""Why the 5 for 5 tweet by Trump DOES refer to 5:5 by Q aka Q+""
As some anons (and supposedly retards, sorry) tried to slide and continously point out that Trump's 5 for 5 tweet does not refer to 5:5 post by Q, I decided to give proof that it actually does. I am an oldfag. I was here from the start, so I basically became accustomed to the comms Q uses here.
First off, we should remember what happened in the past days. It's clear as day, that the media, now having finally gained attention of Q, is looking for something new to bash Trump and his supporters with. Now, imagine what would happen if Trump all of a sudden would have quoted Q's post: "5:5" directly. CIA, and other agencies are watching our boards. Do you seriously believe they wouldn't notice? Immediately, it would be brought to press and would cause public MSM outrage of Trump supporting "conspiracy theories and violent supporters" directly linking to Q's "5:5" post. So, before Trump posts a tweet, in which he refers 8ch and Q directly, he ALWAYS needs to have a double meaning in case he would come under pressure for failing to offer an explanation to what "5 for 5" would mean. Considering the recent rallies, it's clear that Trump can easily explain this one. But at the same time, he also pretty much offered another message to us, showing that the "stage is being set"
Now, take in action what also happened today: "Senate Intelligence Committee calls on Assange to testify", then entering the 4th quarter (see attached picture, Q Clock), etc. → This was something that Q had posted months ago (also in relation to yet to be leaked video about HRC and the server). In my post I also attached the Q clock, showing that the comms in accordance with the timestamp all fit together.
Another point (however this one is unclear and probably too far-fetched), Q posted in a post following:
>>1763457
":32 POTUS", in which the next line says: "5:5?" (question). Trump's tweet was posted on 10:31 AM. Now, this one cannot really count as proof, as Q points out ":32", however it's pretty close. Maybe it was a close call, or maybe it means nothing and was just specifically referring to the morning stroll.
Thus, we can conclude the following:
The ""premise"" that Trump's post is referring with his "5 for 5" post to 5:5 by Q is true in that sense that he does not want our focus to be on the exact literal phrasing of what Trump said (Double Meanings + "Our comms must be this way." (see: >>1002729), but on what the message behind this one is: The stage is set. The trigger is the digit "5". The rest (everything between the numbers) is variable.