>>8786316

TY Baker!!!

Also, thank you for including that notable, and the intense discussion around it.

>>8786217 (lb)

>NEWFAG

You gonna pull that card with me?

(pic related)

>>8786250 (lb)

Q wouldn't post it if there wasn't significance later on down the road. We build a "current day" map. Q has the map, through to fruition, in front of them (future).

From our perspective, everything we do here is a gambit. Either we get a score on the board, or we don't. We look at past, present, and hope for the future to align with our research, desires, and expected long-term outcome; like Roulette. Eventually, it has to land on black, right?. Arguing over a notable in an ocean of notables is futile; especially if Q controls the house.

Providing a valid reason to not include whether or not the dig lands on black is one thing. Suggesting that Q/POTUS coordinated on Brennan's presence in a meme that was retweeted on @realDonaldTrump's own personal twitter account is an entirely different conversation.

But I'm not here to persuade. I'm here to analyze, and think about the significance of when Q posts something legitimately interesting as fuck.Q posted something interesting. An anon noticed it. It's notable to more than just me; and that's something I know based on probability. Others want to make certain it's not in notables. What are they betting on?

/shrug

>>8786328

>Does the Pelvic Floor Therapists account of actual happenings count as sauce?

Think about witness testimony. In that case, absolutely. This would mean she'd be potentially testifying in the abuse of children a the hands of predators.

Problem:

She obviously has an accent. Could she be identified with that?

Solution:

Did they filter her words through a speaker with an accent that didn't match the identity of anyone working in that vicinity?

>That'd be smart

Even awesomer:

Was it her, with her voice, with her accent, and she's under the most highest forms of protection?

>Send shock waves to the DS because they probably could ID her, but couldn't locate her. Think Grand Juries.

We don't/can't know. If there are those aiming to discredit the documentary, knowing what we all know after years of research, then I'd be more suspect of the detractors than the documentary itself.

Twitter was ablaze, earlier, from some of the leading "Q" accounts fighting against some of the "alt media" personalities arguing over "I did this first!!!!!!" That whole scene reminded me of the Veritas vid of Epstein associates and 'Amy Rohrbach complaining she couldn't get her Epstein shit published because execs told her to back the fuck off.

Gird you loind, anons. They intend on this all going public, and people are going to be mind fucked. I just hope and pray it comes from the podium.

>>8786674

Why do you think I started posting redheads? They jump on stuff, and expose themselves.

It's allowed to "teach". Understand?