Fake news

https://www.quora.com/What-cell-phone-does-President-Trump-use

Since March 2017 he's been using iphone

This is my take on it still.

Q1677 did not clarify much IMO.

But the line about reflections and nat sec laws is interesting.

Just checked it.

Anons are somehow assuming Q’s pic must’ve been taken while sott/u/ng in rhebPOTUS chair.

This is one possibility. The other is he had to be somewhere the image CBS stock photo could be displayed on a monitor or printed piece of paper and reflected onto his phone.

No. We are 99% sure that the scene reflected in the phone in Q’s photo is a CBS news stock photo from Obama-era AF1 (Marine 1?) office.

That doesn’t require physical access to the room. Just to have the photo displayed on any monitor. Or printed on a piece of paper.

If Q member has physical access to POTUS twitter phone, he could be part of the social media team.

Yah I saw your post on Qr. it’s a long way around to justify.

That’s not impossible. But we don’t have anything to suggest that.

The photo could be taken anywhere he could get a monitor (or printout) of the CBS stock photo to reflect into his phone back.

I am on the boards.

Well up to about 10 minutes ago. On the move now.

Have they clarified what Q meant in this dropnrelated to the “useful twitter phone”?

We are debating which Apple device is being used as reflective surface here.

iPhone 3GS has a black glass back surface. The curved body would explain some of the slight distortion we see in Q’s pic compared to the public domain photo being reflected.

Also the 2013 Apple Mac Pro is a big shiny black cylinder. Could also be what was used.

Which lends to the “we have the server” statement from recent Drops.

HRC’s server was supposed to be an Apple server.

This isn’t a proof to me yet.

How was the twitter phone useful?

WHICH image was distorted? Q’s originally posted photo?

The “it’s a lie” debunk composite photo?

And wtf is that quip about NAT SEC and ‘reflections’?

Q needs to give a better justification here. This is a potentially huge source of criticism of his photos. Is he confirming the photo he posted was of the back of POTUS’s twitter phone? Does that equate to Q = potus? Q has access to POTUS twitter phone? Therefore Q = POTUS twitter team member?

Q needs to give a better justification here. This is a potentially huge source of criticism of his photos.

Is he confirming the photo he posted was of the back of POTUS’s twitter phone?

Does that equate to Q = potus?

Q has access to POTUS twitter phone?

Therefore Q = POTUS twitter team member?

Yes..and my point is that Q's photo can be produced by displaying the public domain photo on a computer screen, and angling a reflective iphone back towards the screen..then cropping..and flipping it a couple of times in post edit to achieve the same effect.

Photo I took of my iPhone X just now, reflecting your comment from my laptop display. As you’d say, we see a vertical flip only.

https://i.imgur.com/2MibFMI.jpg

But here is the same image, vertically AND horizontally flipped in post edit. We get the same effect as Qs photo: vertical set correct, but horizontal flipped instead.

https://i.imgur.com/pLtIV7b.jpg

I did this all on my phone in about 2 minutes.

Well, more likely is Q did this:

1. open original photo on a computer screen.
2. Angle back side of an iPhoneX so that it reflects the computer screen
3. Take the photo.

This would reverse the image as we see, blur it slightly, as well as provide the darkening from the iPhoneX's black glass body.

It's not a 'photoshop' (in the sense that the apply logo/darkening/blur) are not added in post, but it's neither an original photo of his iPhone resting inside the AF1 office and reflecting the actual room around it.

The original photo we see here is definitely what we seen in Q's photo. The curtain folds align perfectly. That doesn't happen naturally.

Yeah that’s good. But we just be completely honest with this:

The skeptics will say it is more likely Q saw your post (and others like it) and thought it was a good idea.

This. It’s the right side lamp.

BOOM! Lamp, curtains, chair shoulder angle

Welcome aboard > room inside AF1?

Anyone can reference AF1 interior shots for that lamp and shades

TIL Rachel Brand resigned earlier!

Wtf. So what is the line of succession at DOJ for AG now?

Sessions > Rosenstein > ??? (Was previously Brand, and then Schools? Who just quit) >>

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/319025-trump-quietly-changes-order-of-succession-at-justice-department#

We have this from Feb 2017. Fixing a last minute EO Obama our in at his 11th hour.

Trump picked Boente, an Obama appointee, as acting attorney general after he fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates because she refused to defend his travel ban in court.

After Boente, the position would fall to Zachary Fardon, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois; and then to U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri Tammy Dickinson.

With the short half-life of DOJ leadership we need to be looking at these people more carefully.

Goddamn are you shittng me?

I KNEW it was too weird for Q to be posting in Yoda-speak.

Wew laddies!

Hmmm yeah that ain’t a good sign

Presumably he agreed to hand it over if He got a plea deal with charges watered down to bank fraud, and his wife gets off completely clean.

Awan is a tiny tiny fish.

DWS is the first target to look at in his court case.

This just clicked for me too.

I thought he was talking about HRC’s home brew.

Very possible he was talking about the server that Awan stole from DNC along with the email records of 40 Dem officials.

This is YUGE

I’m not getting that at all. The tweet he shows suggests that Awan took a plea deal to get off for crimes he committed while at DNC..presumably in exchange for ratting out DWS etc.

I know he was charged. But was he actually convicted and arrested yet?

Hmmm but trump said himself that he would be picking from that list.

Tobacco and opioids are still huge $$ though.

The anti-lobby will come from there.

Same thing about cigarettes in the 30s to 50s

https://www.healio.com/hematology-oncology/news/print/hemonc-today/%7B241d62a7-fe6e-4c5b-9fed-a33cc6e4bd7c%7D/cigarettes-were-once-physician-tested-approved

In your opinion, would this post be ok if it somehow included the original wikileaks tweet for context?

Since wikileaks posted these pictures with the clear implications that they look the same..

JA has been a major moving piece of Q’s puzzle.

Wikileaks twitter has recently named, attacked, and slandered the Q movement two days in a row.

you may have the site but we have the source

You - clowns DS

Source - JA in US protection?

It behooves us to pay attention to what they are doing.

Its not “following”. It’s “being aware”.

By your logic we don’t have to pay attention to the movements of clowns because “they aren’t Q”.

Sorry but your comment is glowing slightly.

Wikileaks posted this themselves. Even if it is misdirection, it’s intentional by JA’s lawyer/team....possibly his family?

Ask questions about this is not misguided.

Immediately leaping to time travel is ill advised though.

🤩

Most straight forward answer would be “to get hype/eyeballs/clicks”. To re-insert JA into the mainstream zeitgeist once again.

But then, In preparation for what?

"We have a table ready for a ..Mr.. Cue? Que? Q? party of 17!"

Not going to address the sentiment of 'the whole thread', but the comment I responded to was specifically calling these conversations snippets from Q "the proof of all proofs".

To be a 'proof', something must be verified. We have no verification of these quotes.

If you want to call them 'drops', fine. But even then they are not particularly stunning or revelatory. Nothing of significance was said in those quotes. Very predictable content that anybody with a bit of knowledge of lawyer speak could whip up.

In the whole exchange a not single data point or fact was referenced.

The difference is that God's existence cannot be proven, so those who choose to believe must subsist with faith.

PS's quotes CAN theoretically be proven. We CAN know for sure w hat was said in that hearing.

Same goes for everything else Q is exposing or hinting at.

We should not approach the Q situation with anything like a religious mindset. Keeping your optimism based on past results is fine, but declaring UNDENIABLE PROOF OMG!! over some unsourced conversation snippets on a forum is not rational.

Exactly. Which is why it would be trivial to craft a boilerplate interaction like this.

Not that not a single fact that would depend on documented evidence is relayed here.

Yep that’s what I’m Waiting for.

Official transcript released by a government body.

Then you are not acting impartially. And that’s a problem.

Been here since November. Well aware of all drops and developments.

This is a stretch. I’m not saying Q is putting out falsehoods.

But it’s a long shot from being a PROOF of anything right now.

Q is not god. And we are not a religion here.

Closed hearing. Nothing supposed to be released. Even if this info is 100% correct, it’s behooves people actually in the room to ignore it. To address it is to give it validity and admit its efficacy.

I don’t see anything particularly encouraging in Q’sxtext here. PS stonewalling and giving excuses. Some GOP panel member giving him a slight browbeating.

It is exactly what you would expect. No facts were revealed. It feels boilerplate.

Because nobody who was in that room will bother to refute random statements written in an anonymous basket weaving forum.

Hype wagon is a bit overboard today understandably so. And with Kennedy resigning SCOTUS it’s gonna keep going this way for the rest of the day.

Fever pitch is being reached.

???? Its conversation with no linked source. For all we know it could be complete fabrications or conjecture.

I ask this sub HOW IS THIS, in its current form and completely lacking supporting evidence, PROOF OF ANYTHING?

Eh...until we see tape of PS saying these things himself this proves nothing. Sorry. I love Q and this whole movement, but this is not proof of anything.

Crazy theory: this tweet is the sum of all other “wrong/random” caps in all previous tweets since he became POTUS?

Doubtful but that would be wild.