^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think you jumped the rails a bit here. Hillary was quite ready to take out Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi (for her own personal gain, of course). I wouldn’t refer to them as white hats. Nevertheless, I agree with you about Assange.
I was mostly talking about Assange, but your post got me thinking. Looking at the "big picture" and what we know now,thanks to our Q research and current events. Think of W. Bush being a part of the same deep state that Hillary is a part of. We all seem in accordance on that now, right?
Then think of Obama's so called "Arab Spring", events in Egypt, the forming of ISIS, and all over the Mideast. I believe that the "deep state's" goal was consolidation of the entire middle east into a "caliphate". Taking out Saddam and Khaddafi were crucial to that goal, right? Saddam was surely a pain in the ass, and Khaddafi HAD been, but he gave up his nuclear ambitions and was being a good raggedy man after Reagan spanked him. Why was it necessary to go after him all of a sudden?
No. I'm gonna stick with my original thought. Anybody that Hillary wants to drone is on our side. Even Khaddafi and to a lesser and shakier extent, Saddam.
I know, it's a hard sell. Just think about it.
Bagster
Lesser Oracle