Q mentioned that the CIA was being dismantled and that operations would be folded into the NSA.
Have anons looked at how company mergers work and what we can expect to see when the context of this is applied to the NSA and CIA?
Remember, some of the patterns will be the same.
What are the key points when two companies are merged?
I will help you.
I was here yesterday and posted about Tillerson and Milliband BBC poisoning comments before the announcement about Rex, if that helps you.
Let's define the two organisations.
Re: NSA let's look at that as an organisation that is fairly well defined and bounded.
The CIA is not fairly well defined and bounded, more like a cancer that has a broad reach across business, secret societies, foreign politicians, domestic politicians, foreign media and domestic media. It is pervasive and wrapped up in a layer of secrecy.
Q has alluded to the complexity of dismantling the CIA , hollowing it out and keeping the required operational task that will be kept being moved to the NSA.
Because it will be a set of posts that are not remembered when the goal is to focus on the ability to predict.
The ability to predict is completely different to backfitting data to events.
Predicting upcoming events will be helpful to moral of good anons.
Predicting certain types of events will not help bad actors because bad actors will already be doing this.
What's your argument shill?
You said nothing. Projection is a sign of weakness.
Dismantling the CIA involves moving operations that you still want.
It is not an exercise purely in destroying it.
If a company in the same supply chain as you is bought by you, you don't destroy it, you strip it bare, get rid of what you don't need and absorb the bits that augment the company you want to keep.
Similar patterns will occur with the merge of the CIA into the NSA which is what Q implied.
Get it?
Thank you anon.
Shills need to up their game if they want to silence one of the things this board is actually for.
See comment above.
Get rid of the assets you don't need.
Keep what you want.
Rejig your organisational structure to maximise the benefit of the merge.
In other words, CIA head that is good would be kept in the process of dismantling the CIA.
Could be a sign that the dismantling is well under way, if not near completion.
If it were me, the head of the CIA would be moved when the job of dismantling had be completed because that would have been the job I sent him in for.
Yes. Huge.
We know a piece now though.
The guy brought in to do it has been moved to the State.
If you were merging one org into another, when would you move the guy you brought in to do it?
Wouldn't that be when it was complete?
The only other reason if you required his skills elsewhere and trusted the person coming into the position.
Thanks anon.
Following the mergers approach, it's also possible that MP has been moved because he has finished his role of cleaning out the CIA or got it into a position where it has enough momentum and now he is going to do that at State or used what he learned in his position at the CIA to help move the chessboard pieces as secretary of foreign policy. Who better than the person who knows everything about the CIA and who is a true Trump man?
I agree it is possible that Hillary asked Trump to run.
It is possible that more than one party asked Trump to run.
It is possible that Hillary asked Trump to run because she thought he would not win.
In discussing possibilities it is important to use logic.
If X asked Y to run, it does not imply that they were on the same side, it does not preclude that Z did not also ask Y to run.