>>2054540

it appears to be a double edged sword.

if i'm reading this correctly - those who know the phenomenon is on to something (those who don't need solid journalistic proof because they themselves are involved) can't ask because it's inherently self destructive…and those who don't know for certain because they're not involved need better "evidence" before asking the question, lest they be laughed out of the press corps for falling for a larp.

i've seen three people i consider to be journalists tweet at the potus account, with no response.

if Q/Potus wants to acknowledge, they can. the greater lesson might simply be that so many entrenched reporters are involved (and named in the unredacted OIG report?) that they are afraid to ask, and that's a part of how we got to this point.

>>2054609

i've been going around and around with this, arguing both sides, trying to understand how i both know and don't know the veracity of what we've seen.

1) classic flak-over-the-target argument

2) duration of 'all for a LARP'? anti behavior

3) apparent coded acknowledgement (soooo many)

4) request for disclosure (who does that? "call my bluff - go ahead, ask about me")

5) if hoax, difficulty in maintaining

6) apparent crumbling of "cabal/triumverate" in real time

7) consistently 'fresh' leads. (for example - maggie nix/obama picture leading to a new alefantis connection or the obama in a headdress pic) those were both years old, and nobody had unearthed them before? strange to look back at what we miss.

against

1) reluctance of msm to even address

2) events like awan plea - even if it's a double-secret-deal what happened to 'no deals'?

3) while watching the minnesota rally, i could have sworn i saw DJT mouth "Q man" and not "Q anon" several times…the former requiring lips closing for the 'm' sound, and the latter being a single open mouth phrase. watched several interactions while screencapping, rewinding 'point and pump' sequences.

bottom line - plausible deniability meets open-minded skeptic plus shitposting-fo-life = perfect storm of just-enough-crazy-to-work-anons.

>>2054739

wow. i want to see the end of that scene. she/he/it does look…oddly emotioned.

>>2054812

source? pacer? can you share a larger portion of db?

>>2054911

the NFL was a 501(c)6 , another form of untaxed entity until 2015.

worth pointing out, though - not every 501(c)3 is a shell company. there are legitimate volunteer orgs out there who just want to operate on a small budget and not worry about profit.

the groups which DO want profit but retain not-for-profit classifications, looking at you red cross, are the really ripe targets.

>>2055057

what i see at first pass:

very strange 1 second camera angle cut at 1:54

oddly presented - straight-up non-trumpian manner, cold read

>>2055057

>>2055158

ok, two-and-a-half to three seconds. keeping lamp in shot.

cut around 1:53

"…forward to making an announcement soon, so that we can further…"

cut back around 1:55

>>2055200

with tongue in cheek, i have used our penchant for hand washing after a piss to illustrate our built-in socialist leanings.

it makes sense to wash our hands before we eat, or when they are truly filthy - but if you ONLY touch your genitals, there is nothing inherently disgusting on your hands. even a splash of (what should be) sterile urine isn't going to harm you, the pisser.

we wash our hands to protect OTHER PEOPLE from our germs/genitals/pee.

it is for the benefit of society that we wash our hands. that is, in effect, socialism.

(again, tongue in cheek)

>>2055215

>www.hoursguide.com

yeah, let me just put my zip code and address in here…whoops, CAUGHT.

ha.