>>6152190 -lb- (explanation + many good replies)
>>6152269 -lb- (YouTube vid)
>>6152303 -lb- (baker's request)
''The above links lead to a post I made earlier today; I had to head out shortly after I posted, and the baker requested I repost it.
Lindsey Graham - Under Duress?
I noticed something yesterday that I wanted to bring to everyone's attention—including and especially Q / Q+. I'd really appreciate authentic anons chiming in too.
When Lindsey Graham was questioning AG Barr (yesterday or the day before) in an open hearing, there was a moment that stood out to me in a very troubling way. Lindsey was asking Barr a hypothetical question, and he referenced the Chinese spy who was (up until recently) in the employ of Senator Feinstein. It is obviously a pretty uncomfortable subject—especially with her in the room—but, surprisingly, when Senator Graham brought it up, both he and AG Barr looked more uncomfortable than did Diane Feinstein herself.
The look on Barr's face lasted several seconds, and was totally contrary to the confident look which has been significant enough to inspire several memes here on the board. His expression conveyed an attitude which, if verbally expressed, might be along the lines of "Did you really need to ask me that very uncomfortable and unnecessary question in this setting?" Barr didn't look amused at all, and he didn't look embarrassed for Di-Fi. Instead, he looked stunned, as if there were something more complex to the exchange.
Lindsey's demeanor was essentially similar to Barr's, perhaps showing a bit more anxiety; he stumbled over his words a bit, and quickly seemed to want to get the question (and Barr'a answer) behind them. At this point, I probably still had a smirk on my face, feeling pleased that this was being brought to light on the record. Then cam the troubling part: when the camera cut to Feinstein, she looked noticeably less uncomfortable than either of them. It was definitely odd seeing her looking like the most comfortable of the three—especially considering the seriousness of the espionage revelations coming to light. It was enough to make me start wondering if there was something even more serious going on beneath even the subtext of this public exchange.
I immediate thought of the odd Instagram posts by Cindy & Meghan McNoName, which announced the sudden/tragic death of their dog—in an as-yet unspecified "accident," and which garnered a conspicuous amount of media attention. Their posts featured many of the hallmarks found in James Comey's "Benji died" tweet—which foreshadowed and/or cryptically announced GHWB's death. they also brought to mind Q's drop which foreshadowed NoName's death and which, likewise, included a metaphorical dog reference: "every dog has its day." (If I'm not mistaken, Donna Brazille made a strange dog-related statement via twitter at one point, although I can't recall if it was relevant or not.)
In any case, I went back and read the McNoNames' Instagram posts—this time more carefully—and I was struck by how creepy they felt. Upon considering all the reasons why they might constitute a thinly-veiled threat to Lindsey Graham, I think many others will come to the same conclusion—or at least, to the same troubling uncertainty. Lindsey is somewhat effeminate, as everyone knows—both in his mannerisms, and in his name. For this reason, the female gender of the dog makes as much sense as if it were male. Senator Graham is also known by most who follow politics for having followed NoName's every move—figuratively and literally. Whether talking about a broad philosophical agenda or a particular political position—Lindsey Graham rarely strayed from NoName. Furthermore, he even retained a close physical proximity to the late Senator, traveling to many places around the world with him.
If you read the Instagram posts with the above observations in mind, you'll easily see what I mean. When I apply those observations to the interpretation of the aforementioned Graham / Barr / Di-Fi exchange, I am inclined to wonder if Lindsey is under even more serious duress than already understood (i.e., the "gentle" duress caused by conforming to President Trump's agenda, to the consternation of many of his colleagues.) The message that was apparently sent via the super-weird dog death announcement seems as serious as they come: death by accident—the fate of many past Congressmen. And the question must be asked: since when does a Senator's dog dying qualify as worth of national news coverage? How much less worthy of coverage is such an event when said Senator has been dead for months? Most people had no idea that dog even existed—and thus, we can safely conclude that this attention advances some hidden purpose, regardless of whether it ends up being the one theorized above.
(cont'd…)