So you go by what the individual being evaluated states. Their own words. Not what other people say about someone, right?
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Q ~ Trust Trump's Plan ~ 07/14/22 Vol.413, Q Day 1821, smileyface wrote: So you go by what the individual being evaluated states. Their own words. Not what other people say about someone, right?
No.
@JohnHereToHelp accused Brennan, Clinton, Rosenstein and others of treason in his introductory post to Twitter. He displayed photos of a recorder and flash drives and told them he had recorded conversations (terabytes) of data. I don't know why he would do that if he didn't have some merit. They would kill him unless he had something that would be released if they did kill him, and or if he didn't have protection.
General McInerney's statements have merit with me, as do transcripts @John recorded via Lin Woods. @John made statments about Justice Roberts, Pence and Judge Sullivan that I think those individuals would legally contest, if they could, but they can't.
@John made statements about the Deep State 'taking' the election and includes pics, among others, of Judge Sullivan's son at the Jan 6 'insurrection and I haven't seen anything to refute this info.
@John made statements that I believe Gen. McInerney has the resources to prove or disprove (e.g., Justice Roberts, the plot against conservative Supreme Court Justices which @John reported to Homeland Security), and yet he vouches for this whistleblower's veracity.
So I require evidence, not just the person's statements about themselves.