Why do you think that DNI moving to then remove the CIA as the overseer for the briefings as 'insignificant'? Seems pretty significant to me. Whereas previously, it appears Trump thought it was valuable and necessary to string the swamp along, now he is moving directly to destroy them and cut them off.

I'd say this is a significant development in the unfolding war to destroy the Swamp. But that doesn't mean that the author of the article understands the real significance.

And (we are both supposing) if Trump did not invest as much credit in the daily briefings he got from the Swamp as the normie layer think he did, it still doesn't mean they were inconsequential. If that step (action: getting briefings from the swamp) by Trump was not consequential, I doubt that he would have done it (wasted time on it). He's uber efficient, as far as I can tell. So the question to me is, HOW was it consequential.

Your original premise was that either "Either Trump is Q+ and his daily briefings are being provided by the Q team who know everything, or all his data has been limited to whatever the cabal-owned CIA has dished to him."

In other words, (the way you expressed it), Trump is either getting his daily briefings from Q team OR all his briefings are only from the CIA."

Perhaps I misunderstood it, but I and others interpreted yoru comment as saying "Either Trump is getting briefed by Q team OR by the CIA. He cannot be getting briefed by both of them"

If you agree that he was possibly getting briefings from both his own (Q team) and at the same time getting briefings 'from the CIA' (Establishment swamp), up until now, then I guess we're on the same page there.

However, as bootyjuice wrote, its significant (to some of us) because he has now officially 'cut them off', i.e. made a major change in who gets to control whatever that swamp briefing was.

Btw, I never demanded you expand your thinking. That's pure projection, fren. I exhort you to expand your thinking, but there is no demand there. Your choice 100%, and I'm not particularly attached to what choice you make. The only reason I'm engaging your here is to clarify my own thinking, ideally achieve some mutual understanding, and hopefully make a contribution.

You don't have to 'expand your thinking' or even do it in the way I think would benefit.

But again, to reiterate: you wrote

"Q is real so changing the CIA daily briefing didn't matter"

I think changing the CIA daily briefing DID matter. It's just that your standard of 'what matters' and my standard of 'what matters' differs. I think if you expanded your view, you'd see that while as far as X goes, it 'doesn't matter', but as far as Y goes, 'it does matter'. And these two are not mutually exclusive (kek, aka 'binary'). They can both be true.

In any case, thank you for responding, and making the effort to clarify your thinking to me. We may differ in aspects of our perspective, but your effort is appreciated.