>>245955

Perhaps it gives plausible deniability. When documents are requested, they can deny and say it got burned up in the fire. Sucks.

>>246062

I hesitated to answer GOOD → GREAT movie question before because I very, very seldom see movies.

Do you remember the Mission Impossible movie, Anons? There were so many plot twists it made one's head spin. You think one guy is the bad guy then he turns out to be the good guy. Once you figure that out, another plot twists reveals he is a bad guy again. The whole movie was like that. Very entertaining and mind-bending plot.

From a person whose movie experience is very limited.

>>246177

I am still puzzled by the initial left square bracket that has no matching right square bracket. These normally come in pairs. There is a purpose to it.

Perhaps this message needs to be coupled with a subsequent message that we haven't seen yet.

>>246186

I still think that

P_pers denotes a personal message from POTUS

Stringers are directives to operators, who know the code, and are not intended for us to decode

>>246283

I like your thinking, Anon.

P_pers = Pentagon Papers case New York Times v. U.S. 403 U.S. 713 (1971)

Fits the news.

>>246315

Or a fire alarm pulled, the firemen arrive on scene, but no actual fire. As others have already suggested … a manufactured excuse for investigators to enter the building and search for evidence?

>>246380

Definitely #CreepyBiden. He's already got a name.