>>17847849 (pb)

That was a well thought out, reasoned, and approached response. I agree with the spirit of the summary that a greater tragedy was averted.

My thing is that hardcore patriots almost to a man have asked me to explain this as I defend TRUMP. I do not feel like we have any hard answers, mostly speculative. I could explain it the way that this did, however it's not going to penetrate.

I suspect the lack on concrete answers is an answer in and of itself. 80-20, 60-40. There is a far more complex game going on in the shadow side that makes what is in the light confusing. Some things are better left in the dark, particularly strategies and reasoning.

The fact that Q really has not addressed it really says a lot. Most people could not accept the levels of compromise that are needed to deal with the "bigger picture."

I still think, though, that it is worth a shot in Q&A