>>5410309 Why the fuck do they keep using that hashtag? Does that dude work for Bloomberg or is he just a nigger?

>>5410341 o7

>>5410345 I'm aware. Re-read my post. I said, "Does this nigger work for Bloomberg" or does he just like threatening POTUS?

>>5410359 I don't think so…. "remote viewing" I think is what some call it. Or remote surveillance. Most of the things I have read (think vault 7) no, the owner of the device is not aware that their device is compromised. That is what I am thinking, anon.

Timeline:

• Press corps kicked out of Kim's hotel

• Reporter "sneaks in through side door"

• Reporter snaps pics, posted on TW in the 9 o'clock hour. Uses a hashtag with "tic toc," Twitter cover photo says "guilty, not guilty"

• FOX shows a similar image but from a different angle

• Q posts pics in the 10 o'clock hour, saying anons have the original files

• Reporter then posts selfie in the checkered shirt to apparently prove to Q followers he took the image, says in tweet "death wish"

• Tweet by second person with layout of building, broadcasting it to public to again put people in danger. Questions why he's told to avoid lobby when the (((answer should be obvious))), talks about metal detector.

This is war.

Anons, we have reporters giving details like building layout, location of metal detectors on Twitter. Something very dangerous could possibly be going on. Is that why Q team is checking in on the boards?

Theory: Q posts that anon have original images b/c Q is surveilling reporter for breaching security at hotel. I believe this was a warning by Q to reporter.

>>5410418 Yep.

>>5410382

>>5410616

>>5410536 Yes, I absolutely think this is what just happened.

>>5410610 Touche. Makes sense with rest of theory.

>>5410609 Good job, ty anon

>>5410629 Read linked posts here

>>5410634 No he didn't. That is an assumption made by you. And "original" can mean multiple things.

>>5410731 Well that's your theory, but it makes no sense to me. And I don't see Derek what's-his-face-phi-kappa-alpha posting on 8chan, sorry, He's already responded to anons on Twitter acting like a dick.

>>5410774 His Tweet here does not make sense. As someone who works in marketing/advertising, you only need to purchase or license a photo if you plan on using it in a way where you'll be making a profit off its' use. (Say, on a commerce website, in a magazine, on television) Why would anons or Twitter users need to license their photos?

Think logically.

We are the news now?

>>5410833 I'm starting to think the same thing about this operation, anon….

>>5410815 Normal public doesn't need to purchase photos….. free use is fair use. Only media outlets or commercial entities purchase rights to photos, usually…