Subject: Re: one chain on DOMA
From: Amanda Renteria <[email-masked]>
To: John Podesta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 21:49:15 -0400

Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 25, 2015, at 9:37 PM, John Podesta <[email-masked]> wrote:

We are blowing this people. Chains of 40 emails aren't helping. we need to
get a statement out that says that no matter what the context 20 years ago
the law was a discriminatory vestige of a less tolerant era as WJC said in
his editorial appealing to SCOTUS to overturn it.

On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dominic Lowell <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Everyone I talked to today was in a pretty whipped up state. Based on who
> reached out to me and what I've seen people express online, the energy is
> not relegated to just the rabble rouser crowd. There is, IMO, deep
> discontent out there stemming from what she said on Friday.
>
> I recognize I might be in a small minority, but my opinion continues to be
> that we are better served by addressing this.
>
> Just to play it out, though, if we don't respond on this round of
> stories, what will her answer be if pressed to clarify in future interviews
> about this?
>
> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Brian Fallon <[email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>> wrote:
>
>> Rosen suggested in her email she at least would be satisfied if we never
>> repeated the theory again. Defer to political on whether others want
>> something approximating a walkback.
>> On Oct 25, 2015 9:09 PM, "Kristina Schake" <[email-masked]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with not issuing a statement - it doesn't help us. In terms of
>>> the huffington post how strongly do we feel we even need to be in the
>>> story? Are we under strong pressure to walk back?
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 9:05 PM, Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, if we want to be in the story. Keep in mind: the story will suck
>>> regardless. But I would just say we should use it as the vehicle for giving
>>> a statement that reads as a walkback, even as HRC will never approve a true
>>> walkback, and then we circulate the story to our LGBT friends so they see
>>> that both they humbled us with a bad story and we highlight our statement
>>> giving a win-win walkback, and we move on.
>>> On Oct 25, 2015 9:01 PM, "Robby Mook" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do we need to get back to Huffpo tonight?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 8:40 PM, Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Here is what we have: Huffington post is doing a story tomorrow "fact
>>>> checking" the idea that there was a push for a constitutional amendment in
>>>> 1996, as HRC claimed was true. The piece will essentially say there was
>>>> not, and will quote Rosen's tweet and Evan Wolfson saying this was not true
>>>> and was hardly a basis for DOMA to be signed by WJC.
>>>>
>>>> Xochitl has also gotten an inquiry from the Blade.
>>>>
>>>> In addition to this, Socarides tells us he heard from NYT on this,
>>>> though the campaign has not, so we do not know what he is referring to. I
>>>> would not be surptised, however, if activists we're pitching this.
>>>>
>>>> All that said, I do not think a statement from HRC is warranted simply
>>>> based on these inquiries. Indeed, I think a statement from her likely
>>>> attracts more coverage than just these inquiries and also could give the
>>>> appearance that we are responding to Bernie at JJ, rather than clarifying
>>>> our own remarks to Maddow. I missed the beginning of tbe conf call this
>>>> afternoon on thia, but i had assumed we were preparing an HRC statement
>>>> less for HuffPo and more because that is what political thought was needed
>>>> to quell the LGBT backlash.
>>>>
>>>> If that is not the case, then for my purposes, I would just propose a
>>>> spokesman statement that accounts for Dan's point (that she will not
>>>> disavow her theory about the constitutional amendment) but also addresses
>>>> the community's outrage over the idea that we might be trying to justify
>>>> support for the law in 96 by saying something like, "Regardless of the
>>>> differing motives that led to the passage of DOMA, none were justifiable
>>>> since, as both Hillary and President clinton have said, the law was clearly
>>>> discriminatory."
>>>> I'm not sure anyone has asked. We would put it out there.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 7:53 PM, Kristina Schake <
>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to be late to this but what outlets have made the statement
>>>> request and what is the deadline?
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Dominic Lowell <
>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Amanda and I tried to address Tony and Dan's points -- as well as
>>>>> Karen who pointed out the context is bigger than just Maddow -- while
>>>>> taking into account the concerns of our cabinet. Below is what we landed
>>>>> on. Appreciate feedback.
>>>>>
>>>>> **
>>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, and in many instances previously, I was asked about my
>>>>> position on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I appreciate that people
>>>>> have differing views of the DOMA situation [other word?] in 1996. The
>>>>> environment for gays and lesbians was different then and there were
>>>>> struggles about the best paths to take. That is common in all social change
>>>>> movements. I have been very open that my own views have evolved over the
>>>>> years.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope the important thing is that we are now moving forward toward
>>>>> justice, together.
>>>>> In 2013, I added my voice in support of marriage equality “personally
>>>>> and as a matter of policy and law.”  As I said then, LGBT Americans are
>>>>> full and equal citizens and they deserve the full and equal rights of
>>>>> citizenship.  Like so many others, my personal views have been shaped over
>>>>> time by people I have known and loved, by my experience representing our
>>>>> nation on the world stage, my devotion to law and human rights, and the
>>>>> guiding principles of my faith. That’s why, as a Senator, I pushed for laws
>>>>> that would extend protections to the LGBT community in the workplace and
>>>>> that would make violence towards LGBT individuals a hate crime. And as
>>>>> Secretary of State, I put LGBT rights on the global agenda and told the
>>>>> world that “gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights.”
>>>>>  In my speech last night in Iowa, I didn’t look back to the America of the
>>>>> past, I looked forward to the America we need to build together.  I pledged
>>>>> to fight for LGBT Americans who, despite all our progress, in many places
>>>>> can still get married on Saturday and fired on Monday just because of who
>>>>> they are and who they love.  In this campaign and as President, I will keep
>>>>> fighting for equality and opportunity for every American.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Amanda Renteria <
>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The hope is to squash the story bc it's not going away.
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 7:35 PM, Kristina Schake <
>>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do we actually have to do here?  I'm not sure a statement will
>>>>>> help us.  Do we need to response to the Huffington Post?  Is that the main
>>>>>> request?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Amanda Renteria <
>>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What about broadening the perspectives at that time?
>>>>>>> Acknowledging there were a lot of diff views vs she was wrong. ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:57 PM, Tony Carrk <[email-masked]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And also for awareness for everyone to have, attached are HRC’s
>>>>>>> comments on DOMA Carter from my team put together.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From:* Dan Schwerin [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, October 25, 2015 6:56 PM
>>>>>>> *To:* Amanda Renteria <[email-masked]>
>>>>>>> *Cc:* Dominic Lowell <[email-masked]>; Karen Finney <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]>; Maya Harris <[email-masked]>;
>>>>>>> Heather Stone <[email-masked]>; Robby Mook <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]>; Jake Sullivan <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]>; Jennifer Palmieri <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]>; Brian Fallon <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]>; Kristina Schake <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]>; Marlon Marshall <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]>; Tony Carrk <[email-masked]>;
>>>>>>> Brynne Craig <[email-masked]>; Sally Marx <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]>; Teddy Goff <[email-masked]>;
>>>>>>> John Podesta <[email-masked]>; Christina Reynolds <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]>
>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: one chain on DOMA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think everyone agrees we shouldn't restate her argument. Question
>>>>>>> is whether she's going to agree to explicitly disavow it. And I doubt it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Amanda Renteria <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no way we have friends to back us up on her
>>>>>>> interpretation.  This is a major problem if we revisit her argument like
>>>>>>> this.  It's better to do nothing than to re-state this although she is
>>>>>>> going to get a question again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Working w Dominic now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:34 PM, Dan Schwerin <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not saying double down or ever say it again. I'm just saying
>>>>>>> that she's not going to want to say she was wrong about that, given she and
>>>>>>> her husband believe it and have repeated it many times. Better to reiterate
>>>>>>> evolution, opposition to DOMA when court considered it, and forward looking
>>>>>>> stance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Dominic Lowell <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jumping on a call with the kitchen cabinet now to give them an
>>>>>>> update. Will turn to this ASAP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The most recent Blade article has Elizabeth Birch quoted as saying
>>>>>>> there was no amendment threat in 1996. Hilary Rosen has already tweeted the
>>>>>>> same. I'll ask on the call, but my sense is that there aren't many friends
>>>>>>> who will back us up on the point. That's why I'm urging us to back off as
>>>>>>> much as we can there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More soon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dan Schwerin <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd welcome specific edits. I'm fine not mentioning WJC if that's
>>>>>>> problematic, but my two cents is that you're not going to get her to
>>>>>>> disavow her explanation about the constitutional amendment and this
>>>>>>> exercise will be most effective if it provides some context and then goes
>>>>>>> on offense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:15 PM, Karen Finney <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the criticism is that she has said before and reiterated on
>>>>>>> Friday then hit by Bernie yesterday is t that the context?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Dominic Lowell <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, on phone so focused more on overall thoughts than line edits.
>>>>>>> Can call you directly if any of this is unclear. Sending to all so people
>>>>>>> can react, push back, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I originally flagged HRC's Maddow remarks as potentially problematic
>>>>>>> in part because her wording closely linked her to two unfavorable policies
>>>>>>> of the past even as no one in the community was asking her to "own" them.
>>>>>>> Given that, my recommendation would be to make this statement about just
>>>>>>> her, her evolution, and her record -- not bring in WJC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Relatedly, if we release a statement tonight, it will very clearly
>>>>>>> be in response to the Maddow interview. To the extent we can, I advocate
>>>>>>> for owning that so that we can clean this up completely, rightly position
>>>>>>> her as a champion of LGBT issues, and make sure we move on from any
>>>>>>> discussion of looming amendments or her being involved in passing either
>>>>>>> DADT or DOMA. Without getting into the weeds, can we say that the broader
>>>>>>> point is that the country is in a different place now on LGBT issues -- and
>>>>>>> thank goodness it is -- and that she's so happy each policy has been placed
>>>>>>> in the dustbin of history?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Last thought: I have raised this a few times to a smaller number of
>>>>>>> people on this thread but will flag this for the larger group as well. At
>>>>>>> Keene State College, she specifically cited friends playing a part in her
>>>>>>> evolution, which we echo here. That's fine, IMO, and quite believable. But
>>>>>>> if I were a reporter and wanted to keep the evolution story alive, I would
>>>>>>> start asking which friends she was talking to and ask us to provide them.
>>>>>>> Not a problem per se, but I think it is worth flagging now so we aren't
>>>>>>> caught by surprise later.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dan Schwerin <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a little long, but see what you think. Tried to 1) place
>>>>>>> this in a context of 'asked and answered,' 2) point to how they've both
>>>>>>> forthrightly explained their evolution, 3) cite her positive LGBT record,
>>>>>>> 4) get in a little dig at Sanders for being so backwards looking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> STATEMENT
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In 2013, when the Supreme Court was considering whether to uphold
>>>>>>> the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Bill and I explained publicly how and
>>>>>>> why we became strong supporters of marriage equality.  Bill, who signed
>>>>>>> DOMA nearly twenty years ago after an overwhelming vote in Congress, called
>>>>>>> the law a discriminatory vestige of a less tolerant America and urged the
>>>>>>> Court to strike it down. I added my voice in support of marriage equality
>>>>>>> “personally and as a matter of policy and law.”  As I said then, LGBT
>>>>>>> Americans are full and equal citizens and they deserve the full and equal
>>>>>>> rights of citizenship.  Like so many others, my personal views have been
>>>>>>> shaped over time by people I have known and loved, by my experience
>>>>>>> representing our nation on the world stage, my devotion to law and human
>>>>>>> rights, and the guiding principles of my faith.  That’s why, as a Senator,
>>>>>>> I pushed for laws that would extend protections to the LGBT community in
>>>>>>> the workplace and that would make violence towards LGBT individuals a hate
>>>>>>> crime. And as Secretary of State, I put LGBT rights on the global agenda
>>>>>>> and told the world that “gay rights are human rights and human rights are
>>>>>>> gay rights.”  In my speech last night in Iowa, I didn’t look back to the
>>>>>>> America of the past, I looked forward to the America we need to build
>>>>>>> together.  I pledged to fight for LGBT Americans who, despite all our
>>>>>>> progress, in many places can still get married on Saturday and fired on
>>>>>>> Monday just because of who they are and who they love.  In this campaign
>>>>>>> and as President, I will keep fighting for equality and opportunity for
>>>>>>> every American.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Dominic Lowell <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +Amanda's work account.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Maya Harris <[email-masked]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From Richard:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since I was asked on Friday about the Defense of Marriage Act in an
>>>>>>> interview on MSNBC, I've checked with people who were involved then to make
>>>>>>> sure I had all my facts right. It turns out I was mistaken and the effort
>>>>>>> to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage came some
>>>>>>> years later.  The larger point I was trying to make about DOMA, however, is
>>>>>>> still true. It was neither proposed nor supported by anyone in the Clinton
>>>>>>> administration at the time. It was an effort by the Republicans in Congress
>>>>>>> to distract attention from the real issues facing the country by using gay
>>>>>>> marriage, which had very little support then, as a wedge issue in the
>>>>>>> election. The legislation passed by overwhelming veto-proof margins in both
>>>>>>> houses of Congress and President Clinton signed it with serious
>>>>>>> reservations he expressed at the time. Luckily the country has evolved way
>>>>>>> beyond this in the last 20 years and most Americans, including the Supreme
>>>>>>> Court, now embrace LGBT equality. We are a better country for it. Although
>>>>>>> there is much work that remains, and I'm eager to help advance the day when
>>>>>>> we are all truly equal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Dominic Lowell <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + JP's personal email
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dominic Lowell <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is what Gautam put together to be helpful:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I'm not my husband. I understand why he believed that was the right
>>>>>>> thing to do at the time, but obviously I wish it had gone differently.
>>>>>>> Look, we've all come along way since the 90s and I'm proud to have been a
>>>>>>> part of an Administration that has made it possible for gay troops to serve
>>>>>>> openly and loving gay couples to get married. I'm also proud of MY record
>>>>>>> as Secretary of State. I think the community knows I will be the ally they
>>>>>>> deserve."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dan Schwerin <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This WJC op-Ed may be helpful:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bill-clinton-its-time-to-overturn-doma/2013/03/07/fc184408-8747-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill Clinton: It’s time to overturn DOMA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The writer is the 42nd president of the United States.*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *I*n 1996, I signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Although that was
>>>>>>> only 17 years ago, it was a very different time. In no state in the union
>>>>>>> was same-sex marriage recognized, much less available as a legal right, but
>>>>>>> some were moving in that direction. Washington, as a result, was swirling
>>>>>>> with all manner of possible responses, some quite draconian. As a
>>>>>>> bipartisan group of former senators stated in their March 1 amicus brief to
>>>>>>> the Supreme Court, many supporters of the bill known as DOMA believed that
>>>>>>> its passage “would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment
>>>>>>> banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or
>>>>>>> more.” It was under these circumstances that DOMA came to my desk, opposed
>>>>>>> by only 81 of the 535 members of Congress.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On March 27, DOMA will come before the Supreme Court
>>>>>>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2012/12/07/the-supreme-court-takes-up-doma/>,
>>>>>>> and the justices must decide whether it is consistent with the principles
>>>>>>> of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all, and is
>>>>>>> therefore constitutional. As the president who signed the act into law, I
>>>>>>> have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in
>>>>>>> fact, incompatible with our Constitution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because Section 3 of the act defines marriage as being between a man
>>>>>>> and a woman, same-sex couples who are legally married in nine states and
>>>>>>> the District of Columbia are denied the benefits of more than a thousand
>>>>>>> federal statutes and programs available to other married couples. Among
>>>>>>> other things, these couples cannot file their taxes jointly, take unpaid
>>>>>>> leave to care for a sick or injured spouse or receive equal family health
>>>>>>> and pension benefits as federal civilian employees. Yet they pay taxes,
>>>>>>> contribute to their communities and, like all couples, aspire to live in
>>>>>>> committed, loving relationships, recognized and respected by our laws.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I signed the bill, I included a statement
>>>>>>> <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/ftp/wpaf2mc/clinton.html> with
>>>>>>> the admonition that “enactment of this legislation should not, despite the
>>>>>>> fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to
>>>>>>> provide an excuse for discrimination.” Reading those words today, I know
>>>>>>> now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law
>>>>>>> is itself discriminatory. It should be overturned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are still a young country, and many of our landmark civil rights
>>>>>>> decisions are fresh enough that the voices of their champions still echo,
>>>>>>> even as the world that preceded them becomes less and less familiar. We
>>>>>>> have yet to celebrate the centennial of the 19th Amendment, but a society
>>>>>>> that denied women the vote would seem to us now not unusual or
>>>>>>> old-fashioned but alien. I believe that in 2013 DOMA and opposition to
>>>>>>> marriage equality are vestiges of just such an unfamiliar society.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Americans have been at this sort of a crossroads often enough to
>>>>>>> recognize the right path. We understand that, while our laws may at times
>>>>>>> lag behind our best natures, in the end they catch up to our core values.
>>>>>>> One hundred fifty years ago, in the midst of the Civil War, President
>>>>>>> Abraham Lincoln concluded a message to Congress by posing the very question
>>>>>>> we face today: “It is not ‘Can any of us imagine better?’ but ‘Can
>>>>>>> we all do better
>>>>>>> <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29503>?’ ”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The answer is of course and always yes. In that spirit, I join with
>>>>>>> the Obama administration, the petitioner Edith Windsor
>>>>>>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/edie-windsors-fight-for-same-sex-marriage-rights-continues-even-after-partners-death/2012/07/19/gJQARguhwW_story.html>,
>>>>>>> and the many other dedicated men and women who have engaged in this
>>>>>>> struggle for decades in urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of
>>>>>>> Marriage Act.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Kate Offerdahl <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all - we are going to do 4:30.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those here at the Hilton can take the call from the staff room.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Call-In: 718-441-3763, no pin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 4:14 PM, Heather Stone <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looping in Kate. She is going to get it scheduled.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dominic Lowell <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All times are good for me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Heather Stone <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds like tony can do 4:15?  Can others? If not I could do anytime
>>>>>>> before 5:15 or after 6.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Robby Mook <[email-masked]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adding Dominic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agree--let's get our people on a call and push back
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm also tied up for next few hours @ finance stuff. But let's get
>>>>>>> this moving.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jake Sullivan <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adding Tony, who recalls this from ’08 when she made a similar
>>>>>>> argument.  We did not turn up much to support idea that alternative was a
>>>>>>> constitutional amendment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also adding Schwerin.  I think we should pull her statements around
>>>>>>> the time she embraced marriage equality and place greatest emphasis on the
>>>>>>> fact that she fully acknowledges that she evolved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I’m on calls next two hours but Maya has my proxy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From:* Jennifer Palmieri [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, October 25, 2015 3:46 PM
>>>>>>> *To:* Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>; John Podesta <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]>; Robby Mook <[email-masked]>;
>>>>>>> Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>; Maya Harris <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]>; Jake Sullivan <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]>; Marlon Marshall <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]>; Heather Stone <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]>
>>>>>>> *Subject:* one chain on DOMA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Think all of us are getting incoming from friends in LGBT community
>>>>>>> about DOMA comments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HuffPo has reached out to us.  I heard from Socarides that NYT was
>>>>>>> doing something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no understanding of the issue – but clear this has a head of
>>>>>>> steam.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brian can put a statement out, but policy and political need to tell
>>>>>>> us what you want us to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would suggest a conference call with relevant parties for how we
>>>>>>> are going to handle all around – press, groups, politics.   I have a bad
>>>>>>> schedule for rest of day and may not be able to  be on such a call but
>>>>>>> don’t think I am needed.   We just need guidance and then on political end
>>>>>>> think we need a plan for how to hose down anxious friends.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dominic Lowell
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 661.364.5186
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [email-masked]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dominic Lowell
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 661.364.5186
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [email-masked]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dominic Lowell
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 661.364.5186
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [email-masked]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dominic Lowell
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 661.364.5186
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [email-masked]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dominic Lowell
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 661.364.5186
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [email-masked]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dominic Lowell
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 661.364.5186
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [email-masked]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <HRC DOMA.DOCX>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kristina Schake | Communications
>>>>>> Hillary for America
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dominic Lowell
>>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
>>>>> 661.364.5186
>>>>> [email-masked]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kristina Schake | Communications
>>>> Hillary for America
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
> --
> Dominic Lowell
> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
> 661.364.5186
> [email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>
>
>