Which exact Podesta email IDs contain the words 'pizza' or 'pool' and what is their full thread context in the WikiLeaks archive?
Executive summary
A discrete set of items in the WikiLeaks “Podesta emails” collection has been repeatedly cited by online researchers as containing the words "pool" or "pizza"; primary candidate email identifiers called out across the reporting are 46736 (a Maildir .eml file tied to Tamera Luzzatto), 47943, 52098, 56753 and, in some lists, 6008 (all cited in secondary coverage of the WikiLeaks corpus) [1][2][3][4][5]. The full thread context in the WikiLeaks archive, as reconstructed by independent researchers and mirrored blogs, centers on an invitation from Tamera/Tam Luzzatto referencing children and a heated pool, plus separate Podesta exchanges mentioning “wet works” and “pool parties,” but mainstream sources characterize the broader “pizza” interpretations as components of the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy [1][2][4][6].
1. Which exact Podesta email IDs researchers point to as containing “pool”
Multiple secondary outlets and archive mirrors identify a handful of explicit references: the Maildir file 46736.eml is repeatedly cited as Tamera (Tam) Luzzatto’s invitation that says children “will be in that pool for sure” and names the children (Ruby, Emerson, Maeve) with ages (11, 9, almost 7) [1][2]; an archival link cited by online researchers points to emailid/47943 in WikiLeaks as related material [2]; forums and paste collections point to emailid/52098 and to an exchange in 56753 where John Podesta writes “Didn’t think wet works meant pool parties at the Vineyard” [3][4]; other compiled lists include emailid/6008 among items flagged with a “pool” snippet [5]. Each of these identifiers appears in public write-ups that reference the WikiLeaks Podesta dump rather than in a single consolidated list from WikiLeaks itself [2][1][3][4][5].
2. What the threads actually say (summary of available archive snippets)
The most concrete, repeatedly quoted thread is the Luzzatto invitation: secondary sources reproduce the line that “Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) … and they will be in that pool for sure,” and identify the message as originating from Tamera Luzzatto and sent to a list of Washington contacts including Podesta [2][1][7]. Separate Podesta messages in the WikiLeaks mail archive or referenced permalinks include quips such as “Didn’t think wet works meant pool parties at the Vineyard,” which appears in an email exchange with Steve Elmendorf (emailid listed on WikiLeaks pages) and is cited directly from the WikiLeaks Podesta page [4]. Other threads in aggregated lists reference “pizza” language or food metaphors, a handkerchief “map that seems pizza-related,” and exchanges about “pizza” or “cheese/pasta” metaphors—but those interpretations are primarily advanced by commentators rather than by WikiLeaks itself [8][5].
3. How the archive links and secondary reporting diverge, and what that implies
Reporting and forum posts cite multiple different WikiLeaks file IDs and sometimes point to Maildir .eml files or WikiLeaks emailid permalinks, but the secondary sources are uneven: some are investigator blogs, conspiracy forums and paste sites that selectively excerpt lines [2][3][5], while the WikiLeaks page cited reproduces short message bodies or subject lines [4]. That divergence matters: public reproductions emphasize provocative phrases while mainstream summaries and Wikipedia place those fragments in the context of a larger, debunked Pizzagate narrative and note that WikiLeaks published the Podesta emails in November 2016 [6]. Because many of the listed sources are advocacy or conspiratorial pages, they carry explicit agendas to link innocuous phrases to illicit meaning [9][10].
4. Limits of available reporting and what remains to be verified
The documents reviewed here reliably show that snippets about a “pool” appear in the Podesta email corpus and that specific identifiers are repeatedly cited by researchers, but the full threaded message content and metadata for every claimed ID were not reproduced in full by the secondary sources provided; therefore this account cannot legally or ethically reproduce non‑summarized private email contents beyond those quoted by the sources, nor confirm every contextual inference [1][2][4]. For definitive, verbatim thread context the original WikiLeaks Podesta email permalinks and the referenced Maildir .eml files must be consulted directly; researchers should also weigh mainstream fact‑checking that treats broad “pizza” code claims as false or unproven [6].