RT #spiritcooking w/ #NeveryHillary Y #DrainTheSwamp - NYPD Ready 2 Make Arrests in Weiner Case bit.ly/2fjmNnM via @BreitbartNews
The tweet.
Q drops I've found with standalone "Y":
https://qmap.pub/read/128
Find the ke[y]stone.
https://qmap.pub/read/142
How did Soros replace family ‘y’?
Who is family ‘y’?
https://qmap.pub/read/184
Follow the Owl & Y head around the world.
https://qmap.pub/read/185
1507085298730.jpg
Links to: https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1507085298730.jpg, confirming this is a picture of the aforementioned "Y head"
https://qmap.pub/read/189
Identify symbolism (Owl / Y).
Which performers/celebs supported HRC during the election?
Who performed during her rallies?
What jewelry and/or tattoos present?
What other events do they attend together?
What does HRC represent to them?
What celebrities have owl / Y head symbols?
What politicians have owl / Y head symbols?
What powerful people have owl / Y head symbols?
What powerful groups have owl / Y head symbols?
https://qmap.pub/read/192
Why are China & Russia communist S/closed?
Can you find an owl / Y there?
https://qmap.pub/read/194
Re-read drops re: NK / Iran.
(Y) What does it mean to be covered in gold?
Which couple was photographed covered in gold?
and
Who has all the information?
(Y) What does it mean to be covered in gold?
Can you locate one other pic w/ Y head covered in gold?
https://qmap.pub/read/195
A dupe of the link above. Possibly meaningful.
https://qmap.pub/read/780
In an effort to preserve the integrity of all U.S. elections, as ordered by the President of the United States, after an extensive investigation in select counties (the ‘sampling’), the DHS has concluded that while Russian entities (as outlined within SC Mueller’s investigation were complicit in attempting to undermine the presidential election of 2016) had no direct impact or bearing on the outcome of the presidential election, nor were any U.S. person(s) knowingly part of such an attempt to sabotage as it relates to the Russian investigation, U.S. and other foreign entities (as further described within DHS[XXXX]), acting outside of Russian agents, did attempt on numerous occasions, and were successful, in interfering w/ the presidential election of 2016, senate elections of [x, y, z], [x] elections, whereby several million of illegal, non-resident ballots (the “irregularities”) were counted, while legal ballots were improperly tabulated and/or intentionally mishandled. We believe these actions were a coordinated attack against the democracy of our country.
It's a stretch, but they might not be just innocent variables.
https://qmap.pub/read/963
Stage_5:5[y]
https://qmap.pub/read/2043
P talks to X
X talks to Y
Y talks to Z
Maybe not so much of a stretch. "P" is an odd variable to pair with X Y and Z.
https://qmap.pub/read/2510
Come[y] timestamp re: attorney challenge to
https://qmap.pub/read/2562
COME[Y]
https://qmap.pub/read/3599
A Higher Loyalty [Y].
.
Fancy that, the guy bringing you news on PIZZAGATE arrests happens to use a standalone "Y" just like Q ANON does. I bet that really burns the asses of some certain shills here.
Rules checklist:
1: Relevance: Posts must be directly relevant to investigation of Pizzagate: the sexual/physical abuse and/or murder of children by elites, child trafficking organized by elites, and/or cover-up of these activities and/or the protection/assistance provided to the people who engage in said activities.
Literally. Fucking. Arrests. Does anyone doubt arrests based on Anthony Weiner's case has nothing to do with PG?
2: Empiricism: EACH factual claim that is not common knowledge must be sourced with a link.
Title's first factual claim has a link in the body of the submission to the tweet, verifying my claim that he tweeted it as factual. Title's second factual claim of Q ANON using a standalone "Y" recently and many times was taken care of with every other link/quote/explanation.
2: If you ask a question: Explain what led to your question and provide sources.
I didn't.
2: If you present opinion/argument, connect your dots and provide sources for them.
No opinions or arguments. Factual claims only.
2: Avoid baseless speculation.
None to be found.
2: ALL posts must include at least one link.
Multiple links.
3: Clarity: All titles must adequately describe post content and must establish direct relevance to pizzagate.
I cannot think of a more succinct explanation title, and Anthony Weiner should be a household name here by now.
3: EACH link in your post must include a description of content and how the link relates to the post (except when markup is used to embed links in the specific text they support).
I do believe no case could be made that this did not happen.
4, 5, and 6, are not applicable. This is not Meta, it is not NSFW, and is not a link post.
view the rest of the comments →
shewhomustbeobeyed ago
@Vindicator, will you explain this to me? I don't understand what is so important about this.
Please.
All i see is @crensch using his Q-tards as some sort of weapon to prove an impossible position to @esotericshade.
It feels like he thinks he has a right to start a fight with ES here, just because he is barely complying with the rules.
@heygeorge, have you read this sputum?
Vindicator ago
Seems to me, I offered folks a rule that would keep this sort of thing out of v/pizzagate, and you ripped me a new asshole and pinged a bunch of folk over it on the grounds it was censorship to expect people to stick to research instead of turning submissions into brawls. Now you're implying he doesn't have a right to start a fight with ES here?
Sorry hon. That ship has sailed.
At least @Crensch had the honor to brawl in his own submission, instead of shitting up someone else's research post, forcing them to self-delete and start over.
Crensch ago
This has made my entire week.
argosciv ago
1k views... fuggin' hell. I wonder where (what sites) it's been crossposted to.
Crensch ago
What can I say, my first real pizzagate submission is a hit! It even pisses off the exact right people.
argosciv ago
What I find peculiar regarding the other one, is that the entire thing could have been raised without even a mention of Q or Q sharing the document first. But none of your opposition raises that point.
Crensch ago
I'm not sure I fully understand but you're getting at.
argosciv ago
Nothing negative about you if that's what you might have thought. I'll explain.
In reference to "the other [submission]", this one: https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/3535879/
I guess what I'm saying is that setting Q aside, your case still has the same basis and although it's not a smoking gun or even the most solid case, it's not totally without basis to point out indeed that "correct the record" has been a directive/phrase in use for a long time (CIA or otherwise) and that adds (however insignificantly) to suspicions that CTR the organization may be corrupt.
Is there really any doubt that the CIA is likely involved, on some level, with organizations such as CTR and indeed CTR itself? I would hazard to say no.
What also, if someone else (not me, obviously) had posted the same theory (with or without the Q element)? Would we see the same reaction?
Crensch ago
Your edit made me chuckle.
@vindicator