Please See My First Comment Below For Explanation (space issue)

Podesta Email: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/55433

PART 1: WHY DO WE THINK IT IS CODE?

In the email chain about the handkerchief, the first email with it being described, Person A claims to actually have the handkerchief in their possession, describes it as, " a square cloth handkerchief (white w/ black) " and that is it.

Person B receives this email, they do not have the handkerchief, they cannot see it and they don't know what it looks like beyond that it is square and is black and white. We know this because Person A offered to mail it, which means they couldn't have just handed it over, either, and Person B confirms they haven't received it with "they (Person A) can send it if you want" in the next email. So Person A has it, Person B does not have it, cannot see it (there is no attached photo of it) and therefore doesn't know what it looks like beyond what Person A described.

Person B then emails Podesta, and Person B (who remember does not have the handkerchief and cannot see it), says

"I think it has a map that seems pizza-related."

1. Where does this description come from? Person B cannot see the handkerchief, so why is Person B adding extra details about an item that they cannot see and would have no way of being able to describe beyond what Person A told them?

2. Why does Person B "think" it has a map? Is it a theory of theirs? They suspect it could be the case? How does that make any sense? Where is this even coming from?

3. It "seems" to be pizza "related"? So now we have a theory that there may be a map, and the map that may or may not be present seems to be related to pizza, and this is based on what?

So even though Person B does not have this handkerchief, cannot see this handkerchief and therefore knows nothing about it beyond that it is square and black&white, Person B

1. Thinks it has a map on it. They don't know if there is a map on it. There might be and there might not be.

2. Thinks that the map that may or may not be on it seems to be related to pizza.

And none of this has anything to do with what the handkerchief looks like , because Person B doesn't know what it looks like .

This is what people realized FIRST when looking at the email. That "a map that seems pizza-related" HAS to be code for something, because it can't be an actual description of what the item looks like.

Not only does this open up the possibility that other things in the emails are code, but is also begs the question of, what is it code for ?

PART 2: WHY DO WE THINK IT IS NOT CODE FOR DRUGS?

Starting with what we know for sure is code..

If you Google "What is pizza code for" you will likely get a result from Urban Dictionary at the top that says that pizza is code for drugs. And since the whole sentence is code (Person B is not seeing a map as they are not seeing anything), you also have to try to figure out what "map" is code for, and that isn't as easy. You have to just think logically about it. What would make sense, as far as what "map" could be code for?

Maps.. Show us where things are.

So therefore, if "pizza" meant "drugs" then it would be: "I think it has something that could lead somewhere and that something seems drug-related."

What in the world could that something be? What other than a literal map could lead to something or someone? Think about it for a long time. Nothing else makes sense except for DNA, since it is not literally a map.

So therefore, it would be: "I think it has DNA on it that seems drug-related."

Does that make sense? Only if "handkerchief" is code for drug needle(s) from heroin use.

"The realtor found a syringe/needle, it might have DNA on it from shooting up heroin. Is it yours?"

But if that is the case, then the previous email would make no sense.

"a square cloth syringe/needle (white w/black)"

There is no code used by heroin addicts to describe special syringes and needles. Plus, what rich person wants their used drug needles back?

So the initial theory that "pizza" is code for "drugs" doesn't work.

Which leaves us with, "I think it has DNA that seems ______-related. Is it yours?"

What else could possibly cause DNA to be left behind somewhere, enough DNA that someone would point it out?

Answer: murder or sex

PART 3: WHY DO WE THINK IT IS CODE FOR SOMETHING SEXUAL?

Possibility 1: Murder - "The realtor found a handkerchief (I think it has DNA on it that seems murder-related. Is it yours?"

If this is what was being asked, then basically Person B would be asking Podesta if he took part in a murder at this house, and is it his DNA. The problem with this theory is that extremely wealthy and powerful people don't personally murder people in random houses and then leave evidence behind, or else they swiftly get caught and go to prison. Instead, they have 'professionals' who take care of cleanup for them. Even if we do consider that Podesta and friends murdered someone together, because they would also go to prison if caught (since they are in on it), if they found evidence left behind, they would sure as hell just get rid of it, themselves. This murder theory is weak at best.

So, it's probably not code for murder, which leaves the possibility of it being code for something sexual.

PART 4: WHY DO WE THINK IT IS CODE FOR CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE SPECIFICALLY?

Some people are into some pretty wild and kinky things. Some people are gay and don't want to come out of the closet for whatever reasons. But, none of that is evil or illegal, so being so concerned about getting caught that they would show signs of alarm over possible DNA evidence, does not make sense. Who is going to end up using DNA in a laboratory to try to prove that these people had gay or kinky sex in a house? Absolutely nobody, that's who.

The only reason DNA would be a concern, would be if whatever fills in the blank for, "I think it has DNA that seems ______-related." could get someone in legal trouble. Because only law enforcement is actually going to be concerned with DNA evidence. (And remember, we have already established that "map" is definitely code and not a literal visual map, and that the only thing that makes sense as code for "map" is DNA.)

So at this point, we are down to sex (of some sort) being the only option left. We know it is something illegal, because Person B is concerned about DNA (evidence) or a "map" that could lead law enforcement to someone.

What involves sex, and is also illegal?

1. Prostitution / Purchasing Prostitute Services
2. Child Sexual Abuse

So, which one is it?

This is the most significant question, because once you've made it this far, it would be reasonable to think that maybe it's about prostitutes, and in fact that theory has been suggested by a lot of people. After all, the crime of using prostitutes is pretty common, and has even shown up in the white house before, specifically callboys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfSxWYDe3JY&feature=youtu.be

Plus, there is an established "handkerchief code" that has been around for a very long time that is used to signal what sorts of sexual things people are into: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handkerchief_code

But there is one problem with the theory that it is talking about prostitutes, and it's the same reason we know that it is code for something illegal.

It's the matter of being so concerned about DNA or a "map" leading back to these people, that makes it unlikely to be about prostitutes. How many people do you think, throughout the nation, hire prostitutes and then worry about getting rid of the DNA evidence? Pretty sure the answer is nobody, if all that is going on is having sex with prostitutes.

When furthermore factoring in Podesta's history of covering for child sex trafficking by ACORN or how he runs damage control for the Clintons, when Bill Clinton very likely abused/raped children with Epstein during Bill's 26+ trips to the private island on the "Lolita Express" in just 3 years - people scouring the emails for evidence of corruption of the financial variety found something much more unnerving.