dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

>>10588517 (lb)

First, I'm not sure that's true.

>>10588598 (lb)

Like this anon says.

I personally don't know for a fact because I never got "into" the social media drama-fuck-fest, but realizing social media is part of the plan, I created a twat account to "spread the message". I hadn't followed her, but I do follow others in that circle.

But secondly, I think Q might be pointing anons to her account for the "how to camouflage". In other words, if she's got it worked out on how to keep from getting banned while still getting the message out, it might be something to look into for other anons that want to emulate (to an extent).

Just a theory.

>>10588756

I hate playing nice so that the message doesn't get squelched.

>>10588777

>>10588786

How do you explain this tweet, then?

https://twitter.com/EmeraldRobinson/status/1303740504631320579

@EmeraldRobinson

President Trump doing interviews with Bob Woodward is proof that 4D chess doesn't really exist.

Emerald is on/off for me. She'll have a run of really good tweets, and then something like this. Does she just not "get it", or was she being sarcastic with really poor delivery?

>>10588789

This is becoming a slide.

They are delaying the hell out of this. Holy smokes:

https://assangecourt.report/september-10-morning

Julian Assange hearing halted due to COVID-19 scare.

The extradition hearing of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was adjourned today due to a member of one of the legal teams being possibly exposed (emphasis mine) to the COVID-19 virus

Looks like the shadowban tester isn't working

https://shadowban.eu

Might be worth a notable.

>>10588861

You're missing the point of the question.

Emerald will nail stuff pretty well; for example, you SS of her tweet re: the Obamas and Netflix. She will also, every now and then, tweet some shit like what I posted. I took a picture for you.

How do anons interpret this? Does she not quite get it, or is there something else going on with her?

>>10588834

Nice find, anon! You also have, um, other good tastes; lol.

>>10589032

It's up for me, however:

>>10588916

>>10588981

Well, I think we've learned, by now, that it doesn't matter if we anons get it. It's more a matter of by the time everyone figures it out, the plan in motion worked. He's done this dozens (more?) of times to find leakers, traitors, backstabbers, etc.

I think the Woodward interview was a way of doing a few things:

Exposes Fauci's disinfo/lack of info
Exposes leakers
As Kayleigh said yesterday, gives him the opportunity to show calmness in the face of crisis issues.