CDAN reveal # 38

The important questions haven’t been asked. If George Soros and Julian Assange are buddies, that has major implications, of course. But the questions that occur to me are:

>”According to the demands of the ultimate employer, he wanted to be able to have sex with the woman chosen.”

Who is the ultimate employer? Apparently not Soros. Could it be P?

> “What ultimately disqualified her was N. Apparently N had been instructed by his employers that C was being claimed…”

Who is N’s (Assange’s) employer? He’s not working for himself? That seems to put a different light on Assange’s integrity.

> “C was being claimed…by someone who she had yachted with in the past.”

Who was the person claiming Scherzinger? How does he tie in with this whole scheme?

Who are the 3 people apparently pulling the strings of Soros and Assange, if this blind is true?

Blind says that N is Assange.

>>2053736

>>2053800

CDAN blind about Assange and Soros. N=Assange.

Before you start with the smart-aleck comments, you should take the time to read back into the thread to find out what my original post was about. You are making erroneous assumptions about what I believe.

>>2053832

>>2053835

>>2053842

>Before you start with the smart-aleck comments, you should take the time to read back into the thread to find out what my original post was about. You are making erroneous assumptions about what I believe.

Again, you aren't even following my point. So either you are too lazy to read back through the thread to the original post or you don't have the ability to understand plain English.

>>2053911

There's your problem. I did not come out as a believer in CDAN which you would understand if you weren't too lazy to follow the thread back.

>>2053937

I did not post as a believer as my original post made clear. I specifically posted stating my questions about the blind, if it were true. It's always wise to avoid weighing in on something when you lack the full picture. Jumping into a thread mid-stream and then spouting off an uninformed opinion is pretty lame.

>>2053994

I have never mentioned "R." The lengths to which you are going to discredit my post and my questions leads me to question what your motivation is. Perhaps you intend to draw attention away from some questions that are important and should be considered.

>>2054041

Good night, CIA.

>>2054068

>>2054087

>>2054152

Completely different take on the Synoptic problem; very good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lisle_Lindsey