Anons,

What do you believe is meant when Q states "We have the source"?

>>6147997

To ask a different question, what is/was Wikileaks EXACTLY?

I sense there is so much more we don't know.

>>6148033

Thanks for the reply. My memory may be a bit hazy but didn't Q first say WE HAVE THE SOURCE and admit the other side had the servers?

>>6148033

Could the source be HRC's hard drive(s)?

To keep our eyes on the ball I remind everyone that Obama was President when all this spy gate shit went down. I want HRC to be held accountable for her crimes BUT never forget who was President. He had motive and opportunity.

So, unless Obama and HRC are thick as thieves you might all want to consider that Michelle will likely run against Trump in 2020.

>>6148084

I am specifically asking what Q means by WE HAVE THE SOURCE.

>>6148045

This has to be a message.

Him - Merkel - et al

They are signaling something or someone or both.

>>6148093

Again, didn't Q say in a drop that (((they))) might have the servers but WE HAVE THE SOURCE?

That implies the servers are not the source.

>>6148110

Interesting

>>6148130

I definitely thought this at the time.

It may be true.

I guess I am rethinking due to JA's eviction.

The guy isn't going to testify.

He has been under house arrest for like 7 years.

He is broken

>>6148145

What was the special designation where all these people were hired and read in under Obama?

I cannot remember what it was called.

I don't know if they were CIA, FBI, DOJ or some other distinct bureau but I remember thinking - that is how you empower a stay-behind network?

>>6148156

Thank you for retrieving the Q post.

Why didn't Q say the SITE if he meant the SITE?

Q said WE HAVE THE SOURCE

>>6148161

There you go. I do not know the answer but I cannot help but think the old assumptions about what it meant MIGHT not be correct. Thanks

>>6148163

I like it

>>6148173

I agree. I remain skeptical of JA. Particularly because the myth of JA is something we all want to be true. Deep cutout

>>6148183

So what is the SOURCE?

>>6148222

Interesting

>>6148237

How was Obama (via his AG Eric Holder) not guilty of obstruction of the Benghazi affair?

No special counsel

Nothing from the law and order crowd in his administration.

>>6148262

Right. It might be true but we don't know it to be true nor can we prove it.