He doesn't need to say anything about Q because the FISA evidence speaks for itself:
In legalese "res ipsa loquitur"
Q and anons don't possess admissible evidence for persecution.
Normies do.
Our job is "crowd control"
Fantasyland
You apparent just don't know very amny adults I guess.
Seems totally normal (but exceptional) to me.
You might want to reassess the people you know if he seems "unusual"
You have to have a fully tuned busllshit detector to pick up on the intentionally crafted question that contains a "faulty premise".
It often contains more than on element, one true, one false and trick you into agreeing with the false premise included with agreeing with the true part.
Then when they report, they will refer ONLY to the 1) false part 2) your agreement.
Every narrative does that constant.
One easy way to beat it is to restate the question i your words, or make them "restate the question.
The "restate" the question becomes a challenge for the to reconstruct both the true & false premises in a new sentence.
Courts are supposed to enforce valid logic "the whole truth".