>>6186450 (lb)

I posted that analysis of how this narrative operates like a psyop because I thought it included important treatment of the notion so reflexively dismissed here, anon. Don't attempt to assert everything stated by the author reflects my understanding. It's a weak attempt to attack the overall point, which I'm sure you already know.

Specifically, one should support the act of exposing secrets withheld from the public 'for their own good'. Whether or not you want to conflate that with support of an individual as opposed to the mechanisms required to protect such acts is up to you, but doing so reflects your indoctrination.

Get out of the echo chamber, once in a while.

>>6186630

Supporting the CIA regime change operation in Venezuela, like good, little statists.

Dismissing every appointment of an establishment proxy, CFR acolyte, neocon, Reaganite war criminal, and Bushite pawn.

Supporting moronic statements defending the apartheid state, Israel (including "anti-Zionism is antisemitism") and even more absurd policies, like rewarding that state for the theft of the Golan Heights from Syria in the conflict Israel started in '67.

The list is long. Anons are too busy chasing Rachel Chandler droppings to notice.

>>6186721

Secrets kept of murdering innocent civilians in manufactured conflicts should make that list, then. So should State Dept cables exposing doublespeak in an attempt to coerce other states into supporting regime change operations and those 'forever' wars not being shut down by this administration or any other preceding it.

Make sure you draw the line clearly between those things you're too immature to know and those to which you have a right as a citizen.

"Power to the people", and all that bullshit.

>>6186809

>>6186721

Exposing CIA cyber programs built to obfuscate attribution, used to mislead the public into thinking a certain state had something to do with what was a leak by concerned citizens (Umbrage, Marble) should also make the list.

Any other secrets Assange and his team exposed for us that might be reason to oppose this indictment? Or, are we all so short-sighted (and illiterate, in the case of those who didn't bother to read it) that we don't recognize this administration's DOJ attempting to criminalize tactics regularly used by journalists and publishers to protect their sources?

Do we need a Q drop to figure out the obvious? Are we that dense?

>>6186852

Barr is a CIA man, though that's public knowledge.

Barr didn't neglect to point that out to anons (he wasn't asked about it in hours of testimony in front of R's and D's), but Q certainly left it out for a reason. Conspicuous omission, no?

Same reason Q lied by claiming Reagan was an "outsider", and then likening POTUS to him (#5263795 - 19 Feb 2019) as some sort of perverse validation.

Narrative generation - no need for the facts to match the claims. Anons are slow, and focused elsewhere.

>>6187120

Someone from CIA who was complicit in covering up Reagan administration CIA crimes (Op Condor, Contra, et al) is probably a tad different than your run-of-the-mill analyst, though, right?

Who needs to wake up? Excuses, excuses, excuses - while slow anons ignore the obvious. Time to get a grip on reality.