As many anons know (and you know who you are kek), a certain anon (who shall remain anonymous) has opined to the effect that he finds Pompeo to manifestly untrustworthy. Notwithstanding the properly tripcoded posts on Q's board to the effect that anons are safe to "Trust Kansas."
As is to expected, the responses to the anon's observation are divided (about 30:70) between "fuck off shill/newfag/kike" and "Aye!".
But at look at what a good actor Kansas is. How do it reconcile?
It reconciles thusly: Anon is right โ Kansas is manifestly smarmy and untrustworthy, but apparently is so compromised, has enough handles on him, to permit absolute leverage over his behavior.
Therefore Q had to instruct anons to trust him โ because had he not done so, none would.
Think logically!