>>1746307

The obvious answer as to why Rachel Brand had to be removed is that she is a fucking criminal who goes back to W. Bush days - and the stolen election, at least. Compromised forever almost

The less obvious reason which is to do with succession? One does not want her to take the place of Rod Rosenstein, by any means. Wouldn't she have been next in line? Now President Trump can appoint that position?

Am I right? What else?

>>1746116 (pb)

Looks like Gina H. has a double ID.

Appropriate for a top spy.

Most folks won't even notice.

"Must've been a mistake"

Oh yeah, that's the same person.

Put the wrong picture in there [really] Just as with Strozk. Same faux pas as news broke. "incompetence" really.

>>1746252 (pb)

So this will be a top lie of New York Times.

Afterward, they will brush off the mistake as "But we didn't know yet"

Of course they didn't know. So why did they print it. There's been no leaks.

But people remember the first thing they learn. And to unlearn something is an extra step

Propaganda 101

Translate the title /remove double negatives which are an handicap for understanding of the average person. The "not" logic are cognitively hard for people to grasp [well known from studies on logic]. Translation:

"IG report supports decision to let-off Clinton"

That's false. Dollars to Bitcoin.

>>1746450 (pb)

Doesn't know yet that it will be unredacted. Funny.

>>1745945 (pb)

>>1745956 (pb)

>>1745958 (pb)

>>1746058 (pb)

>>1746156 (pb)

>>1746314 (pb)

The team of Share Blue on here today apparently got the same talking points! kek

Also where's the wing? All I see is the jet engine.