Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Cboldt
the wrong impression that the “meeting of 7 people”

Awww, really? It says that in there? Well hell. There goes my brilliant "seven guy" theory. I thought I had it nailed.

Booo me.

I reluctantly ask for a take back on definite Q confirmation.

54 posted on 01/23/2018 8:28:04 PM PST by bagster (Even bad men love their mamas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]


To: bagster

The particular article I remember then being alluded to was one that lamented the election night heartbreak on HRC side. It was a side mention ala ‘the next day folks gathered ...’ - there was another of these a week or so ago that had similar reflection but the one that was found at the time of “Q” mention was different (there may have been a photo with the article of Clinton HQ on the night of the election with Sick Willy looking at a TV in a room with shocked people) ...


60 posted on 01/23/2018 8:33:20 PM PST by Steven W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

To: bagster
-- I reluctantly ask for a take back on definite Q confirmation. --

Why so on this point? Not that the number of people is confirmed, or even a meeting on that day, but the sooner a specific claim is made, the better the chance of it being credible if shown true later.

Unverified report of another meeting, December 2016

63 posted on 01/23/2018 8:35:28 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson