Subject: Re: one chain on DOMA
From: Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>
To: Robby Mook <[email-masked]>
Cc: Tony Carrk <[email-masked]>, Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>, Maya Harris <[email-masked]>, Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>, Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>, Sally Marx <[email-masked]>, Dominic Lowell <[email-masked]>, Xochitl Hinojosa <[email-masked]>, Teddy Goff <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>, Karen Finney <[email-masked]>, Heather Stone <[email-masked]>, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>, Amanda Renteria <
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 21:05:46 -0400

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
>
>
>