Centurylink this morning.
often it seems that Q's answers or statements are in response to an immediate question or issue at hand, when later i can look back and say (at least for my own interpretations) that whatever statement was truly a non-sequitor and only makes sense later in terms of being a data point on the clock.
stuff like in Q #996 "focus on father" and at the time i was sure it was Nasim's father meant, then months later the OC clockfags found a marker explained in #3679984
for (Pelosi attempted to block) what do we get if we wind the clock forward in to the future from the statement?