So I'm trying to mentally unpack the revelations of the last few days via Q, and how they relate to everything I know about Wikileaks/Assange.

Things I know:

>Q is most likely run by elements of US IC, NSA, ISA, CIA in order of likelihood (guesstimate)

>US IC had Julian Assange under perpetual surveillance in his embassy hideout

>Now Q is telling us that Seth Rich was the source of Wikileaks' DNC releases, counter to public CIA narrative that it was the Russians who provided that material to WL

Does this mean US IC has proof that the CIA's public line was horseshit, and this is now coming out via Q? This is earthshaking if true… it essentially exonerates Wikileaks of all accused Russian involvement! I haven't felt this kind of hope in a long time.

Now if only Q can stop shitting on Snowden, who's just as much of a hero in my eyes, we'd be golden.

>>7652960

Sorry, not buying it. I understand why Q says it, but I don't have to accept everything Q says automatically. Snowden did the right thing, in the final sum.

>>7653005

He told a nation with laws in its sacred constitution which prohibit mass surveillance, that its government was conducting mass surveillance against its own citizens. The only traitors in this story, are those violating their very own sworn oaths. Snowden upheld those oaths, while the NSA took a giant shit on them. No, friend, this is one thing I'm never going to change my mind on.

>>7653021

Ask John Brennan, he works for the fake news now, and he says Snowden is a traitor. Do you agree with Brennan?

>>7653036

I stand by my values. You seem to stand by John Brennan's values. Think about that. You are literally in agreement with John Brennan.

>>7653039

I hope there are many more traitors like him, as long as the US betrays its own constitutional values. Mass surveillance is forbidden by the constitution.

>>7653052

Not on this. Is agreeing with Q mandatory? I thought we were supposed to think for ourselves here, this is me doing that.

>>7653049

I think his releases were quite well curated to limit scope of exposure. What was it, 2% of the docs he took have been published so far?

>>7653063

Nah, I've said my piece. Try thinking for yourself instead of having your value system programmed into you by an imageboard. If you think Snowden is a traitor, you think literally what John Brennan and the CIA thinks. Food for thought!

>>7653157

Been here since CBTS, fren. I lurk, mostly… wouldn't want to find myself aiding those whose morals I question, after all, but my frequency is free and clear. ;)

>>7653109

Question back at you… how do YOU not understand, that you're literally parroting the CIA's discredit propaganda designed to smear Snowden? Haven't you watched them do it to Assange long enough to be familiar with the pattern?

Notice all the replies my posts received here. All of you are armed with little factoids explaining why Snowden = BAD, but none of you question where those tidbits come from. It's literally from Jim Clapper and John Brennan's desk.

Why are you doing the CIA's job for it? THINK.

>>7653098

Ask yourself why you're doing John Brennan's job for him, and we might get somewhere. ;)

>>7653286

Why do you think Brennan was lying when he called Snowden a traitor? I think he fervently believes that. Pompeo said the same thing, so I'm guessing it's a widely held belief in US IC. So did Clapper, come to think.

And, they are obviously trying to destroy Snowden with lies, so their actions support their beliefs. Now the question becomes, why are retards like you helping them? :)

>>7653269

I do tend to discard what I consider to be deceptive CIA propaganda, yeah. Good skill to develop in these interesting times.

Why do you repeat it? Why are you helping them?