No investigation into WL receipt of information?
Nobody investigated WikiLeaks. Nobody interviewed Assange. Why? Duh, the didn't want the answers and would rather write their own fake Russian Hacker narrative.
No pull down of NSA metadata trace/C to WL?
Same reason. Snowden involved. Can't put CIA agent on record for trying to take down another US govt. agency. So CIA cuts him loose in public and calls him traitor. NSA calls him traitor, because he is. CIA laughs.
No pull down of NSA metadata period?
What does "pull down" mean. Haha. Oh, wait. So Snowden releases NSA metadata and CIA lets it hang there, doing damage to NSA. They wanted to kill NSA via Snowden?
Nothing transferred across web?
Nothing transferred across web because WikiLeaks drops were an "inside job". Data collected by Seth Rich and Snowden by hand and transferred out. Not hacked at all. Hack is a lie.
Direct-to-Direct bypass dump?
Don't know what this means. Sounds like what I just described. Rather than a "hack" from outside, a direct snatch from some in house computer guy. ?
No 'direct' investigation into DNC computer/software?
They wanted to call it a Russian hack rather than Seth Rich hack. They didn't want to provide motive for murder.
No 'direct' investigation into CS?
Same reason. Not sure who Crowdstrike is. Is that the organization that supposedly "investigated" the breach? Bogus, of course. Not sure on this one.
FBI/SC/DOJ/FED G simply TRUST CS's report on data breach?
Yea. Again, wanted to wash the whole thing so they could claim Russian hack and sweep Seth Rich under the rug. Big fat lying liars.
HUSSEIN block?
Obama blocked all the real investigations. HUSSEIN control?
Obama controlled all the investigations. HUSSEIN "STATE SECRETS" WH NAT SEC ARTICLES 1-9 - BURIED?What are these articles. Why buried???
Awan attached?
Are the Awans attached to these breaches as well as the Congressional breaches. Very likely so, but ni have no evidence. Just all dirty birds with similar skill sets working for the same set of other dirty birds are likely connected in some way.
AMERICA FOR SALE.
Wasn't that a book by...Corsi? Or that Indian fellow that I like? Forget his name. What in that book applies to this theme? Cheatin' Obama.
Q's new nickname must apply here, along with his attempt to rig the election by planting dirty people in the Trump campaign, electronic spying, digging up fake dirty dossiers, and other assorted lies and dirty tricks. Yes, cheatin Obama applies nicely.
Trust the plan.
I do. APRIL SHOWERS.
A hard rain's gopnna' fall.
Q
A most well thought out and reasoned approach!
Well done Mr Bagster!
Most of this drop seems self-explanatory. These are the parts I have questions about.
WARS [FAKE][TOP HAPPY][BACKEND DEAL].
What exactly does Q mean by [BACKEND DEAL] in a killbox or mirror. Is this the profit or gain that the 'string-pullers' gain from the war they created? And what exactly is [TOP HAPPY]?
PHARMA [CLAS-D]
Has to do with the cleaning process of manufactured drugs?"...class D for handling of product after the washing procedures." Why does Q talk about this?
ROTHSCHILD.
'CONSPIRACY'
'CONSPIRACY'
'CONSPIRACY'
Why three "CONSPIRACY"? Emphasis or Rothschilds are responsible for all of the above listed conspiricies? Something else? UK/GER [5 days].
Choice is yours.
REVELATIONS.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
Is Q saying that the UK and Germany have five days to make a choice or revelations will be made? Regarding what? Dead Russian spies? Collusion in US elections? Something else? Why German and Uk together?
here bags some info about crowdstrike, they are who “investigated” the DNC hack and never turned over servers to FBI
and regarding the direct direct
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack
Former NSA experts say it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak—an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.
By Patrick LawrenceTwitter AUGUST 9, 2017
There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.
Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source—claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative.