I don't downvote people.

And what exactly do you want me to say?

"All the people with credentials to know about the Plan telling you that there is no Plan could definitely be optics. The fact that the only strong assertion that a Plan is in motion comes from a faceless internet presence whose credentials are impossible to verify is possibly part of the Plan."

I can say it's possible. But it's impossible to prove or disprove under the conditions which you prefer.

Which makes it non-falsifiable.

Here's a better question: exactly WHO at this point could tell you that the Plan doesn't exist that you would take as indication that the Plan doesn't exist? How is your position falsifiable?

Not Flynn. That would be misinformation.

Not Trump. That would just be optics.

Not the military leadership. They're just compromised.

Not people like Pompeo or other officials. They wouldn't admit to a secret Plan.

Not even Q, because you'd almost certainly assume the account was compromised after being inactive for so long.

A good assertion is ALWAYS falsifiable. That means you know, and can tell me, how to beat the argument. You know what sort of evidence would defeat your position, and you have no problem sharing it. You'd WANT people to try to find that evidence to disprove your position, and you could even tell them how.

Because you'd be more interested in the truth than in being right.

I can tell you that my belief that Q is an internet troll nobody would be beaten with concrete proof that he's a military or government operative. That would lend credibility to his claims that Q currently doesn't have. My claim and position on Q is falsifiable. I am telling you how to beat my argument.

So what makes your claim falsifiable? Under what hypothetical condition could someone tell you that this secret Plan doesn't exist and you'd accept that as the truth, and not just disinformation because everything is so completely secret?