Yesterday, when Wikileaks released its second for the day dump of Podesta emails, the so-called Part 34, we assumed that was it. We were wrong. Moments ago Wikileaks released an "election day special", dumping another 1,793 emails in Part 35 of its ongoing release, bringing the total to 58,375, and one which we can only assume is the definitive final release of Podesta emails, as it makes little sense to continue this dissemination after the election.

A quick skim of the emails reveals this interesting exchange from Podesta to Mills, in which he tells her to "think about" her raising her eyebrows when Podesta said he "liked working" with Obama.

* * *

Another email reveals the draft report prepared for Bill Clinton's meeting in North Korea.

* * *

A December 2011 email from Clinton Foundation's Amitab Desai reveals that donors are not seeing big enough deals with the money they are willing to invest.

* * *

An email from March 2016 coaches Hillary Clinton on how to respond to requests for her Goldman Sachs transcript:

How to answer request for Goldman Sachs transcripts “Well, Anderson . . . you know . . . I was the first candidate to release my health records. I was also the first [among the first] to release my tax returns . . . and I would note that some candidates still have not done that . . . and of course there are my work emails, over 50,000 pages . . . can you imagine what we would find if we could see Donald Trump’s emails? I’m the only one to release emails. And, our course, some want me to release all my personal emails as well. And now someone wants me to release the transcripts of all my speeches. Why only me? What about the other candidates? Why this double standard, Anderson? I have been more open and transparent than every other candidate in this race . . . more than any candidate in the history of our presidential elections. Enough is enough with the double standards!

* * *

An email from September 2015, reveals Hillary Clinton's full speech transcript to the Brookings Institute on Iran

Here’s how many world leaders will see it: “We agreed to sanctions to bring Iran to the negotiating table. They came. They agreed to a deal. And the United States turned them down and walked away, for no good reason. So why would we keep the sanctions going? Their purpose is now obsolete. And it’s not Iran’s fault – it’s America’s.” In other words, if we reject this deal, Iran would get nearly everything it wants without giving up a thing. No eyes on their centrifuges. No inspectors on the ground. No warning if Tehran decides to rush toward a bomb. And the international sanctions regime would fall apart – so on top of all that, Iran would reap economic rewards.

More as we see it