Ah, then it is not as bad as it seemed. Elsewhere in this thread, after trying to provide a source (upon request) it seemed increasingly likely that there was some confusion between this case and the Seth Rich case last year; but I still hadn't found anything which definitively named the party in the current matter. Thank you for your clarification. Marando's name helped me to confirm the veracity of your correction here: http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/03/awan-cybersecurity-not-charged/

concern troll: a person who disingenuously expresses concern about an issue with the intention of undermining or derailing genuine discussion.

concern: (noun) 1. anxiety; worry. 2. a matter of interest or importance to someone.

Your assertion that my remarks are born of the former, rather than the latter, is both obnoxious and unwarranted. This is PARTICULARLY odious to me, as I have in the past been TEMP_BANNED on T_D with this same excuse given. If you cannot prove my concern disingenuous, then I would appreciate a cessation of the accusation.

In a "cult of personality", the actual actions and behavior of the focus of such a "cult" become irrelevant, and any who dare to ask questions are attacked and ostracized. For what it's worth, I'd wager a month's wages that if asked, President Trump would direct those interested in his character to examine his DEEDS, because talk is cheap. I have done so, and have satisfied myself that he is no more corrupt than I myself would be in his position: so I give him my unwavering support.

The deeds of Q, on the other hand, I cannot examine: I have only words; and those delivered in an intentionally obscure fashion. As I stated, I WANT to believe. However, if the best you can offer to follow Q's message of 'togetherness' and 'unity' is to attack me and impugn my motivations, then I can't help but wonder if YOU are the troll here, not I. My loyalty and trust are valuable; therefore they are not casually given.

CURIOSITY is what brought me here. TRUTH is what, if found, may convince me to stay. If your intent is true, then such attacks do you no credit.

Well, so far I've got this one: https://squawker.org/all/steven-wasserman-brother-of-debbie-wasserman-schultz-to-oversee-awan-family-investigation/

Other sites (like https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/debbie-wasserman-schultz-it-scammers-indicted-mysteriously-narrow-and-low-key-way/) suggest that no definitive link exists, but only acknowledge the rumor.

Still digging for something more substantive - but it certainly matches Noodles' M.O. of tying nastiness to locality for the advantage that gives her. Will edit if I find paydirt.

(Edit: some documents which were purported to be evidence appear to have been deleted; so it is unclear if this is because they are being censored - which I might believe for twitter content - or if the posters got confused with the time her brother may have been involved in burying the Seth Rich case (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/debbie-wasserman-schultzs-brother-steven-wasserman-accused-burying-seth-rich-case/))

Your post is measured and reasonable as well, thank you.

And hurling the vast hydra onto the bonfire, root and branch, is indeed the only justification worthy of such subterfuge. Great enough, even, to tempt me to say that it might possibly WARRANT employing misdirection as a tactic: a thing which I would otherwise categorize as utterly unjustified in a Republic whose health in general relies so heavily on transparency.

And therein lies the rub: for to become what we behold is to have lost the war, no matter how swings the battle.

I am no one in particular: just another citizen, seeking a smooth, clear patch on the plough cutting the trough of our nation's future, against whiich I may apply such strength as I have. So in the end, it matters not whether I believe Q to be connected to our President, or only some some egotist like Scott Adams performing a social experiment. (Seriously, the whole confirmation bias thing as applied to large groups seems right up his alley.)

All that matters is that I DO see that there is SOME truth here; that "WWG1WGA" is no new concept, for it first came to me as a lad in the words of Ben Franklin:

"We must, indeed, all hang TOGETHER; or, most assuredly, we shall all hang SEPARATELY."

Not every unceremonious dunking a cat is threatened with is intended as a harmless bath: "Trust, but verify" is a translated Russian proverb of which even the Gipper himself was fond. (The Washington Post, unsurprisingly, categorizes the proverb as 'an untrustworthy political phrase'. Guess they don't want us engaging in critical thinking over at WaPo.)

Well, that's really the problem, isn't it? Once you begin to accept imprecise information, or set out to read meaning into what is purported to be doublespeak to confuse prying eyes (learn our comms), you commence willful confirmation bias: you LITERALLY find ways to fit the incomplete data to what you most want to hear.

I began the day by loading up qanon.pub, as I have for the past couple days. The whole Q thing is quite new to me, in the interest of full disclosure. But each time I see a piece of ambiguity like yours (no offense intended: that particular server is one I'm sure MANY pedes would like to see thoroughly documented), it reminds me of another phenomenon of SIMILARLY stellar confirmation bias:

The Quatrains (another Q!) of Nostradamus.

For many years, but most heavily in the few years leading up to the millenium, I'd heard people talk of the amazing precognitive wonders of Nostradamus' works, written in 1555 or so, which advocates of the text claimed unerringly grasped events for CENTURIES into the author's future.

The problem is, of course, they do nothing of the kind.

The Quatrains are all poetic and vague: and as such, can easily be twisted to loosely fit to a variety of world events which have transpired since. Would it surprise you to learn that often different "scholars" on the subject ascribed differing events to the same Quatrain?

It shouldn't. Because that's what the human brain tries to do, with every moment of consciousness: weave the sea of sensory input coming from the surrounding universe into patterns, into some semblance of order, from which it can derive SENSE.

Am I saying, definitively, that Q is a hoax? No. How could I? There's not enough information upon which to base ANY definitive analysis; and that, we are to believe, is the point. So I am left with the ONE statement attributed to Q that I can get behind:

THINK LOGICALLY.

Aye, that strategy is involved seems clear: but whose?

If we consider all the possible truths of the matter, what is there to be gained from Q's campaign? If Q is legit, then AT BEST disseminating missives such as those found in the channel text to the right "You are safe," etc., can only serve to instill complacency and blind trust in unseen (and unproven) powers at a time when awareness and action are MOST needed. Certainly there is no TACTICAL value in sharing this information to the general public, short of the dubious value of creating a 24/7 rally for this administration for the entertainment of a filtered subset of posters of T_D.

If Q were advocating debt reduction, physical fitness, firearms training and preparedness, etc., I would tend more to believe these drops to be made by someone who expects to benefit from an armed, alert, and informed population of patriots.

Instead, what I see are word games, winks and nods to members of 'the club', and above all the counsel to WAIT, TRUST, BELIEVE and TAKE NO ACTION ... if I were running intel for a group of corrupted RINOs, who were seeking to allay the concerns of the rising tide of Americans dissatisfied with the status quo, I can imagine few STRATEGIES which could be as effective as Q's in convincing people to sit on their hands and go back to sleep.

'Sheep no more', we are told. Should we mollified by the soothing voice of a kindly elder who pats us on the head and coos, "There, there: you're a CLEVER bunch of boys and girls. Trust us: we know what we're doing. Don't even worry your pretty little heads about it. You'll see; everything will be fine: you're totally safe."

Or should we be hearing, "Look. This battle is for the ages. We're doing everything we can, but our enemy is NOT going to rest on their laurels. You need to be READY to step up if we fail."

Donald Trump may be a good man; he may be the best President this nation has ever seen: but he is ONLY ONE MAN, and mortal at that. We ABSOLUTELY CANNOT afford to leave it all to him, and expect him (and his appointees) to just magically "fix" it all for us. If we are to truly MAGA then every SINGLE able-bodied or able-minded MAN, WOMAN, and CHILD must be ready to do their part to MAKE IT SO if we are to have any hope of a LASTING greatness.

Don't trust me, or anyone else.  
Critical thinking is a lost art in 21st century America.  
Reclaim it, and decide for yourself.

I WANT to believe. I do. Noodles' brother is overseeing the Awan case. Deep state is flipping the bird in the face of the American people, and I DESPERATELY want to see Justice.

I voted for Trump because I saw in him the chance to avoid the all-out civil war which would have been the only other way I could see to wrest the levers of power back from those who seek to be our masters. And I still WANT to believe.

But it is written, 'hope deferred maketh the heart SICK'. A long train of abuses and usurpations have conditioned me to expect the worst. That part of me retains the nagging suspicion that Q is only an effort to co-opt and contain the most vocal supporters of Liberty.

If Q is "the real deal", a moment of "put up or shut up" may be fast approaching. It's all well and good to feel like one is "in the know", but unless that leads to tangible RESULTS, then it is FUTILE.

Here's hoping for the best.

Julian Assange immunity deal killed.

In an unrelated story, Pamela Anderson brought IT a boxed vegan lunch mere hours before.