Anonymous ID: cdfb03 Jan. 5, 2018, 10:09 p.m. No.4904   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

Tasty bread, thank you baker. Will you be around to bake further?

Feels quite comfy in here actually. Hope we can get a hold on Codemonkey and get back to normal asap.

Anonymous ID: cdfb03 Jan. 5, 2018, 10:23 p.m. No.4958   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>4925

>What does this list tell you?

Something big is brewing. They do this among heightened security. Very sensitive matters discussed, likely NatSec-tier that involves the government.

>When have you seen so many high-ranking staff at CD at the same time?

No expert but def. uncommon

>Why on the weekend?

So everybody can be there, no excuses. Special working session that suggests special topic.

>What happens on Monday? Why is EVERYONE going to CD? Who else can join off the record?

OIG report drops on Monday. At least some portion of it. Anybody could join off the record, people from military, IC, trusted media connectionsโ€ฆ

Anonymous ID: cdfb03 Jan. 5, 2018, 10:31 p.m. No.5000   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>5027 >>5042 >>5080

>>4984

He is, this is absolute savagery.

Wild guess #1: leaks. Bannon did so many of them. I actually think Trump was waiting for Wolff's book to release to unleash hell on Bannon.

Wild guess #2: Bannon has done something much worse that contravenes with Trump's golden rule of loyalty, that we may or may not learn about later on.

 

Also Bannon's reaction so far suggests that he fucked up big time.

Anonymous ID: cdfb03 Jan. 5, 2018, 10:39 p.m. No.5045   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>5078

>>5023

Thanks. Would be good to know indeed.

>>5027

>muh shills

If you're namefagging, at least try to be accurate. Bannon's official disgrace in the middle of a trail of happenings is worthy of consideration and raises some questions. I did not leave cbts to have the namefag police lecturing me on what we should discuss and what we should not. Capito?

Anonymous ID: cdfb03 Jan. 5, 2018, 10:57 p.m. No.5126   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>5138 >>5153

>>5118

yeah but that still puzzles me

I know we are in underwater 5D mahjong territory here but this is a hell of a humiliation, and especially it was NOT necessary to discredit Wolff's book, that is already sinking on its own.

As always something else is up, but what?

Is it that Bannon is going to start his own movement and Trump needs to dissociate from him?

Anonymous ID: cdfb03 Jan. 5, 2018, 11 p.m. No.5137   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>5127

this has been explained somewhere

basically if the DOJ is involved in what's coming next Sessions has to appear independent

judiciary vs executive

this weekend's CD is for the executive branch

  • Sessions is already taking heat from the left for reopening the investigations

Anonymous ID: cdfb03 Jan. 5, 2018, 11:03 p.m. No.5154   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>5140

Very good point. We are not there yet. But we live in revolutionary times, and people call for blood in those times. What is definitely coming is a chain of events that will see a several former figureheads like her fall in disgrace.

While I personally think the degree of treason we are currently uncovering should be rewarded with PUBLIC death, for normies muh optics do matter and this is a topic worthy of discussion.

I look forward to the day the debate on what punishment is appropriate is actually going to be on the menu.

Anonymous ID: cdfb03 Jan. 5, 2018, 11:08 p.m. No.5181   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>5195

>>5138

yeah I've been thinking of this too

Trump is def going to escalate it with China and perhaps Bannon's antics with that dissident are a liability to him

the only thing that is clear is that Trump wants absolute dissociation from Bannon, officially

>>5153

There's a lot we don't know. If he has crossed the line especially with his family Trump might as well be pissed for real.

As of the leakers, some twitterfags have explained that it's more likely a Flynn setup.

Anonymous ID: cdfb03 Jan. 5, 2018, 11:23 p.m. No.5248   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>5260 >>5265

>>5216

ok I don't know why you guys seem so worked up about it, I am all ears

what I see

>Out of 400+ posts, having 14-15 of them at the :59 second mark is largely within the realm of possibilities, barely twice the average

>some of the posts in the screencap have actually 59 as the minutes, not the seconds

so why are we even talking about this?

>>5234 how is it relevant?

Anonymous ID: cdfb03 Jan. 5, 2018, 11:35 p.m. No.5302   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>5288

>>5265

>>5286

Statistically there should be 7 posts at the :59 mark out of 400+. Factor in randomness of distribution and it's easy to reach 14. I also can't find relations between those posts.

Once again I don't disagree but until it makes more sense I am leaning towards a simple oddity.