>>>1505274 (You)
>>>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.
Anon I love your assessment into this. I had to run some errands and this was a few breads ago, so I hope you see it. I completely agree with the "UNcomped" theory