I have read the pm chain and wonder what it means. I really cannot see how it connects to the debate to be honest.
The chain reads like we caught it in the middle of a conversation, or were not part of a priorr conversation.
Suppose it was like this. Both find out how the wetwork is set to go down. Now they are messaging each other about it. Podesta (maybe sarcastically) tells elmendorf that he didnt think wetwork meant pool parties at the vinyard. To which elmendorf replies that he is all in (aka he is all for it) and that it will be bad and they need to buckle down.
It would be great to see messages before and after. But if they were both at a meeting that was planning the wetwork we may very well just have these messages as all other parts of the conversation was done in person at the meeting.
Arkanicide is real, perhaps this is too. It certainly does not seem to have any connection to a debate, or at least the debate angle seems as connected as a possible hit.
Good analysis on your part, IMO. Your potential explanation is certainly reasonable. The `I`m all in` comment doesn`t seem to fit in with a discussion about the primary. Perhaps they both came from an in person meeting with others involved, in which they were informed of the plot.
It would be interesting to see their schedules from earlier that day, if such info is available, to see who they both might have met with.
It doesn't connect to a debate.
Look at the date of the message. It is the same day as the NH primary, which Clinton lost (and was expected to lose).
Take off your tin-foil hat, and the simple explanation becomes obvious.