>>207842

NP, most of us are pretty punchy.

If you look at the date of the email (2009), spacing of the redaction and the sentence: "Rich's # didn't work," it appears they are talking about someone named Rich.

Seth Rich didn't graduate undergrad until 2011 and worked for the DNC in 2014. While he was politically active, I don't see him as a high-level staffer important enough to call directly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#Seth_Rich's_early_life_and_career

Whether the email is new, I'm not sure. I'll have to peruse Wikileaks.

>>207842

>>207900

Sorry, forgot image

>>207904

>>207901

That document is riddled with errors

>>207939

>>207842

>>207900

The email is real https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/11926 (from the HRC leaks).

I am doubtful they are referring to Seth Rich.

>>208109

Wow

>>208170

Right! Missed that one, ty. Will edit

>>208170

ty

>>208245

That's the point of the graphic

>>208290

Agreed, the whole thing is junk, graphic pointed out the most obvious errors for civilians to understand.

>>208320

Is she referring to her own leaks or Podesta emails?

>>208332

Do you have the link, pls?

>>208320

Misinformation

HRC Leaks: https://wikileaks.org /clinton-emails/emailid/30476

If Weiner has the full email, it doesn't change the fact that this is from 2010

>>208401

Looks like it.

ALERT: FILTER 5519ed

>>208423

Angry = sloppy

>>208435

Your projection is too obvious. (get better at your job!)

You refuse to provide verification, that's all this board needs to know.

>>208441

Careful, Baker will check our IDs. I provide verification, you do not.

>>208463

We would LOVE to speak with you more, after you verify your information. Waiting…

>>208471

Shareblue? JDIF? CIA?

Been dealing with you folks since 2015, your moves are obvious.