I'd be interested to know frens views on Assange.
For me, there are primarily two possible explanations for what has been going on with Assange.
One, the corrupt system has him in it's control, and is screwing around with him, short of outright suiciding him, is making things so difficult and arduous that he will eventually be removed.
Two, Assange is being watched over and is under the protection (control) of the White Hats, and is being held in the UK until the right moment when he will be released (extradited) to the US, where he will then be able to be 'tried', and can testify and spill the beans on Seth Rich and all the other shenanigans the Swamp has been doing that Assange knows directly about.
If this second scenario is true, then it means the authorities in the UK that have been refusing to allow extradition are White Hat controlled, as well.
Another third possibility is that there is a tug of war and a battle going on between the Cabal/Swamp and the White Hats over Assange, the kind of behind the scenes war that we can easily understand has constantly been taking place everywhere else while the Q and the White Hats have the upper hand and are herding the Swamp into checkmate.
At the least, if we are to believe Q at face value, they indicate that they have Assange within their area of control.
Q1595
Ostensibly in regards to wikileaks: "You may have the site but we have the source."
Desperate agencies do stupid things.
Dead cat bounce.
You may have the site but we have the source.
https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1011441579565953025📁
Panic is good.
Panic is right.
July 2018 - the month the world discovered the TRUTH.
Conspiracy no more.
Time to FEED.
Q
Q1842
Again, in conjunction with Assange and wikileaks: "Do you believe in coincidences? We have the source."
These people are stupid!
https://www.cohenmilsteinprocessserver.com📁
"Never Interfere With an Enemy While He’s in the Process of Destroying Himself."
Discovery.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/400882-wikileaks-says-senate-panel-requested-assange-testimony-in-russia-probe📁
Do you believe in coincidences?
We have the source.
Q
I find the second or third of these scenarios to be the more plausible, although my mind boggles at how this might be being managed.
Either way, the issue is timely now, because of a looming deadline.
According to this BBC article "Julian Assange: Does Wikileaks founder have a powerful ally in new Australian PM?" Date: June 11, 2022, the deadline looms for the UK Home Secretary (Similar to the US Secretary of State?) to act.
After a long legal battle in the UK, the courts in April referred the US extradition request to the Home Secretary for her final decision. Priti Patel has until 19 June - exactly 10 years since Mr Assange was last free - to make it.
Looking at the timing, with the convergence of Durham, Election Transparency (i.e. Mules), and other elements, this June 19 deadline seem noteworthy.
However, if Assange is released from the UK and NOT extradited, will he stay in the UK, or what? Also, if he is NOT brought back to the US for trial, then how could he be utilized to provide testimony re: Truth regarding the Swamp and DNC, Rich, etc? Can he enter the US freely if the charges are not dropped, or he is not pardoned by POTUS, for example? Being invited to testify before Congress, for example, would require that he was NOT facing charges, wouldn't it?
So, if the UK Home Secretary decides against the extradition, could Assange stay in the UK at his leisure, until things turnover in the US, and the charges are dropped or he is pardoned? Would he be able to go to Australia, for example, without once again facing the extradition request from the US?
What is truly noteworthy is that Assange now has such a high profile international status, particularly with the more left-leaning masses, who are always open to emotional exploitation by the Cabal, that he has the potential to be an incredible 'mainstream' red-pill dropper, bigger than Musk, for example.
Why? Because traditionally, the leftist leaning softies are the ones who have supported Assange the most. If (and when?) Assange comes out and exposes the real corruption, it would send massive shock waves through that whole sector of society:
"Wait? You mean Obama isn't the glorious virtue hope giver? You mean, the Left has been the core underpinning of the corruption? You mean, Donald Trump isn't the most evil person in the world? Etc"
Note: by "Left-leaning Softies", I do NOT mean the hard core ideological Marxists, Communists and Globalists, but rather those emotionally mislead, well-intentioned people who in ignorance have believed the lies and propaganda of the media and the ideological Agents, and so have supported the the Left's agenda, because they think this is being compassionate, or saving the planet, or such - most of my family fall into this category.
I haven't done a lot of digging on Assange, but it certainly seem that the Assange situation is worthy of a prolonged and sustained attention from anons and frens in the Great Awakening. In other words, keep your eyes on this.
NB: Credit to u/Ehjax78 for first posting the BBC article.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IEhLFXVp/after-more-than-a-decade-spent-t/c/
Correction: Sean Rich > Seth Rich. (No disrespect intended.)
I like the way you are thinking about the drop, and applying logical thought.
That said, I know that there certainly was a consensus among anons at the time that Q was specifically pointing to Wikileaks.
Consider the entire drop:
Desperate agencies do stupid things.
Pointing to an intel agency (eg. the C_A)
Dead cat bounce.
"A dead cat bounce is a short-term recovery in a declining trend that does not indicate a reversal of the downward trend" (sauce: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/00/101700.asp)
You may have the site but we have the source.
What site? What source?
https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1011441579565953025
here is what Wikileaks posted on twitter:
The tweet links to a "Qanon" hit piece: PRO-TRUMP CONSPIRACY-MONGER “QANON” CALLS FOR REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN
Panic is good.
Panic is right.
Here, Q appears to be trolling the C_A (aka the agency that holds the Wikileaks organization now that Assange is not in charge, implying that they are lashing out using wikileaks to post anti-Q narrative.)
Let's put all this together.
Wikileaks, formerly an instrument of whistleblowers under Assange exposing corruption, is now dropping an anti-"Qanon" hit piece. Q directly implies that wikileaks is now in instrument of the Deep State, because who else is pushing the Anti-Q narrative so hard via media? (Many examples of this activity on the Q board.) Q indicates that it is a stupid move to use wikileaks to push their anti-Q agenda, and that it will not result in any change of direction of the Q operator in the long run.
Putting all this together, the consensus among anons at the time was that the C_A indeed had taken over Wikileaks (aka the site) but that Assange was under White Hat control.
In the Assange timeline, Assange was indicted in Sweden he fled to sanctuary in the Ecuadorian embassy in June 2012. Wikileaks releases the confidential emails from DNC and Clinton in July 2016.
At this point, Assange himself becomes a source, because he knows HOW the DNC and clinton emails were released, and by whom. (He inadvertently implied this was Seth Rich in an interview he gave to a Dutch interviewer. At a minimum, he is implying that Seth Rich was a whistleblower of some sort): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg
July 2018 - the month the world discovered the TRUTH. Conspiracy no more. Time to FEED. Q
It is hard to interpret that Assange is "the site" and that someone else is "the source" in this context. What source? Source of what? Your interpretation makes sense in that one statement alone You may have the site but we have the source, but then, what is this source Q is talking about? And the source of WHAT?
The context here implies that Assange knows what is the truth about DNC Seth Rich, whether there was Russian involvement, Trump, etc, and hence is the "source" for that information. If Q is not referring to this information, then what information is it? Contextually, there's no answer to that, and the entire drop makes little sense.
This post links with a later one that also states "we have the source".
These people are stupid! https://www.cohenmilsteinprocessserver.com. "Never Interfere With an Enemy While He’s in the Process of Destroying Himself." Discovery. http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/400882-wikileaks-says-senate-panel-requested-assange-testimony-in-russia-probe
Q is painting this picture. The DNC is accusing Wikileaks in their suit against Russia. The case was dismissed with prejudice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee_v._Russian_Federation)
The context of this is the DNC attempting to paint the narrative that Russia, Wikileaks and Trump were all in collusion re: the DNC emails. We already know that all of that narrative is a fabrication.
Q indicates these steps will destroy the DNC / Swamp narrative, because neither Russia nor Trump were actually involved, and in Discovery process, the truth would come out. By forcing the case and a discovery process, the DNC Swamp is actually shooting themselves in the foot. It may be, however, that they are simply attempting to reinforce the narrative of Russia, Trump (and wikileaks in this case).
Wikileaks says that the senate panel requested Assange's testimony, further attempting to paint the picture that somehow Russia is involved. However, there is no confirmation from the Senate that this is actually so. It's only wikileaks who is saying this.
Do you believe in coincidences? We have the source. Q
Again, Q mentions the source. If the source is NOT Assange in this case, then who or what is it, and what information is the source holding? Those things seem quite unanswerable if Assange is not the answer. Contextually, it doesn't make sense, and requires mere speculation with reasoning, but without context or evidence.