Question 1: How does she know that this politician indeed fed her wrong information? No one who called her out gave her any new info she did not already have access to. So what changed?

Question 2: Considering how explosive the info was (Trump visiting PEDO island) and how easy it was for her to decide the info was wrong - what can you deduce about her ability to whet information and sources?

Question 3: What can you deduce about her other sources (lets say those who told her that 450 plane load of gold was retrieved from Vatican) if she whetted them in the same way?

Question 4: How can you be sure that she apologised and retracted the info because she managed to suddenly very that the info is wrong and not because she got too much heat from all her followers?

Question 5: Politician feeding her wrong info, and she failing to do basic whetting - would this be consistent with someone using her as a controlled opposition ?

Question 6: If any of sources try to use her as a controlled opposition in future, what can you infer from this incident about her ability to detect and stop it?

Question 7: Seeing how she failed to whet even such an explosive claim, do you feel more confident or less confident about her claims such as "US became a corporation in 1871 ?"

Question 8: If twitter was not free and patriots did not call her out, how would you differentiate between this claim and all other claims she made earlier?

Here are my own answers for these questions. Your answers may differ and so does every one else's. Each person need to ask these questions themselves and come to their own conclusions.

Question 1: I do not believe she has any new ability to suddenly conclude this source is wrong, that she did not posses before being called out.

Question 2: I deduce that she is very bad at whetting her information and sources.

Question 3: I start questioning the authenticity of the sources who told her about 450 plane loads of gold.

Question 4: I believe she apologised only because she got intense lash back from her followers.

Question 5: Yes, this is the same patterns. You feed them a bunch of "good and juicy info" and build them up with a big base of followers. Then, just before Epstein associate was to be made public, you feed them info that the enemy really wants to spread out there.

Question 6: I think her ability to shield herself from being used in future is very low

Question 7: I am more confident now that her information about US becoming a corporation in 1871 is wrong. This is now consistent with my own research that the transition happened in 1933 with emergency banking act. This was a huge conflicting point for my research, but now I know what to discard and what to dig further into.

Question 8: If her followers did not call her out, she would not have apologised and retracted it.

Based on these questions, I consider her value as a source of new information very very low.