Anonymous ID: d63357 Aug. 3, 2018, 7:48 p.m. No.2442395   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2480 >>2494 >>2527

>>2425988

Incorrect decoding.

Not the person.

Think connection.

Threat 1

Threat 2

1 = past (newspaper)

2 = future (rally)

1=2

Post noted (VIP access).

Message sent.

We know.

Q

 

A newspaper (actual/online/comments?) was used (past) to signal a threat that was to occur (future) at the rally.

 

The domestic cabal knows they are under full surveillance therefore they are using public/hidden modes of communication.

 

Tradecraft in action.

 

Similarly, Peter Strzok might have agreed to 'testify' so that he could pass messages to his cohorts.

 

I cannot say that Kate on the bottle was in direct connection to today's suggestion but I would not put it past them.

 

Q,

Do you have the key that unlocks these secret orders/transmissions?

Anonymous ID: d63357 Aug. 3, 2018, 8 p.m. No.2442582   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>2442494

Please elaborate.

Why would Q clarify with us if we had not decoded improperly?

Where is the proof that the cabal decoded anything incorrectly?

Are you saying that a FOILed attack which was thwarted by the USSS is proof that the cabal decoded incorrectly?