Re: NYT | Email Content

 From:john.podesta@gmail.com To: jake.sullivan@gmail.com  Date: 2015-03-19 17:58 Subject: Re: NYT | Email Content

 We should push for this tonight if possible. NYT may have an incoherent story, but they seem to be fixing to call her a liar on the front page. On Mar 19, 2015 2:36 PM, "Jake Sullivan" <jake.sullivan@gmail.com> wrote:  > This would seem to give a new imperative. The committee is leaking > particular bits of information. Would be worth someone convincing State to > just launch. > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> We have asking state to do that >> >> cdm >> >> On Mar 19, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Jake Sullivan <jake.sullivan@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> What do people think about releasing all the emails that went to Gowdy? >> >> >> >> On Mar 19, 2015, at 1:53 PM, Nick Merrill <nmerrill@hrcoffice.com> wrote: >> >> Alright, just heard back. See below. He is trying to save face and >> being helped by his source trying to save face. >> >> >> nick, >> >> i have read your email. >> >> we're not saying that her advisers exclusively used their personal >> accounts. we're just saying that they used their personal accounts at times >> to communicate with mrs. clinton on her personal account. >> >> for example, many emails jake sent or received from the secretary were >> from his state.gov account. but he did send mrs. clinton an email in >> april 2012 from his personal account that outlined her leadership in >> bringing down the qaddafi regime. >> >> so what we're seeking an answer to -- along with the other questions i >> sent you -- is why did her advisers at times use personal addresses to >> communicate with her? >> >> meanwhile, below is some new information i have about the emails that i >> want to flag you on to see if you want to respond to them. we're running >> out of time and need a response by 4 p.m. >> >> thnx. >> >> new information: >> >> A month after the Benghazi attacks, the Republican controlled House >> Oversight Committee held a hearing about the security at the American >> diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The former chief security officer for the >> American Embassy in Libya testified that the State Department had thwarted >> his request to extend the deployment of an American military team in Libya. >> The State Department’s under secretary for management, Patrick Kennedy, >> testified that the extended deployment would have altered the outcome. "Did >> we survive the day?" Mrs. Clinton wrote in an email to Mr. >> Sullivan. “Survive, yes,” Mr. Sullivan said in response. “Pat helped level >> set things tonight and we’ll see where we are in the morning.” >> >> >> we now have a direct quote on the sullivan email to mrs. clinton that >> included a transcript of susan rice's appearance on one of the sunday talk >> shows: "She did make clear our view that this started spontaneously then >> evolved," Mr. Sullivan said. >> >> From: NSM <nmerrill@hrcoffice.com> >> Date: Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 12:46 PM >> To: John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> >> Cc: Philippe Reines <pir@hrcoffice.com>, Huma Abedin <huma@hrcoffice.com>, >> Jennifer Palmieri <jennifer.m.palmieri@gmail.com>, Robby Mook < >> robbymook2015@gmail.com>, "hsamuelson@cdmillsgroup.com" < >> hsamuelson@cdmillsgroup.com>, Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com>, >> Jacob Sullivan <Jake.sullivan@gmail.com>, David Kendall <DKendall@wc.com>, >> Kristina Schake <kristinakschake@gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: NYT | Email Content >> >> Not a peep from the Times since I sent this. >> >> >> >> On Mar 19, 2015, at 12:02 PM, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Where does this stand? >> >> JP >> --Sent from my iPad-- >> john.podesta@gmail.com >> For scheduling: eryn.sepp@gmail.com >> >> On Mar 18, 2015, at 11:52 PM, Nick Merrill <nmerrill@hrcoffice.com> >> wrote: >> >> Heather, Philippe and I spent a couple of hours on the phone just now >> talking through the specifics trying to piece together what Schmidt is >> being led to believe, and we concluded that from the below he may have a >> glaring hole in his fact set, which is that he thinks the two Jake emails, >> the only two he cites as examples of HRC “working completely outside of the >> system” as he put it to me last night, are emails sent from Jake’s personal >> account. The trouble with that is, they were not. They were both sent >> from his state.gov accounts, which means that if this is what he’s >> hanging it hat on, he has wrong information, and not much of a story. >> >> I sent him a note to that effect, telling him that from what he’s sent >> us, which is these two examples and nothing else, his premise is deeply >> flawed due to misinformation he seems to have been provided. >> >> We’ll see what he comes back with. I’ll keep everybody posted. >> >> >> >> From: Philippe Reines <pir@hrcoffice.com> >> Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 8:19 PM >> To: NSM <nmerrill@hrcoffice.com> >> Cc: Huma Abedin <huma@hrcoffice.com>, Jennifer Palmieri < >> jennifer.m.palmieri@gmail.com>, Robby Mook <robbymook2015@gmail.com>, >> John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com>, "hsamuelson@cdmillsgroup.com" < >> hsamuelson@cdmillsgroup.com>, Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com>, >> Jacob Sullivan <Jake.sullivan@gmail.com>, David Kendall <DKendall@wc.com>, >> Kristina Schake <kristinakschake@gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: NYT | Email Content >> >> Let's get HRC squared away first since he is challenging the pemise >> that it was her practice to use state.gov. >> >> So Heather, set aside how many we iniated from our personal email, how >> many of the 19 in the batch of 300 are HER initiating an email to one of >> the four of us us on our private accounts. Only us, not Sid. There were two >> more, right? >> >> The one to me & Huma was about getting a DVD and hardly the basis for >> calling her a liar. >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Nick Merrill >> *Sent: *Wednesday, March 18, 2015 7:28 PM >> *To: *Marissa Astor >> *Cc: *Huma Abedin; jennifer.m.palmieri@gmail.com; Robby Mook; Philippe >> Reines; John Podesta; hsamuelson@cdmillsgroup.com; cheryl.mills@gmail.com; >> jake.sullivan@gmail.com; David Kendall; Kristina Schake >> *Subject: *Re: NYT | Email Content >> >> After some civil but unproductive conversations with Mike Schmidt last >> night, we followed up with a note to him this afternoon. He just replied >> with the below. Our original note pasted below that. >> >> Curious what peoples' reactions are. This response doesn't seem to >> address the core question, and further proves that this is just >> cherry-picked BS. >> >> Heather one immediate question for you is whether you can give us any >> details about the emails he's referring to. >> >> Related, HRC reiterated to me today a desire to call for the release of >> the emails. I didn't engage because I don't know all of the details here, >> so I told her I would convey. >> >> ------ >> >> Nick, >> >> I read your email. >> >> Below is a run down of the latest we know about the emails the committee >> has been given from the State Department. Below that are the questions we >> have. >> >> We would like a response from you by 10 amThursday morning. >> >> Thank you. >> >> // >> HRC received an email from Jake Sullivan shortly after Susan Rice went on >> the Sunday talk shows after the attacks. In the email was a transcript >> from one of the shows and a note from Sullivan saying that Rice had made >> the administration’s view clear that the attacks started spontaneously and >> then evolved. Two weeks later, Sullivan sent HRC an email outlining what >> she had said publicly about the matter, assuring her that she had never >> described the attacks as spontaneous and she had never characterized the >> attackers’ motives. >> HRC did not send many long emails. Many of them were to Sullivan and >> included news stories and the message: “Please print.” The emails show that >> four of HRC’s closest advisers at the State Department used private email >> accounts for some of their correspondences with her when she was Secretary >> of State. The documents show messages between HRC’s personal account and >> the private ones of her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills; senior adviser, >> Philippe Reines; personal aide Huma Abedin; and Mr. Sullivan. >> >> >> >> The questions I have for you are the same ones I sent before: >> >> >> Why did the advisers use private email accounts – instead of government >> ones – to correspond with Mrs. Clinton? >> >> Was this the normal practice? >> >> Why did Mrs. Clinton suggest that her emails were being captured in the >> State Department system when she was corresponding at times with her aides >> on their personal accounts? >> >> Were Mrs. Clinton’s advisers given legal advice about whether it was >> appropriate for them to correspond with her using their personal accounts? >> >> Why did Mrs. Clinton rely on the advice of Sidney Blumenthal? >> >> --------- >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> Given the nature of the below involving facts that are under review by >> both the State Department and the select committee, I’m asking that this >> all be considered *off the record*. I say this because I want to share >> some of these details in an effort to better convey why we still find >> ourselves not clear on the core elements of this story, making it difficult >> to respond to your questions. >> >> Here’s what I know. I know that you have emails or information about >> emails that were sent between Secretary Clinton and a personal account of >> one of her staff. You described that the majority of them came from the >> 300 turned over to the select committee by the State Department, but that >> based on your reporting you weren't certain. I would note that by >> definition if the emails involved personal addresses and were not forwarded >> to the State system, they had to come from the 300 grouping, because >> otherwise State would not have had them until they received the latest >> batch (the 300 earlier this year). So either they are part of a group that >> came from a batch that the State Department already had in their >> possession, which would seem to contradict your premise, or they came from >> the 300. >> >> Based on this, assuming they came from the 300, we’re familiar with the >> 300. One of the things we know is that there is a handful of emails as >> part of that 300 that did not eventually go to the state.govsystem, as I >> told you last night. This was more often than not because they were >> personal in nature but handed over in an abundance of caution, came from >> outsiders but had some of the keywords (like Libya) in them, or because >> they were news articles simply sent to or from a personal account. The >> thing we are having trouble figuring out is that based on what you have >> told us, and the names provided below, the two don’t match up. >> >> And I’d remind you that there is no prohibition on the use of personal >> email accounts, as you noted on the phone last night, as long as they are >> preserved, and of course, by virtue of you having these emails, they were >> not only preserved but disclosed. >> >> So while we want to address your questions, without any sense of the >> frequency, volume and any characterization of the interactions that were >> had, nor any verifiable sense of whether these emails did or did not get >> forwarded to the state.gov system, it’s difficult to do so, particularly >> since you are asking questions below that seem to characterize these >> interactions as frequent, but it’s unclear whether that’s substantiated. >> >> So, in short, can we ask you to provide more information about what you >> intend to write and the facts that will support it so we can more >> accurately address your questions. >> >> Thanks very much. >> >> Nick >> >> >