>>714651

>Jan 27 2018 02:26:27

>Q

>!UW.yye1fxo

>175461

>>>175432

>[19] would cease to exist immediately upon the harm of select individuals.

>Think nuclear stand-off.

>Clarified?

>Q

That's the one, but it seems a bit shorter than I recalled. Those are the 19 and the 3 might be the selected individuals, who might be J Soloman, Sara Carter, and Sean Hannity. Hostage standoff being a truce of sorts with 2,3 & 4 being other players contingent on those listed '1st.'

Thanks, Anon! There is only one person that quick and kind enough on these board, thanks again, M'man. I'll live you with this tidbit…

"Multi-faceted light difractional man,

Spinning down from Heaven into the

Palm of my hand…"

.

>>715036

The unsavory topic of 'death threats' is quite possible from that perspective, Fellow Anon. At the time of 1/27/18, though, I believe The Hill reporter, whom I referenced, had been absent for a time if I am not mistaken and "SC" had been mentioned in a previous Q post. The severity of the issue and the certainty of reprisal reinforces 'this is not a game.'

With the many references to 'the Bridge,' hostage exchange or guarantee of safety is in play, but the overall Q reference to "2,3 & 4" is certainly an unknown at this point that only Q can verify. John Brennan's comments come to mind quickly as I cannot recall a time when a former CIA chief has ever been so blunt, nor Samantha Power stepping in with an affirmation of compliance. Obama was more of a micro-manager than delegator, and Clapper has not been brought up much either. Peeling away the layers of the onion will take some time, but no doubt Q-Team is well aware of oppositional forces. I see that MSM takes the route on McCabe's dismissal and Comey double-speak on a WSJ report, but the OPR decision was on falsified 302's by Strzok & Page at McCabe's direction, covering for Comey while mis-directing the lessor sin of pawning off 'perjury' to the far more formidable offense of 'sedition' against the duly elected President of the United States.