>>>9531260, >>9531324 Prince Andrew… RUN!!1!
BAKER
There's still zero sauce for the Prince Andrew story, the second post - see pic and reconcile.
>But we really are only confirming to each other that we're all telling the truth or that we're all right.
Wrong anon, we watch videos and dig/read source material to VERIFY it.
>It's getting that message to sink into normies that's the hard part.
You do that with well sourced, verifiable information/evidence - material that normies can verify for themselves.
Show me the sauce anon.
Sources told The Sun …
A source said…
The MLA could potentially see prosecutors…
It's still just speculation at this point anon, with zero verfiable sources. The UK rags are just referencing each others zero sauced articles.
Now if you ask me if the story is actually right about what's going on - I'd say likely, but we don't deal with probable, likely, we deal with verifiable truths, and well sourced research.
>People posted the WWZ photo that was debunked.
>
>Then people posted the Obama foundation tweet that was debunked.
They were debunked because the people didn't VERIFY before sharing, thanks for proving my pont, anon.
I never mentioned Q, but this is QResearch, so why are you here?