>>4140690 lb

This should have been obvious for a couple reasons.

First is "do you believe such an overt move would go unchallenged by the deep state?" Going to the media as a whistleblower is like holding up a flashlight when the forest is full of snipers.

Second is "do you believe the media, even Fox, would say anything damaging to the deep state?" There is only one person in the media I have designated as trustworthy. In the world. That is unfair to others in the media as there are many I do not know - but it is also not a currently well known person. And most would find my trust placed in this person surprising if they are not aware of pre-prism history.

Not that I believe Hannity is against us or compromised in terms of character - but that his show will never be allowed to become the weapon to take down the main stream media. The real blow to the MSM will come from elsewhere.

Third: Q more or less hinted at this, earlier. Leaks are often to benefit the Deep State. There are very few that are not set up to do so.

Fourth: the Deep State's move was likely its own counter. The Huber leaker would likely have legal implications for things like jury selection or other matters behind the scenes. Possibly even creating grounds for launching inquiries or other tactics which could stall and interrupt/corrupt the ongoing investigations POTUS and White Hats have initiated.

Even if the leaker is trying to do good or is trying to highlight corruption - the information that person has may ultimately serve the ends of the deep state.

As such, by Q going out of his way to highlight the upcoming leak and draw attention to it, the media made its own counter moves without truly understanding that the deep state wanted that leak for another reason.

The smart thing to do is to not lie, to not deceive, and to not build convoluted systems of control. When no one can agree on what the lie forming the fact is - the illusion crumbles.

For those who don't understand Q's use of "outside the standard deviation."

In physics, discoveries using indirect observation methods require that the data set be a greater than seven sigma deviation within the sample set. Because many indirect observation methods are measuring fluctuations in noise, this is considered significant evidence that the observed phenomenon is not the result of statistical variation and was most probably a particle discovery or the detection of a real phenomenon.

The implication is multi-fold with Q's use. "None of you are above another" - or to that effect is a philosophical outline that even though there are those of us who will fall at either extremes of performance (outside the standard deviation), none of us are "better" than another person.

Q's use of the standard deviation when referring to coincidence is, also, an indication that we are not likely to get an unveiling of who Q is in a literal sense. We are using indirect measurement, and for that there is a scientific standard to qualify for a confirmed discovery. It is still theoretically possible that these are all happenstance, but we would have to wait for several heat deaths of the universe in order to see a data set like that to appear in happenstance.

>>4141565

There is a lot more to this than meets the eye. Take Comey's testimony, for example. Something leaked during this whole deal could potentially have given Comey a clue as to how he needed to "recall" a specific event or detail.

This is why ongoing investigations are not discussed.