0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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 incoherentstory, 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>>>>> https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36070
Author
Topic: #Wikileaks Huge discussion with lawyers 'off the record' on how to handle Hillary's email issue (Read 546 times)
