>>22817697

it was waltz even according to greenberg.

https://archive.ph/RFqeE

things we don't know:

why did waltz add greenberg

was everyone else in the group legit

were there any other "mistaken adds"

why didn't greenberg ask waltz directly if he has his signal contact

the more i think about it the more it smells funny. initially i thought greenberg acted apropriately, and maybe he did bc from his perspective this was weird as hell and probably felt like a scam at first and a setup once he knew the info was real.

>>22817980

need to get waltz and greenberg in the same room to see if they can at least get the basic story straight.

if they both disagree then there's real fun going on

>>22818125

how can you justify this position?

he appears to have been given privileged information "by accident". either waltz really did this, or someone has compromised waltz's device(s)

pretty sure the important task is determining what exactly happened and why. mindlessly calling for anyone to randomly be "dragged through the streets" is dumb.

>>22818616

you're not the only one

> a trap

but for whomst?

>>22818696

doesn't seem practical though.

isn't acknowledgement of clearance am important part of the process?

funny but wrecks the logic