>>2690401 (lb)
Lee actually gets a lot of shit right, and you are right, he played games with Nemos in that debate. That's called "tough love". Oh, he's a complete dick about it; dont get me wrong, but Lee used debate tactics and logical fallacies at times, testing to see if Nemos could keep up. Sadly, he couldn't.
Now, right right after that, Nemos got doxxed (coincidence, right?). There were more people paying attention to the debate than we realize. I'm not suggesting Lee is connected to those fuckers, but what you see is that many people who are convinced of Nemos' fact-finding tweets saw how badly Lee pummeled him, and were even more convinced. Black hats saw that, too, and then, the Ad Hominem campaign against Nemos began.
Q has called Lee S. out on his digs re: Voting booth fraud under Obama's administration. Lee is an actual investigative journalist, and he's covered Bill Browder extensively. Ask anons here who that dude is, and you get crickets. Not one single MSM outlet, left or right, speaks badly of him.
Why?
You need to look at Lee Stranahan's method of fact-checking and analysis as a filter through which Q information –should– flow in order to prime the pumps of irrevocable proof for the masses. Q asked for proofs. Anons started putting out circumstantial stuff as proof. That doesn't mean that 3,899 circumstances doesn't make evidence; it just means that if we're going to make claims like "Q predicted…", then be ready to be proven wrong on a lot. Q has to operate the way they do because giving info prior to something, in most of these cases, would wreck operations. Black hats are here, too, ya know.
I, by NO MEANS, am advocating for Lee, but just because he's a cunt and demands proofs be declared actual proofs or just circumstantial, doesn't mean is isn't right about that.