Well, that’s sort of the Q mantra, isn’t it?

“It could easily be true.”

Sure, but where did your theory of this come from? It didn’t come from D’Souza. It didn’t come from the sheriff report. It didn’t come from any after-the-fact clarifications.

Isn’t this just hypothetical?

As far as I continue to see, D’Souza has insisted that the Yuma investigation is a result of his movie, and nobody else involved agrees.

Look, D’Souza’s job was to create a convincing argument that election fraud occurred. If that’s his job, why is it my responsibility, or your responsibility, or anyone’s responsibility to decipher what he really meant?

He’s the messaging guy! It’s his job to put out an accurate message. It’s not my job to clean up his messaging mistakes for him, and no normie on the planet is interested in doing that.

If he meant to say something else, he can clarify. Given the nature of his film, his credibility needs to be airtight.

If maintaining that airtight credibility requires me to assume hypothetical situations that might possibly make D’Souza only partially wrong, then the credibility is not airtight.

I’m not doing D’Souza’s work for him.