Codemonkey being a glowie may be true - may be not. Can't be proven one way or another. That is your supposition which may be true - may be not. My response was too someone outside of the MSM referring to Q by that name which you further reinforced by saying he 'interviews with the MSM and HBO".
Just finished watching the first 2 episodes. 2nd episode just basically a history of the chans with the Watkins and his pen cliffhanger.
1st episode sorta fair, though the bias is obvious - just not in your face. I will point to one scene in the episode that folks won't line and I'll quote it verbatim. Scene cuts to Jan. 6...
"The storming of the Capitol - The Storm. It was an event that Q had promised it's followers for nearly three years. Present behind this movement, an anonymous figure known only as Q had somehow risen from the darkest reaches of the internet to the seat of the Capitol (scene cuts to 'the shaman' standing behind the desk). And while a shocked nation searched for answers, to me, it seemed like an inevitable conclusion to an absurd, almost unbelievable story. A story of how a website changed the world all with the help of a single letter."
True, to a point. The apparatchik in DC has access to the same intel.
It all comes down to what you do or don't do with it and that's dependent on which side is more successful, plan or not. Like Tyson said, 'everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth'. Like you and for the good of the country, I hope it's Trump that lands the final haymaker. I can't blindly believe it though - that's just me.
Allow me to call myself out here. This doc may not be "as bad" as I assumed it would be. If this Variety reporter is unhappy with it, it may be not as scathing as I originally thought. Perhaps, a tiny little bit even-handed. I'll draw a final conclusion when I watch it.
Umm, watch the link in the original post? I never said anything about the Grassley tweet. The tweet, along with the HBO doc, are two of the data points in the link to further the Q post. To put more simply, the Grassley tweet is just one part of the overall argument.
you seem like a glass half-full type person while i'm of the glass half-empty persuasion. i'm not gonna try to detract from your optimism. i'll guess we'll see when the doc is released. i'm not holding my breath and hope to be pleasantly surprised - nah, check that, pleasantly shocked.
I'd be shocked if this HBO doc is not a hit piece.
Recent HBO 'red pill' docs...
The NXIUM doc after Raniere and the Bronfman sisters have already been tried and convicted - totally expendable. The Epstein doc after Epstein had 'suicided' himself. Again, totally expendable. The Woody Allen - Mia Farrow doc about a now 85 year old man following the MeToo movement. Totally expendable.
The Epstein and Allen sagas have been known for decades and been plausibly denied by the mainstream, aka the HBO's of the world. The NXIUM thing, while more recent, has been known of for many, many years.
Again, I'd be shocked if this isn't a hit piece.
It's Facebook, so haven't watched this particular clip. But, I'll add this - I presume it's from the the documentary that is airing on HBO. It's around 3 episodes in as of right now. None of this is new. The one thing I've learned from the documentary is how incredibly naive Mia Farrow is/was. If you've seen her character from Rosemary's Baby, that's her in real life. I can see how some would consider her somewhat complicit in the whole thing - but, for me, her naivete is the contributing factor in that. She was a successful actress well before Woody Allen, so it ain't the money.
Also, all Woody Allen movies have an older man and young girl as one of the tenets of the movie if you can actually sit through one. Personally, I hate his movies not even considering his underlying perversions.
That's an incredibly specious line of reasoning. So long as this theoretical end not being for everyone applies for any potentiality, it's all good.