own?

i don't think so. i think RM MUST be trusted at this point - he has no reason to align with a 'clean' agenda if he's even slightly influenced by the cabal. information can be hidden, destroyed, ignored at his whim.

now - we may not TRUST RM/RR, but that doesn't mean that we don't trust them because of some unknown leverage. i think they've been somehow UNcomped.

>>1505420

yes, and four of them, i think, are Dem Presidential hopefuls.

Gillibrand

Booker

Warren

Harris

other two were

Blumenthal

Masto

but yes, all dems.

>>1505445

righto.

and if we can't be sure…think about the frustration within the cabal. evil depends on 100% leverage too.

what happens when one gang member sees another gang member leaving a police office 'all smiles'?

to us it's interesting - to them, it must be terrifying.

(and your position is impossible to dismiss too - we just don't have enough information, we're both guessing! ha)