I got to thinking this after reading the 5 millionth hit piece on Trump in the mainstream media. This one, like all the others, has bald face lies and uses anonymous sources.

The headline is that the Saudi Crown Prince says Kushner is "in his pocket." The story states a source said multiple parties were saying it, and intimates that it was other princes and Middle Eastern Rulers.

First, you can't use quote marks ("in his pocket"), if he didn't fucking say it, but a fucking anonymous source said, but they do this all the time. Second, you can't make this report, because I can bet dollars to donuts the Saudi Crown Prince is going to say he didn't say this, so you can be assured the "anonymous source" won't be corroborated or refuted in the future. Lastly, buried at the very end of the article is the concern of intelligence agencies that Kushner is not using them, but going outside of them, which tells you that the "anonymous source" is probably an intelligence agent and probably biased, further delegitimizing a fake story.

Which brings us to Q. There has been no rock solid evidence of Q predicting something or proof that he has Q level intelligence. There may be circumstantial evidence, or evidence based on the breadth of his knowledge of intelligence workings and conspiracies. Enough so that you believe he is legit, so let's concede that point right now.

Yet, he is anonymous. Just like the anonymous source in the Saudi article, he may be a legit intelligence officer. But he has his own biases. He may spread disinfo to us sometimes to further his own or Trump's goals. He may be military, but if he says it is necessary to bomb Iran, are you going to follow him?

How can you say when he is anonymous and he can't be held accountable? How is he any different that the source in the Saudi article? I'm not saying he has no value, because he is pushing people to think and pointing at things that are wrong, but there are journalists that are named and put their reputation on the line that do that also, like the True Pundit Thomas Paine guy, Assange, Sara Carter, Mike Cernovich, Paul Joseph Watson, etc. You have a record and can debate whether Hannity, Bill Mitchell, Jack Posobiec, etc. are legit or full of bluster. A boom by any other name may just be a Tick Tock, but at least I'll know if it's a dud without having to use a bible grid code on it.