TH3WH17ERABB17 -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- -73N-

originally posted by: crankyoldman

originally posted by: EbbNFlow
Ahem so Brennan lost his clearance and your almost think it'd be big news here. Biden is stomping his feet about it so that's good.

Seems like a mini nuke went off on this board though.

Q 1884 caused it.
.

Ah I see. I just assumed y'all got tired of winning.

a reply to: dashen

Dashen,

I think there are two needs here translating to 2 streams of work. You could think of it a lil like the education system. Camlens has just joined a new Q primary whereas many of us are doing post grad thesis work in Q Uni. Many of you are doing the latter as 3rd or 4th doctorates.

The thesis work is essential for the future in the same way MIT inputs to future technologies. However there won't be future scholarships to MIT if they don't get smoothly thru primary.

There is an argument to ask for a second parallel thread, say, "Q Primary". Ideally this would be read only and build up a "primer" with crib sheets. If we could get 5 or 6 members building this primer that would serve well. The problem would be getting mods to allow up to a month to edit posts there as it's picture would evolve over time.

originally posted by: IRexxx

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: crankyoldman

I question the wiseness of revoking Brennan's clearance before he's put under criminal investigation. The optics (to the general public) of doing it right now are bad.

Sounds like Brennan was consistently insubordinate. I think the American public understands what that is and that it can't be allowed with respect to the President.

The public doesn't follow Brennan's statements that closely. Switching between CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN news this hour. They have it painted that Trump revoked Brennan's clearance, because he dared to disagree with him. And, to distract from Omarossa's "bombshell tapes".

The admin should have waiting until investigations were launched, and then "temporarily" revoked the clearances of all of those named by Sara Sanders today. (After being found guilty. Permanent revocation)

a reply to: TomLawless

No problem. I will keep an eye out for it and respond when I come back on.

Doubts are good, skepticism is good. Its disheartening to see people attacked on here for not believing.

Can you blame them? This whole thing is insane!

Don't hold a grudge, some people seem to be holding out for their "I told you so moment". Q has used numerous techniques that previously would of drawn criticism if the MSM were doing it, deceptive, misleading and certainly not 100% without their own interests above others. However the information they put out their, the information found by autists and researchers alike deserves mass exposure. Q led that.

a reply to: daskakik

You don't want to, because the Proofs would smoke the Fails. You ever play football? call an audible based on what you see in the defense. Maybe the audible translates to your team "Bluff Bluff we got em" where as the defense hears "they're not gonna run it's a pass" That was one of Q's very early drops, and repeated and repeated as a fail. Considering we don't know what that "Fail" caused on the other end it's still TBD. That could have had hundreds if not thousands of people in PANIC mode. What if Q group sat back laughed and listened as all these people gave away their positions? "Dis info is necessary"
I love your Input Dask, but step it up your slacking. Repeating the same old fail's as new Proofs are found daily.

a reply to: cameralens86

Thank you for coming to my defense, lol.

a reply to: cameralens86

Camlens,

Worth noting that this thread has contributed significantly to the growth of Q investigators to 60m active and 300m+ watching - in 9 months. So it demonstrably IS working and HAS gone mainstream.

A week or two ago I worked out the stats as meaning 1 in 10 people of working age with access to the internet is now aware of Q!

That said, things can obviously be made easier for the other 9 out of 10 to sip from the Q cup. I've made a suggestion to Dashen in a separate post.

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi

Q for Dummies. I won't say stupid, but people need to be guided. Not forced. Q's crumbs are not for them, they don't work for the mass population. Neither do memes.

I've yet to find something that I could show someone completely... blissfully... unaware of all things of this nature that I could support. This is no dig at Dashen who clearly has a mountain to work with, but the opening posts are great for researchers to "pick up and dig in" but meaningless to a casual lurker.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: IRexxx

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: crankyoldman

I question the wiseness of revoking Brennan's clearance before he's put under criminal investigation. The optics (to the general public) of doing it right now are bad.

Sounds like Brennan was consistently insubordinate. I think the American public understands what that is and that it can't be allowed with respect to the President.

The public doesn't follow Brennan's statements that closely. Switching between CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN news this hour. They have it painted that Trump revoked Brennan's clearance, because he dared to disagree with him. And, to distract from Omarossa's "bombshell tapes".

The admin should have waiting until investigations were launched, and then "temporarily" revoked the clearances of all of those named by Sara Sanders today. (After being found guilty. Permanent revokation)

TBH, I don't care what the left thinks and you and I both know that everyone who voted for him already understands the obstacles he faces.

I'm comfortable with what he did. I think he is proving himself to be an outstanding leader. He isn't afraid to make the hard decisions.

I see you edited, so my response is that, in terms of intelligence, better sooner rather than later. Trump feels Brennan needs to be shut down.

That's good enough for me.

We elected Trump to make these decisions. We did not elect Brennan.

originally posted by: EbbNFlow
Ahem so Brennan lost his clearance and your almost think it'd be big news here. Biden is stomping his feet about it so that's good.

Seems like a mini nuke went off on this board though.

We saw it coming, it's not unexpected at all. Brennan and Clapper seem to be two peas in the same pod going down. Lets see who else goes down?

Imagine the head of the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence using covert communications to bring down a President Elect?

Sound Scary enough for ya?

a reply to: Sabrechucker

The Q Proofs website is horrific, i'm surprised the MSM hasn't ran with it as a major debunk.

There are clear and provable lies in that thread, things are claimed as proof that Q didn't say would be proof. Its almost as if the Qproofs website was created to debunk Q.

a reply to: pavil

This AmericanMason dude is a fake. We build "sex dungeons"? HAHAHAHA!!! For the Vatican? And this is something a so-called Mason claims? I've heard a lot of ridiculous things in my life but, this has got to be the funniest thing ever. Besides, I can barely hammer two boards together if my life depended on it, LOL! AmericanMason, don't be ridiculous. Gosh.

originally posted by: cameralens86
a reply to: TomLawless
Q has used numerous techniques that previously would of drawn criticism if the MSM were doing it, deceptive, misleading and certainly not 100% without their own interests above others.

Glad you encourage doubt and skepticism, cuz with that statement above me , I think you have a pony in this race...

Poor MSM

Good talk chap, and Good day .....

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi

How are you tracking these numbers? 60m investigators?

Can you provide some more of these stats and sources. Even if true, 1 in 10 are aware of Q, but I imagine alot have negative opinions. The MSM corrupted the view, they planned it, exposed it and controlled the narrative. Why do you think Trump removed all Q banners?

If the plan to go mainstream was Q's I think it did not work as expected. Why not wait for HRC to be arrested before trying to go mainstream?

a reply to: MetalThunder

Not sure why you want to jump on anything/anyone who doesn't agree completely to your views.

Don't hide behind snide comments or at least have the courtesy to explain what you mean by "pony in this race".

You won't find me defending the MSM but I know deception when I see it. "Disinformation is necessary?" That's just prep for failure. I say stick to the crumbs thats where the gold is.

Q said that we will really be surprised when we see who has been talking to us.


So I am going with Oprah.

Q is Oprah.

a reply to: burntheships


I'm sick and tired of the double-standard too. The problem is that nothing LEGAL is being done to any of the government officials who actually broke U.S. laws in a BIG way.

Manafort's LEGAL trial gets a lot of coverage because WHEN he is found guilty, like 95% of accused in his situation, it will validate Mueller's witch-hunt. You get a LEGAL raid on Cohen and the world is ablaze with talk of Trump's imminent doom.

Why are there NO legal actions being taken against those from the Obama Administration? They conspired with Russia, obstructed, broke National Security laws....and much more!

Seven people from that Admin have been referred to the DOJ for CRIMINAL investigation since April 2018. The DOJ told Congressman Ron Desantis on Monday that Congress is "annoying" them by sending these referrals!

Cant' "Trust the plan", when you don't see a plan...or even evidence that there IS a plan.

originally posted by: Sabrechucker
You don't want to, because the Proofs would smoke the Fails.

I have yet to see one solid proof. So, no, that is not the reason why.

Honestly I can't even bring myself to make a thread on ATS and you want me to start a site?

That was one of Q's very early drops, and repeated and repeated as a fail. Considering we don't know what that "Fail" caused on the other end it's still TBD. That could have had hundreds if not thousands of people in PANIC mode.

Q didn't say, we are thinking about detaining HRC. They said she had been detained but she wasn't. And, if she was, nobody knows about it so why would anyone have panicked?

What if Q group sat back laughed and listened as all these people gave away their positions? "Dis info is necessary"
I love your Input Dask, but step it up your slacking. Repeating the same old fail's as new Proofs are found daily.

I see no new proofs, have never seen a single one, let alone daily.

Also, if the disinfo is necessary then you just admitted the fails exist, you just want to believe that they were on purpose. I just can't buy into that.

RESEARCH POST: Initial Observations
(Italics MY initial observations)

Q1891

Q !!mG7VJxZNCI No.161 📁
Aug 15 2018 16:55:08 (EST)

Texts, emails (gmail), drafts (gmail), HAM comms, PS/Xbox chat

PS/Xbox chat- Double meaning? PS = Playstation/Peter Strzok

logs..

TWO periods (Mistake?)

JC-BO-CS-LL-#2-NO-SY

WHO/WHAT is "#2"?

Bonus round
.
WHAT does "Bonus round" mean? Tie-in to the 'bonus period after "logs"?

Q

qanon.app...