>>3273864

Rachel Mitchell's analysis

Sauce!

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/rachel-mitchells-analysis/3221/

>>3274067

Memos are usually informal and do not require signatures..

>>3274134

The WAPO seems to think so.. Do you think they would go through all the trouble to help K out by putting this out there stating it's from her? Wouldn't WAPO be in public scrutiny and suffer legal consequences for saying something that happened that didn't? Especially of this magnitude. Would an in house document need to be "so" official?

>>3274318

Q+ Said stay tuned and watch in todays drop

Matches Trumps tweet from today 11:56 Am

>>3274475

I was implying the post was the same..

Stay tuned and watch.. Not time.