Thread by @dappergander

Even when Jim has half a point, his evidence is just so sloppy and prone to error.

The only way you can claim he tweeted
"I hope you've enjoyed the 4chan posts.
Q"
is if you read the tweets backwards.

Timestamps, dude.

He tweeted
"Q
I hope you've enjoyed the 4chan posts."

1/7

Does that make a difference?

Well, yes. It stops being a slam-dunk confession.

If a note said
"I'll be home soon.
Dave"
you would assume it was *from* Dave.

If it said
"Dave
I'll be home soon."
you would assume it was *to* Dave.

So which is it here?

2/7

Well, look at context:

Brower's "scoops" about Podesta and Sessions that he tweeted the previous day (and referenced in the image above) were CRAZY hot topics on 4chan.

There were HUNDREDS of 4chan posts about his tweets and the speculation that arose from them.

3/7

And why?

Because a few days earlier, Q had predicted that Podesta would be indicted on 11/3, and here was James Brower on 11/3 saying he had a source confirming Podesta was being indicted.

(note: Podesta was never indicted)

4/7

Knowing how furiously Anons on 4chan were poring over Brower's tweets from 11/3, his tweets on 11/4 make more sense.

"Q
I hope you've enjoyed the 4chan posts."

He's not saying he's Q, he's bragging *to* Q that he is someone important who shaped the narrative.

5/7

I can't say one way or the other if Brower ever wrote a Q Drop.

But saying this is Brower confessing to being Q is sloppy work, based entirely on reading the tweets in the wrong order and not looking into the 4chan context of Nov 3 & 4, 2017.

6/7

I'm not interested in all the drama.

I just wanted to explain that this is why I have a hard time taking his claims very seriously.

He's just not all that thorough when he thinks he's found something dynamite. And in his excitement, he passes off errors as evidence.

7/7