Anonymous ID: 625339 Jan. 15, 2021, 12:27 p.m. No.12537078   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>12536931

And now we know why Q made the distinction in this drop:

 

Q !!Hs1Jq13jV6 ID: f457dc No.11118631 📁

Oct 17 2020 11:36:26 (EST)

https://twitter.com/stinchfield1776/status/1317450311192223746📁

There is 'Q'. 1

There are 'Anons'. 2

There is no 'Qanon'. 3

Media labeling as 'Qanon' is a method [deliberate] to combine [attach] 'Q' to comments _theories _suggestions _statements [and ACTIONS] made by 2.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CANNOT ATTACK THE INFORMATION [primary source 1]?

DO YOU ATTACK [& TYPECAST] THROUGH USE OF OTHERS?

Not all 'Anons' are authentic [injected].

You are correct, CJ.

Retweet @ 17:17 had meaning. [mathematical probability _17:17 [day after]?]

Do you believe it was a coincidence surgical removal of You Tube accounts occurred same day as 'Hunter' drop?

Welcome to the Digital Battlefield.

Q

Anonymous ID: 625339 Jan. 15, 2021, 12:30 p.m. No.12537112   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>12536948

>>12536996

Grassley doing what needed to be done to keep everything on the right timeline.

 

>>12536963

No. Not at all. Housley is at that stage where he needs to reconcile if "Q" is 100% authentic or not, or just wait until absolute confirmation later and join the bandwagon. It's one of those "career self-preservation" moves.