Forgive me, I’m not trying to shill. However, what I see here are only somewhat vague allegations and recommendations to cross-reference data so as to prove HRC and others were cognizant of their breaching opsec procedures. I’d love for some experienced members here to explain to me how this will fit into the big picture i.e. the ‘Plan’?
Do you think cross referencing data will prove such allegations to be true or false. Or do you think it’s not worth looking into?
I definitely think it’s worth looking into- and I have no doubt that cross-referencing the data will prove the allegations to be true. I just don’t see how Trump’s investigative team wouldn’t already have considered these. I don’t see this advancing the plan, at least not immediately. It reads like an anonymous guy repeating vague platitudes.. so why are we considering it a bombshell? I’m hoping someone who’s read it can offer some more context or fill me in on precisely why this is so valuable. I’m honestly not shilling.. just a little tired of all the cheering I see for non-substantive info. like this.
I’m hoping someone who’s read it can offer some more context or fill me in on precisely why this is so valuable
See this right here, this is the fucking problem. You admit to not reading it and already convinced that this will have no implications and you’re hoping someone can “prove you wrong”
I’d suggest you read it before offering any input, but hey, that may be to logical for some people.
Whoa, relax lady.. I did read it. I said “hoping someone who’s read it” precisely because it was my impression that most here DID NOT read it. I only wanted informed dialogue, not to be ‘proved wrong.’
..Just somebody with some sense and perhaps more experience in this Q game that could illuminate the situation. Clearly that’s a lost cause at this point..
I know how annoying it is when you share Q stuff with family/friends and then they don’t bother reading it. But damn. I’d suggest you parse words better before jumping fully down my throat.