Again, Q is merely a pseudonym outside of the peculiar series of image board posts where the name was first used. This video is not by the originator of this "Q" character, because it is on an entirely separate digital platform, and in an entirely different multimedia format, than the actual Q text posts. So, you are not only using the Ad Hominem formal logical fallacy, but also, since it's not the same person as the real Q, that logical fallacy is not even a usable tactic for "debunking" this particular video. Even if Ad Hominem were not a formal fallacy, even if it were a correct form of reasoning, it does not apply here.

As for Sessions (and Barr), it was necessary to slow-walk any substantive measures against the Deep State because of the threat of rioting from all the brainwashed zombies. Jeff Sessions was, and still is, on our side. If the cities can be retained intact through a, historically speaking, miniscule delay of 10 or fewer years, this is clearly a superior result in terms of net present value to the case of immediate justice, where all the cities burn. Quit your emotional reasoning and do your cost/benefit analyses on these things.

As for a global internet outage, there have been numerous regional disruptions in internet service over the past several years. But regardless of that point, you internet debaters are too used to arguing against fundamentalist Christians and their claims of Biblical inerrancy. Debunking fundamentalism is a specialized form of debate, which is not generally applicable to other topics. Disproving any one prophecy within a scripture only affects other portions of the scripture if that scripture claims its own inerrancy as proof of its own truthfulness. We "Q-tards" are making no such elementary blunders of circular reasoning here. Has anyone said that Trumpllah is God and Q is His Prophet? Like, not as a joke? No? Then your point about the internet outage is irrelevant.

Oh, and your point about "that video is old"? Gosh, Newton's Principia Mathematica is so ancient it may as well have been written by Pythagoras. Guess we can just discard the whole idea of calculus, then. By God, are you really making the, what do you even call that, the Novelty Fallacy? This droolingly-retarded, helmet-wearing idea you young folks have that the newest information is always the most reliable information? That's clearly false. Don't even try that shit with me.

Finally, Trump runs a tight ship, and despises leakers. If Q was an unauthorized, but legit, source, then it is possible that Trump fed different fake scheduling info to various people to identify exactly who this loose-lipped Q person is, to plug up the leak. Or, the specific date might have been an authorized misdirection ploy. Or, Q might be mixing falsehoods in with the truth to maintain plausible deniability or something like that. These counterpoints do not prove Q's reliability, of course. But they do demonstrate, yet again, that claims not being made alongside a claim of literal inerrancy are separable, and therefore, must be considered separately in debate.

If you have a disagreement with any specific point in the video, let's hear it. Until then, you are not making a serious attempt at academic discussion, so responding to your useless prattle further is a waste of my time. Good day.