>>25606

I'm wondering about the EO that allows asset confiscation is pushing some of these crooks into announcing running for office.

If they get taken down, they can use the excuse that Trump is just going after his political opponents.

Look who's talking about running thus far: Cuban, Zuckerberg; Biden; Michelle Obama; Oprah (sure there's more). Romney and Ryan runored to team up for pres, too.

I think I've seen that targetting opponents shit floated by some dems already.

That's why any case against these bastards has to be airtight when unsealed.

>>25773

>>25773

>>25773

DEFCON [1] POST HERE

Is this the key information that needs to be recognized?

Does this mean that the critical information has been posted in between those 2 tweets?

Do we need to wind the clock back to find the critical post?

Are these only Q posts that are critical, or others? (I'm guessing others.)

I'm just swinging for the fences here, guise. Just taking my hacks.

>>25986

This.

We're used to posting ideas and having 99.9% of them lead to nothing.

Others, on the outside, establish a theory, then have to defend that theory and skew any analysis of new drops in favor of their theory going in.

They're not involved in the knock down / drag out in the trenches and can't analyze quickly enough.

Fuck ups like cbts occur because, in that case, Q's posts didn't fit their theory.

The grunts just move to the best (free range thinking) board and Q finds them.

Famefags don't mean shit to Q, he needs the grunts (anons) in the trenches.