There is a large group of people that baffles me. The people in this group seem to be black hats 90%, maybe 99% of the time. But then at a critical moment, they do what is needed for The Plan.
How to explain the behavior of such a person? All of this is JMO.
1. Random inexplicable action that favors The Plan? I assign this an extremely low probability.
2. Black hat who has been tricked into doing something that favors the plan. Highly probable for those who ultimately turn out to be black hats.
3. Black hat who has been “white mailed” by the Q team into doing the right thing? Possible.
4. Black hat who has flipped. Good possibility. But only if their crimes have not been truly heinous. No deals for child abusers is my bet. Someone who has taken bribes or has been caught cheating on a spouse (nothing pervy) might get a deal to flip. I think there is a good possibility that this accounts for some of them.
5. White hat who has been in place for a long time. This is something I consider highly likely. Why? Because I think the Q plan has been in place for a long time. This option is also the hardest to wrap one’s head around. This option is one that I would expect the casual observer to quickly reject.
I tend to waffle as to which side they are on and I fully expect to be surprised when the truth comes out.
But for grins, here are some of my guesses as to which category certain people are in. Feel free to disagree! I have no solid proof. Just bits and pieces of evidence, in some cases probably a lot of what I hope is true, and what I think I am observing in certain persons’ behavior. The behavior observation is possibly the most shaky.
CH - undecided. I haven’t watched her testimony and she’s new on the stage. But I’m open to the possibility that she’s a white hat.
BBarr, RM, RR. Top guess is 5. Less likely 4.
Sessions. Absolutely 5.
Wray. IDK. I’m guessing 5.
Pelosi. most likely 2, maybe 3. probably both at different times. I will be shocked if she turns out to be 4 or 5.
McConnell, L.Graham. IDK. 2,3,4,5. ?? I’d like to think 5, but MM married to Chinese woman and LG looking kinda gay means that these 2 are either REALLY great actors or else 2,3,4 are far more likely.
Not a comprehensive list. If you can think of any other categories besides my 1-5, definitely say so.
One subcategory of these people is those who are now off the stage. Those characters that were very active at some point, but now nearly invisible. I think we will find a lot of 5s among them and there are important reasons they are not visible.
Just my 2 cents worth.
I would love to have been a fly on the wall when some of the “white hat actors” were being coached on their upcoming roles!
This ambitious little chick before the committee, Wray, Barr, Sessions, the list goes on, all have been figured as "white hats" by some or another sort of mental m**********n on the part of the Q people being too clever by half. "Trust Sessions."
They're all the same, crooks of one species or another, prima facie. It must be reassuring for some to make them out to be something other than that, but it's actually a simple thing. The first one was Sessions, who turned out to not necessarily be a crookcrook but actually a frightened and intimidated man.
I might have been frightened too in his place, but the difference is that he was and I wasn't. Same difference for Wray, Barr, et al.