Baker's Bias
Previous Notables Not Notable, Baker.
I have so much sauce on this.
There is so much sauce on this it will sink your boat
The only sauce the "RR is good" people have is
"Muh my imagination"
this notion RR and Mueller were good guys working for POTUS has been spun for a full year. So if it's repeated enough, people will get used to it and accept it?
I have documentary evidence and circumstantial evidence that they are both bad;
To support "RR is good"
Baker and his team has to ignore "Q" statement;
Two "Q" statements.
I'll admit "Q" team is sometimes ambiguous,
but why hate on "no commercial jet at the Pentagon" and 'No jFKjr." and at the same time cherry pick this issue?
What would be the point of the disinfo "RR is good" ?
We can easily see what the point [motive] would be in the other two cases.
There could be a reason one could not think of; But even hypothetically, what would be the motive.
Yet the motive to convince QAnon researchers that they are both good? It could make us look retarded if and when it was proven wrong?
That gets me to the point:
Why push it? Why not just wait to find out. Withhold judgment?
There is a reason all the PAYtriots are pushing it
"Q" called it disinfo.
I think it is too. .
>>6444907 pb
>>6444914 previous bread
^^^These anons know what's going on
>>6444718 pb
>>6444698 pb
>>6444748 pb
>>6444782 pb
>>6444689 pb
>>6444698 pb
>>6444903 pb
RR blocked the whistle-blower on Uran. One.
RR began the entire stalking of Trump via of "Muh Russia" Hoax.
In fact he was at the center of it for the whole time
So Trump and Q actually devised the Muh Russia diversion?
Seems implausible, but I'm open minded.
maybe they are all time - traveling too
kek
Wow. Good catch.
>>86cd10
Fame Fag Baker. No need to tell us when you post oh BTW "Baker here" ? is it?
thank you for your work , Baker. Must not be easy.
>>6444501 pb What if it's Not Notable because Baker is biased, pushing an unsupported POV and posts the favored Notable without an explanation, just speculation?
If you actually check the citations: RR says,
"I dispute your characterization about what the FISA warrant is about, sir"
[so cocky total wanker]
[RR's denying the FISA authorized spying on the Trump campaign
"I'll be happy to discuss the details with you" [eyes dart around]
Meanwhile he just refused to answer.
"I 'm not the affient" Whatever,
He's claiming he relied upon the word of others.
We'll see.
BUT HE SIGNED IT! WITHOUT VERIFYING IT HIMSELF
He wants "off" on a technicality.
People like the cherry pic the Q reflections,
claim "disinfo is necessary"
Maybe.
but I'd have more faith if there was actual evidence rather than projection, speculation, imagination and succumbing to the massive push in that direction from the PAYtriots.
Who's to say the Baker is above being influenced by Bs?
When I first got here the BO was supporting AJ.
How times have changed.
And I do think they will change again and again, likely at an ever increasing rate.
When I asked for proof all I got in reply was to ask me for my proof.
Here is some of it; I have much more to back up the fact that RR is an evil sniveling liar, posing as a "so above it all," just like Comey!
But one doesn't really need more than one good proof/
You can't prove a lie.
And that's why the "RR is White Hat" dudes can't prove it.
And don't even seem to try.
Their "trying" is "historical fiction" some thing everybody in our culture is very used to.