Following the revelation of Alexandra Tydings as the mother of the children "who will be in that pool for sure" in the Podesta emails, there were a few things I found:
1. Ruby 11, Emerson 9, Maeve 7, are referred to as siblings in most pizzagate research.
2. Google search of actress Alexandra Tydings (mother) only list Ruby and Emerson as children. https://www.google.com/search?q=alexandra+tydings+children
3. Also, Emerson is her 'son' yet in the birth report from Maeve's 2008 birth archived on 4chan says Emerson was excited to hold HER baby sister, among other references http://archive.is/r0zCv
Maybe I'm missing some other connection? Or maybe it's a sevens style tactic to confuse people? #whereismaeve
view the rest of the comments →
readstuff ago
Excellent question for serious followup. I believe Ms Luzzatto is the weakest link in the defensive chain. The public has a right to know whether THE TAXPAYERS SUBSIDIZED HER POOL PARTY as work-related expense. Note at [https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5252] that her INVITATION TO THE PARTY WAS SIGNED OFFICIALLY AS SR VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, THE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS and it was SENT ON A WEEKDAY WORKDAY MORNING FROM HER OFFICIAL TAX-SUBSIDIZED PEW EMAIL ADDRESS. These very reasonable questions also should be directed to every officer, director and trustee of The Pew Charitable Trusts and The Glenmede Trust Company, which is the sole trustee of the underlying Pew Family Trusts. Pew is a tax-exempt public charity that spends millions to lobby governments every year and employs Luzzatto as its ~$400K Senior VP for government relations. There are many good people at those organizations who depend absolutely on tax-exempt status and good public repute; they, too, will want explanations or action.
RweSure ago
What in ever loving heck? I can't believe this is serious.
The Pew Charitable Trusts are a private non-government entity. You mighty confused if you think a person who works there can't send a personal email.
Do you really think because you work at a non-profit you can't send an email to your wife that you want steak for dinner? Or send an email to a bunch of friends to see who wants to go see Wonder Woman.
You're using the language of the Hatch ACT. But you're using in wrong.
Because the Hatch Act does not apply to private charities. It applies to federal employees. The Hatch Act also does not apply personal email. It applies to political activity.
The email was not SIGNED OFFICIALLY. That's just an automatic email signature. When you set this up in Outlook or something similar it gets applied to every new email. It has nothing to do with "official" anything.
Then you make this crazy leap
Completely based on nothing.
Tax Exempt Status has nothing to do with a person's reputation.
readstuff ago
Nothing crazy here, and no leap at all. We are not concerned with emailing your dinner menu. We are and have every reason to be concerned with using tax-subsidized 501(c)3 resources to arrange and sponsor what seems to have have been unlawful child-abuse for the "further entertainment" of guests in furtherance of Ms Luzzatto's official employment as a lobbyist and her employer's tax-subsidized lobbying mission. Severe criminal and civil issues would arise from such facts for Pew and Glenmede as institutions and for every responsible trustee, director and officer as well as every individual who arranged or attended the event. An intense text/email/publicity campaign could force appropriate answers and/or actions
RweSure ago
Now you're making a second leap
This of course has always been one of the more ludicrous bits of speculation in Pizzagate. Genuinely bafflingly.
Ok I get it now.
Now I read your initial post differently. And yes it is crazy.
Bradmi619 ago
oh you mean like a 501c3? Or a private org like the DNC who are denying charitable political donation refunds to Berniecrats? I possibly agree with this point, certainly. But your -69 downvote rating tells me you won't agree with much on this thread.
RweSure ago
Either one. The DNC is a non profit too. It's a 527.
They are not government agencies and the tax code doesn't get into such minutia as the email policy.
You think Seth Rich didn't email his friends about getting together for softball on his work email? Or login into his personal email from his desk?
Bradmi619 ago
Funny, I didn't mention Seth Rich. The fact that a signature was non-government or personal hardly negates speculation on the matter. But I appreciate your Alinskyism. You're quite practiced I noticed. Now onto the DNC, So the DNC should not be held accountable for being impartial, all the while deceiving many of their donors, because being impartial is solely a suggestion? I think you may be right about your former point. If you haven't noticed I'm receptive to all viewpoints. Maybe you can convince me! But really, the pity is on you, not me. Nor my commenters.