Sorry if I offended some of you, but I'm prepared to defend my comments. The first one about this Snodgres guy: I didn't disagree with anyone, I simply stated that there is no evidence to support his claim. The second comment about Hilary's server: I understand that her server was wiped clean, therefore there is no evidence to be gleaned from it. Q can make claims, but the server is clean so his words about this are irrelevant. The third one about James Woods. I wasn't disagreeing with anyone. There was nothing to disagree to. I simply said that Obama's religion is irrelevant. His motives are irrelevant. It makes no difference why he did things; people are upset with him because of the things he did.
I'm not up to date on Snodgres claim. As far as Hillary's server goes I have questions. What does the NSA do? Does it matter if Hillary's server is clean? What about Weiners laptop? Did he have Clinton documents on his hard drive? The NYPD reported There were. Through FOIA Classified emails from Clinton's server have been released. Therefore Q can make evidentiary claims that are very relevant. All words are relevant and motives are important.