A guide to understanding what is in and how to navigate through the WikiLeaks Podesta email archive. With a description of the how the emails are organized, how many there are and what has and what will be released over time.

::::::::

NAVIGATING WIKILEAKS: A GUIDE TO THE PODESTA EMAILS

[NOTE: The following guide is necessarily incomplete, as the documents themselves are as yet incompletely revealed to the public. Therefore, as the documents continue to be released by Wikileaks, I will continually update the content on this page. Please check back regularly.

Following the narrative introduction I will provide an analysis of the content as a whole, an evolving index, and a directory of the documents pertaining to key individuals and issues. Anyone with any suggestions or corrections on making this guide more effective please send me an email. There will also shortly be a Table of Contents at the top of the Guide to make it easier to jump to the sections that will be added.]

INTRODUCTION: SAUSAGE-MAKING DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DISGUSTING

The recent release by Wikileaks of the emails of John Podesta provides the American citizenry a unique view into how national presidential campaigns and political parties actually operate within our contemporary process of governance. A view into the "private" lives of these "public" entities. Showing, as Hillary Clinton now famously articulated openly but behind the closed doors of her elite Wall Street audience only to be publicly revealed within the Podesta emails, that the norm of politics has become speaking one way in public, saying what is deemed necessary to win, while holding completely contradictory views, spoken truthfully only in private. She later claimed Lincoln made her do it while the media, often also revealed within the leaked documents as presenting one face to the public but in fact having a completely contrary one in private, has sought to dismiss this as simply the normal way politics and government operate.

The politics as usual argument harkens back to the old adage that making laws is like making sausage - it is a process disgusting to watch - and thus the uninitiated ought not look deeper into the truth before digesting the product.

Yet nothing could be further from the truth.

This saying has always been an excuse for those in the political class to keep the masses of citizens blind to the reality of the corrupted nature - while seeking to convince that this is somehow a necessity - of politics and government. Good sausage is a product that one would have no problem seeing "what goes in" to make the final product - in fact the process is a thing of beauty.

The reference to sausage in this trite old saying is not to the making of quality products (now presumed only in "gourmet" varieties) but, in the industrial era of the late 19th century, to the process of taking the waste products of industrial agriculture and corporate food giants and producing a marketable and presumably "edible" product, so long as one does not know what is actually in it, that can be consumed by the masses. The saying has often been questionably attributed to Otto von Bismarck, hardly the defender of democratic institutions, yet to a nation that would have been intimately familiar with sausage making - a national and proud dietary staple often produced in one's own home - that would have rejected the notion that sausage making was somehow a necessarily unseemly process that one ought to seek to avert one's eyes. The phrase fits far more accurately to the world of The Jungle of Upton Sinclair, whose muckraking journalism at the turn of the last century was a necessary cure to the abuses of the industrial age.

The same is true in the world of politics - there ought to be no reason people would not want to see what goes into the process whereby our laws are made - if what we were viewing was the inner workings of GOOD government. Such a process ought to be a thing of beauty - something a nation could be proud to display for all to see unfiltered. It is only when we are marketed a poor substitute - and feel powerless to have any alternative choice - that we would want to avert our eyes. But that is not what one would expect in a nation truly striving to live up to the theoretical promises and moral dimension of an actual and functioning democracy.

Taking a look behind the scenes, into the practice of our governmental sausage factory, is perhaps the healthiest opportunity and least repulsive element to emerge in this disgusting electoral season. One ought not to have to witness and experience the electoral farce but the WikiLeaks documents ought to be required reading for all.. The 2016 election has proven to be the most disturbing in history - although it would be naive to believe that, if the causes of what is wrong this year are left unaddressed, that future elections would not actually tend toward ever more troubling performances. It could prove, however, given that Wikileaks has begun to pull the curtain back to reveal the actual wizard pulling the levers, to have been the election that brought America - kicking and screaming - back onto the path toward democracy.

I propose that, contrary to many claims now daily repeated by the mainstream media that it "threatens American democracy," Wikileaks may reveal that, in actual practice, our system is today anything but democratic. It may prove in the long run that this revelation was necessary in order to return the nation to the path toward the realization of democracy in practice. What the leaked documents reveal is often dismissed, again by the mainstream press repeating what the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign have sought to defensively spin, that there is nothing actually revealing or scandalous within the documents. This, they have argued - in a new role for journalists as overtly partisan actors who no longer report but both uncritically repeat the lines fed them and pass judgment on the stories and actors therein - is just how politics is normally done. There is no smoking-gun, they claim. Nothing to see here, so move along. It is just the routine, and necessary, way in which politics is done. You don't need to bother yourself with an internal view of the sausage-making process, so avert your eyes. But is this true?

I believe, to the contrary, studying the leaked documents will prove to be educational, productive and cathartic. A necessary step in the process of recovery of first openly recognizing the disease before one could have any chance of finding and successfully implementing a cure.

I would suggest that the totality of the documents, taken as a whole, are no mere smoking gun, but in fact a mushroom cloud. Exposing the public to the unseemly, and often immoral (and even unlawful), activities that have come to be normalized by the political class, legitimized by the press and pundits, and thus empowering us, the citizens, to be able to finally diagnose the disease that has infected the nation - indeed a disease famously warned would ultimately destroy any semblance of good government at the founding of this nation. As James Madison, the architect of the Constitution, famously stated in the Tenth Federalist, the "mortal disease" that has destroyed all forms of good government in history, and to which popular forms are the most susceptible of all, is that of the "Spirit of Party and Faction."

What most Americans have been unaware is that the Two Party System, today indistinguishable from our constitution (or form of government " as distinguished from the formal, written, legal document establishing its framework of institutions and processes), was not only not desired when the nation was founded but the Constitution's primary aim was to be a prophylactic to prevent such a disease from gaining an infecting foothold into the lifeblood of the nation.

The primary entities of our modern day politics, the national political party, was deemed anathema to good government. This view was the consensus view not only of those who gathered in Philadelphia during the hot and muggy summer of 1787 to draft the world's first written constitution - it was the view held in the canon of political theory from the Greeks of Ancient Athens, the birthplace of the concept of democracy, through the founding of America and into the 20th century. Only then did American Political Scientists, explicitly and overtly rejecting the primary premises in the Constitution's design (the Separation of Powers and the strong role of the people in an often indirect, yet vital, role in the governing process), begin the process of legitimizing the concept of parties and the idea of a two-party system.

They saw the parties as an extra-Constitutional means to "bridge" the powers (the three branches of government), because amending the Constitution to eliminate it was impractical. They sought to transform our politics to resemble what they came to view as the actual ideal form of government, arguing Madison and his fellow generation had gotten it wrong, in the notion of the "fusion" of powers that the Victorian writer, Walter Bagehot, in describing in a significantly idealized form, declared to be the "efficient secret" within the modern, unwritten, British constitution.

Only in the twentieth century did this become a normalized premise of government, rejecting the maxim of Montesquieu universally cited during the nation's founding era, that the fusion of powers into the same hands (now the hands of a single party as opposed to an individual person) was the very epitome if not definition of tyranny.

These Political Scientists also agreed with Bagehot's contempt for the notion that a true democracy, where the people had a formal, even if largely indirect, role in the actual process of governance. Instead the role assigned to the people in their theoretical models, but soon legitimized as the norms of actual practice, was to have an extremely limited role: the choice, one day every two or four years, of either approving of or removing and substituting the ruling party by being given a choice limited to one of two - the presently governing party or the party in opposition. Indeed they redefined democracy from the concept of popular self-government to the mere process of determining, via elections, a clear majority victor - in a choice, therefore, necessarily limited only to one of two major or elite parties, in order to produce an outcome in which one of the two had a clear majority, into a distorted and neutered form that only retained the superficial appearance and terminology, while rejecting the actual substance of democracy.

The Constitution ratified after a year long, and nearly unsuccessful, struggle in 1788 had one primary purpose - it aimed to establish a set of institutions and procedures that would NEGATE the effects of any and all political parties that might emerge - insulating the government from the deleterious effects of partisanship and in essence hoping to have inoculated the nation from this deadly disease. Unfortunately in this they did not succeed. Today we are seeing the culmination of the harmful effects of this infection of party spirit, now viewed as legitimate and even necessary, tearing apart the nation to a degree unseen since the Crisis of the 1850's. A crisis in large part due to the inability of the two major parties to address the nation's most serious problems, that ultimately tore the nation apart in costly and deadly Civil War.

If we are to prevent repeating the historical errors of the past we must not avert our eyes to the inner workings of today's normalized and legitimized processes of government. Indeed we must continually critically evaluate and challenge the notion that what has become normalized is therefore necessarily legitimate. We must look deep into the sausage-making process and rightfully feel disgust and revulsion knowing that in truth it is not a fact of necessity but one of choice. And thus recognizing that we, therefore, have the power - indeed the duty, to begin to make different choices.

Wikileaks has provided us with not only a valuable, but an indispensable, window into the process of government and politics as practiced by the political class established in the two major parties - in particular the current ruling party (at least in terms of control of the executive branch of government).

But understanding what is within the leaked emails is difficult given both the massive quantity and the partial releases (ongoing in small batches over time) of the data. The latter, however, is not necessarily a shortcoming or error in terms of how Wikileaks has chosen to reveal to all what they have learned. By releasing the material in small batches over time it is far easier for people to go through and find significant portions - whereas if they were all released at once not only would the story likely die, as the news cycle is perhaps as deleterious to the nation's health as the presidential election cycle, within a week or two; but it would likely thereby only focus on a small set of items within the whole as if they alone were the material of significance. There is a wealth of information within the Podesta emails. And it will take time, patience, and critical scrutiny to fully digest what they reveal about the current crisis of legitimacy we, as a nation, are mired within.

But it is not easy to do. Currently each new release brings a flurry of activity as people frantically search through looking for interesting individual tidbits to focus upon. The big picture is not likely to be grasped by such a hunt and peck approach. Yet even using the online search engine provided by Wikileaks does not always bring up all the content one is seeking. It leads to a frenetic and often necessarily random approach combing through the latest released batch of usually about a thousand seeking who can be the first to discover the significant needles in the seeming haystack of emails.

I thus offer this guide to navigating the Podesta emails in the interest of seeking to help make sense of the whole - providing a big picture of what they contain - as well as to provide a sense of what is yet to come - what remains at this time unreleased that Wikileaks will continue to reveal over the next weeks as we approach the November presidential election.

THE PODESTA EMAILS

We still don't know how much more evidence of the corrupted sausage-making politics of everyday governance in America that Wikileaks possesses. And every effort is being made to convince us to avert our eyes: from the baseless claim that even viewing them is unlawful, to the absurd argument that the process is dangerous, to the facially farcical notion that the documents are not real but are forgeries, and to the as yet foundationless argument that this is the work of Putin's Russia seeking to undermine American democracy.

If the argument were not already disturbing enough, that a citizenry informed with facts otherwise being denied them, could in any way undermine democracy (To the contrary - the withholding of such evidence is problematic to the realization of democracy in practice - which is why the real controversy over the Clinton emails is not the red-herring of whether she revealed classified information to our enemies, but the conscious and concerted effort she took to withhold from the public what the law, in the various public

records statutes, sought to guarantee in the interest of public accountability of agencies and officials which is necessary for an actual democracy to exist.); a close look to the only formal statement of the basis for the Russia claim that is uncritically reported, almost universally, as if it were fact " when not one single fact or evidentiary claim has been given to justify the reports.

Here is what James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, actually stated as reported in the New York Times, as the basis for the formal claim by the government (and now actual retaliatory measures being taken in a dangerous extension of national partisan politics into geopolitical posturing) and the sole basis upon which the entirety of mainstream journalism has, reminiscent of their coverage of claims of weapons of Mass of Mass Destruction in the lead up to an extremely costly war in Iraq, uncritically and improperly reported to the public as if it was a fact [click here]:

"We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."

Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security

[https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national ]

Only in the distopian worlds imagined and penned by George Orwell or Aldous Huxley would a statement such as that, a clear statement that it is a mere belieffounded on the flimsiest and challengeable reasoning, be reported by a dutiful press as a fact. This is tantamount to the daily reports that: We have always been at war with Eurasia.

So I encourage people to not fall victim to the overt government propaganda line being dutifully "reported" by what seems to be its extension in the press - and to explore, and critically analyze, the substantive and troubling facts contained within the leaked Podesta emails. I hope that this evolving guide will help you navigate through the mass of records in this process of critical evaluation and subsequent rational, critical, public discourse on what it reveals about the normalized and legitimized practices of parties and officials and its implications for democracy in America.

John Podesta is uniquely suited, via his "private" voice, to getting a fairly full big picture of the situation and its problems.

He not only serves as the Chairman of the Hillary Clinton campaign, the most central figure in that effort second only to the candidate herself (and in many ways even more so), but serves as Counsel to President Barack Obama as well as Chief of Staff, in the latter years of the Bill Clinton presidency.

Within the emails you will find a great deal of information revealing the inner, private, workings of all three.

He remains a key advisor to Bill Clinton in his private life, and plays a central role in the Controversial Clinton Foundation. The emails show just how problematic the private foundation, with a surface appearance as a philanthropy, has a deeply embedded - but all too hidden - public role in both indirect and direct influence on government, both in converting his name and influence in Washington on behalf of its donors interests, as well as during Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State.

Similarly, Podesta serves as Chair and Counselor for the Center for American Progress, which puts forth a public face as a progressive think-tank, yet when we view his communications with persons such as Neera Tanden, the organization's current President, and a key inside player in the Hillary Clinton campaign, we see that there is at minimum a blurring of the lines between their publicly stated purpose (and perhaps even laws) and their actual, private, machinations.

So within the mass of emails, approximately 60,000 - of which at the time of writing this initial introduction to the guide only about 10 percent have been released - you will find what you would find in anyone's email inbox. A large volume of personal correspondence with friends and family, or work related (Podesta is a law professor at the prestigious Georgetown Law School) emails. Most of these have little public value and the citizen or journalist will want to try and avoid spending their time milling through the noise to get to the documents of true public interest (although this is not a universal statement - as even within a private email there may be information valuable into understanding the totality of the public significance of the whole batch. But even still one would want to only review these after grasping the more directly relevant information.). Indeed one will also find the regular emails of travel websites, banks, and other such entities which will have little general significance (again - not necessarily all without any potential significance to the investigative journalist) and to email lists that pertain to politics but don't reveal the actual workings of the government or campaigns. You will also find within the total set of documents spam - which should be a good indicator of the genuine nature of the Wikileaks release.

On that note let me describe the contents both generally and in particular.

What is contained within the leaked set of records are emails from one of Podesta's many email accounts - his Gmail account - to which he had much of his other emails forwarded. The records are in the original .eml file format - although for the purposes of online display what you primarily see when you go to the site are .html renditions thereof so that they can be read in your web browser. The original email files, however, are actually there if you look closely. [SEE the two parts ] [explain .eml format]

Significantly the fact that you can download the email in its original .eml file format means that you can see the normally hidden "header" and "metadata" information contained therein - thus providing even more evidence of the authenticity of - and means to verify - the documents.

One note however should be remembered when reading the documents using the Wikileaks browser. While it is factually correct, the time stamp on the emails as displayed, can be misleading. This is not necessarily the actual time that John Podesta actually sent or received the particular email - as the time is given in PST (Pacific Standard Time) - whereas it is reasonable to assume that most, if not all, were actually sent or received in what would appear to be earlier in the day - as Podesta, being based in Washington D.C. - operates on normal days in EST (Eastern Standard Time). Thus what might appear to be a 3 a.m. tweet (not that, despite the impressions intentionally spread recently by both campaign and press, this is somehow inappropriate or abnormal) would actually be a late night, not early morning, email. The reason for the PST time stamp showing up on the Wikileaks browser is likely explained by the fact that the metadata recording the times is not generated when the email arrives in Podesta's inbox - but how the servers of Google see the information given that these are housed in their California facilities.

So be aware of this and beware claims that this may be proof of their fabrication. The strategic use of semantic sleight of hand consciously employed by the party and campaign to date make this argument a plausible future possibility (if someone has not already made such an allegation). [See Palmiari and Eichenwald] The practice of political prestidigitation deliberately seeks to deflect from the facts by distracting the viewer with misdirection - no less than the great Las Vegas performers do on a daily basis (I don't mean those who will appear on the state of UNLV this coming Wednesday).

The effectiveness of this partisan ploy can be seen in two cases: The claims of Jennifer Palmieri that she doesn't "recognize" a particularly embarrassing email, the Director of Communications and formerly holding that position in the Obama administration. This position, significantly, is formally in the business of spin - or public relations - once known by its original form "propaganda." The art of deception by sleight of hand semantics is her profession. [http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/13/politics/hillary-clinton-email-hack-catholic/index.html ]

And the deceptive stories, then parroted by a now overtly partisan press (many revealed to be working closely with the Clinton campaign - but more generally, and nearly universally, no longer even holding out the pretense of traditional ethical journalism, actively seeking to discredit and undermine (influence the election) the campaign of her rival, Donald Trump), that Wikileaks had been "proven" to have provided forged documents in the leaks. The story was concocted, then accepted whole cloth by his fellow "journalists," by Newsweek reporter Kurt Eichenwald. [LINK] This "story," which is more akin the sense my Grandmother used to use when she would say someone was "telling stories," is more properly understood as a synonym for a "fib" (another polite form used by my Grandmother - to describe acts of lying or at minimum deceit).

THE PICTURE OF THE WHOLE

From my analysis of the data I believe the following are accurate estimations (they are necessarily estimates as the totality of the data has yet to be released - but they are based on the evidence as released thus far - and as more records are released, and I update this guide, you will see that the estimates continually narrow over time until they will ultimately be hard facts upon the full disclosure of the whole. I will continue to update these numbers with each release. I have written the base guide upon the total emails that were released as of the #PodestaEmails7 release. As I was preparing this for publication the 8th and 9th drops were made public and I will update to include those any further releases today as soon as possible. But the estimations are sufficient to begin to provide the reader with a big picture of the totality of the leaked documents as well as how to navigate within them to find what you may be looking for and to be able to place them then within the context of the whole.

The data consists of emails to and from John Podesta from his Gmail account consisting in .eml files. [http://fileinfo.com/extension/eml] This is a format developed by Microsoft and can generally be viewed via current and recent versions of Outlook but it does not necessarily recreate the directory of emails which can be viewed using Windows Live Mail. As stated the email contains not just the body, which is what is normally viewed, but all the header and metadata information.

Wikileaks provides a viewer, and a search engine, to allow viewing of the records online in your browser. But they also provide a link to the raw data although this is viewable online only in smaller files. To see this information in the larger files you will have to download the actual .eml file. In this data you can find the IP address chain of how the emails got to the Gmail servers in California (IP addresses and date and time information). [See Example below]

There appear to be 59,195 emails in total. Although I cannot state this with certainty until all of the emails are released it appears that this will be the final number from my reconstruction of the folder structure.

There are two important numbers associated with each email file - one visible on Wikileaks and the other hidden in the actual file (not hidden as a means of deception by Wikileaks but as deemed unnecessary for their being viewed online. However this data proved invaluable in reconstructing the database of emails). The former visible number is the unique EMAIL-ID that you will see referred to on the Wikileaks site. Each email is assigned a unique ID, which is used in the URL (the location used in your web browser to open the web page), and also as a search term to locate an email from your browser. As of this time I have not been able to determine any pattern or logic in how/why Wikileaks has assigned this particular number to a particular email. It may turn out that this number was either randomly generated or simply an arbitrary by-product of how Wikileaks originally organized the data for internal usage.

The second number is the number assigned by the filename to the email file. Thus 00000001.eml is the first email in the total (it was not released until the 7th Podesta Email drop). The highest number I have been able to verify is 0059195.eml and is the basis of the claim I make to the total number of records in the database. This corresponds to the original statement by Wikileaks as to the approximate number of emails contained in this leak.

This number is significant in determining the structure of the database - and thus how many emails exist from each sender even before all of them have been released. The file number corresponds to an alphabetical sort by sender - from A - Z (with other characters at the beginning and end of the sequence - such a numbers in the lower range and Chinese characters in the upper range).

Unfortunately unless I can find a pattern in the ID I cannot necessarily match this up with the file number - without a manual record by record determination (which I have done to some extent - but given the large number I have not yet completed the entire set " although I am working on another possibility by which I may be able to automate this. This is important in my being able to provide a link to the email in this guide or to refer, going from the files themselves, to the online version on the Wikileaks site).

As I stated I have been able to not only determine what I believe to be the total number of emails that will eventually be released but I have also been able to predict, with an estimate that will narrow down over time as more emails are released, how many total emails from each user exist - and thus enable use to have an insight into not only what has been released but what we can expect to be released. [For example as of the 7th release two emails from Hillary Clinton using [hr17|AT|clintonemails.comEmail address - one from her private server] were released but I can reasonably estimate a maximum and minimum range of how many further emails from this address will be released over time.]

The alphabetical ordering of the files is helpful but one must be careful - the determination of the indexed letter depends on how Podesta's email program recognized the sender. Thus under B you will find both Burns Strider and Paul Begala. Although generally the majority fall under the first letter of the first name.

Another phenomenon that will be encountered, and one must keep in mind to avoid confusion, is that some email addresses are the same but identified by different users at different times. Thus the address info@..... Is at times an email identified with XX and at others with YY.

To begin I will present a general alphabetical index by range of email file numbers. Again due to the limitations based on the partial releases the numbers will include an estimated maximum range around the known number - as I can identify the first and last email from a user released to date and a range of unidentified/unreleased emails around that grouping that might contain all, some, or no emails from that same user. I indicate this range by using square brackets around the estimated range "[ - ]" - and will update these numbers to reflect new releases over time. Thus with each release this number should become more and more certain. But it provides a useful guide in the absence of the totality of the email database.

GENERAL INDEX

As of the release #PodestaEmails7 the following is the index as I have reconstructed it:

Non-Alphabetical Character: 1 -- (178)

A: [170 -- 178] 179 -- 4057 [4058 -- 4068]

B: [4058 -- 4068] 4069 -- [6401 -- 6407]

C: [6401 -- 6407] 6408 -- 9463 [C - Cynthia Shapira]

D: 9464 -- [12187 -- 12193] [D F - ]

E: [12187 -- 12194] -- [14274 -- 14291]

F: [14274 -- 14292] -- [15231 -- 15233]

G: [15231 -- 15234] -- [17310 -- 17324]

H: [17310 -- 17325] -- [19008 -- 19012]

I: [19008 -- 19013] -- [19495 -- 19499]

J: [19495 -- 19500] -- [32733 -- 32751]

K: [32733 -- 32752] -- [34776 -34778]

L: [34776 -- 34779] -- [36521 -- 36527]

M: [36522 -- 36528] -- [42982 - 42996]

N: [42982 - 42997] -- [44766 - 44768]

O: [44767 - 447697] -- [45395 - 45414]

P: [45396 - 45415] -- [46561 -- 46567]

Q: [46562 -- 46568] -- [46579 -- 46584]

R: [46580 - 46585] = [49587 -- 49602]

S: [49587 - 49603] -- [53934 - 53955]

T: [53934 - 53956] -- [57787 -- 57796]

U: [57787 -- 57797] -- [57926 -- 57933]

V: [57926 -- 57926] -- [58446 -58462]

W: [58446 -- 58463] -- [59041 -- 59053]

X: [59041 -- 59054] -- [59055 -- 59058]

Y: [59055 -- 59059] -- [59089 -- 59100]

Z: [59089 -- 59101] -- [59172 -- 59185]

OTHER: [59173 -- 59186] -- 59195 [ ] -- wangzhm (Chinese Characters)

NOTE: The upper limit of email 0059195.eml is I believe correct. However it is possible that there may be some emails beyond this range not yet released but that will not be discoverable until they are released. I suspect, if such further emails exist to be released, they will be of little significance as these are emails with Chinese characters and are likely to be, if any, few in number.

INDEX BY PARTICULAR SENDER

INDEX BY EMAILS OF SIGNIFICANCE

These are emails by sender. In one case there is a unique set, that sent by Podesta to others. [Note: I have discovered some not included in this here yet because they use a different email address that does not show up in the same contiguous email by file sets. I will add a reference to these under this heading shortly.] I will list this information first, as it is different from the rest, and I have yet to determine any secondary sort order (such as by order of the Recipient name). For the rest I have indicated the SENDER and the range of emails and thus the location and the estimated number based on the maximum possible range as determinable at this point. There is a second element in the PARTICULAR SENDER set - in that there is a date sort order chronologically by file number - but again it is not that simple. As while the order is there - it is not singular but multiple - thus there can be more than one identifiable chronological set per user - each starting again as the file number increases. So the first email within a sub-set will come chronologically before a second by file name (number) - but this does not necessarily mean the last in the set comes after the first - as it may be in a different subset. Only as more emails are released will I be able to determine exactly why the new subsets are started and will update when I have been able to determine that.]

Soon I will also provide links and Google Doc spreadsheets linking to each user's emails by set.

Burns Strider

FROM

PRIOR UNRELEASED: 7

FIRST

EMAIL #: 5919

EMAIL ID: 3321

DATE: 9/19/14

LAST

EMAIL #: 6381

EMAIL ID: 2019

DATE: 2/28/15

TOTAL: 463

POST UNRELEASED: 3

MAX TOTAL: 473

Paul Begala

FROM

PRIOR UNRELEASED: 7

FIRST

EMAIL #: 4357

EMAIL ID: 9336

DATE: 3/4/08

LAST

EMAIL #: 4439

EMAIL ID: 6220

DATE: 1/4/08

TOTAL: 83

POST UNRELEASED: 37

MAX TOTAL: 127

Cheryl Mills

FROM

PRIOR UNRELEASED: 3

FIRST

EMAIL #: 7402

EMAIL ID: 6009

DATE: 9/15/15

LAST

EMAIL #: 8242

EMAIL ID: 7400

DATE: 8/9/15

TOTAL: 1392

POST UNRELEASED: 21

MAX TOTAL: 1416

David Plouffe

[NOTE: There may be more " need to check body " uses info|AT|barackobama.comEmail address -- and there are some that are listed under this without his name (under B)]

PRIOR UNRELEASED: 19

FIRST

EMAIL #: 10846

EMAIL ID: 6116

DATE: 11/17/09

LAST

EMAIL #: 10899

EMAIL ID: 957

DATE: 7/24/08

TOTAL: 54

POST UNRELEASED: 6

MAX TOTAL: 79

Dennis Cheng

PRIOR UNRELEASED: 20

FIRST

EMAIL #: 11581

EMAIL ID: 3409

DATE: 12/17/15

LAST

EMAIL #: 11671

EMAIL ID: 9161

DATE: 5/16/15

TOTAL: 91

POST UNRELEASED: 17

MAX TOTAL: 128

Dennis Cheng

PRIOR UNRELEASED: 19

FIRST

EMAIL #: 11581

EMAIL ID: 3409

DATE: 12/17/15

LAST

EMAIL #: 11671

EMAIL ID: 9161

DATE: 6/6/15

TOTAL: 90

POST UNRELEASED: 18

MAX TOTAL: 137

Donna Brazile

PRIOR UNRELEASED: 4

FIRST

EMAIL #: 11906

EMAIL ID: 5163

DATE: 1/30/16

LAST

EMAIL #: 11914

EMAIL ID: 9096

DATE: 3/4/16

TOTAL: 9

POST UNRELEASED: 8

MAX TOTAL: 21

Doug Band

PRIOR UNRELEASED: 35

FIRST

EMAIL #: 12003

EMAIL ID: 3617

DATE: 3/2/16

LAST

EMAIL #: 12114

EMAIL ID: 4111

DATE: 3/5/15

TOTAL: 112

POST UNRELEASED: 8

MAX TOTAL: 155

Erskine Bowles

PRIOR UNRELEASED: 9

FIRST

EMAIL #: 13342

EMAIL ID: 1570

DATE: 2/26/16

LAST

EMAIL #: 9152

EMAIL ID: 13380

DATE: 3/13/13

TOTAL: 39

POST UNRELEASED: 3

MAX TOTAL: 51

Eryn Sepp

FROM

PRIOR UNRELEASED: 3

FIRST

EMAIL #: 13384

EMAIL ID: 8664

DATE: 8/29/15

LAST

EMAIL #: 14178

EMAIL ID: 4684

DATE: 8/21/15

TOTAL: 795

POST UNRELEASED: 5

MAX TOTAL: 803

Gabe Podesta [SON]

PRIOR 2

15234

15493

POST 18

Hillary Rodham Clinton (H)

PRIOR UNRELEASED: 14

FIRST

EMAIL #: 17325

EMAIL ID: 6303

DATE: 8/24/15

LAST

EMAIL #: 17440

EMAIL ID: 2630

DATE:

TOTAL: 116

POST UNRELEASED: 35

MAX TOTAL: 165

Huma Abedin

PRIOR UNRELEASED: 15

FIRST

EMAIL #: 18448

EMAIL ID: 9657

DATE: 8/27/15

LAST

EMAIL #: 18987

EMAIL ID: 8675

DATE: 8/14/15

TOTAL: 540

POST UNRELEASED: 12

MAX TOTAL: 567

Jake Sullivan

PRIOR UNRELEASED: 14

FIRST

EMAIL #: 19675

EMAIL ID: 5367

DATE: 8/28/15

LAST

EMAIL #: 20190

EMAIL ID: 975

DATE: 8/13/15

TOTAL: 516

POST UNRELEASED: 6

MAX TOTAL: 536

Jennifer Palmieri

PRIOR UNRELEASED: 6

FIRST

EMAIL #: 20842

EMAIL ID: 8704

DATE: 3/1/15

LAST

EMAIL #: 21738

EMAIL ID: 2201

DATE: 8/21/15

TOTAL: 897

POST UNRELEASED: 3

MAX TOTAL: 906

Joel Benenson

PRIOR UNRELEASED: 10

FIRST

EMAIL #: 22823

EMAIL ID: 8440

DATE: 9/8/15

LAST

EMAIL #: 23108

EMAIL ID: 5699

DATE: 8/6/15

TOTAL: 286

POST UNRELEASED: 12

MAX TOTAL: 308

John Anzalone

PRIOR UNRELEASED:

FIRST

EMAIL #: 23142

EMAIL ID:

DATE:

LAST

EMAIL #:

EMAIL ID:

DATE:

TOTAL:

POST UNRELEASED:

MAX TOTAL:

John Podesta [FROM]

PRIOR UNRELEASED: 1

FIRST

EMAIL #: 23594

EMAIL ID: 6647

DATE: 8/24/15

LAST

EMAIL #: 31545

EMAIL ID: 4768

DATE: 2/26/08

TOTAL: 7952

POST UNRELEASED: 8

MAX TOTAL:7961

PRIOR UNRELEASED:

FIRST

EMAIL #:

EMAIL ID:

DATE:

LAST

EMAIL #:

EMAIL ID:

DATE:

TOTAL:

POST UNRELEASED:

MAX TOTAL:

(Article changed on October 18, 2016 at 19:37)

(Article changed on October 18, 2016 at 19:42)

Authors Website: http://www.facebook.com/charlie.grapski

Authors Bio:

One person cannot change it all - but it takes at least one person to change the world. I've tried at least.