>>9647518 pb Q

>It's not what you know but what you can prove.

So true.

>Q: can we prove it?

>>9647586 pb

>Granular Level.

100%. Birx said multiple times they were getting data in near real-time at the granular level.

Granular level means distribution by age range and geographic location.

That data was presumably be communicated to the states.

When was it determined that elderly people were testing positive and dying at significantly higher levels?

Were the governors notified? If so, when?

>Q: can we prove coordination?

Good question. That may depend on the information that Scalise gets back from the states.

My guess is that they are going to try and squirm out of it via a legalese interpretation of the CDC guidelines.

Briefings are due by tomorrow. Let's see who complies and hope that Scalise keeps the public informed with updates via twitter.

>>9648391 lb

>>9648592 lb

I don't think she's even pandering to real people.

Rather, she's creating the perception of pandering to a lower IQ level in order to justify flooding the states with new fraudulent voting registrations and subsequently mail-in ballots.

They may even have already a distribution of the income & education levels, etc of their fictitious voters at a "granular level".

>>9649144

Sorry don't discuss with people who make complete conclusions from incomplete assumptions.

It's like talking with a progressive.

>>9648524 lb

>"This book is full of classified information."

It would also appear that whomever leaked the book to people like Stephen Colbert is guilty of leaking classified information.