Subject: Re: Script
From: Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>
To: Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>
Cc: Robby Mook <[email-masked]>, Mandy Grunwald <[email-masked]>, "Margolis, Jim" <[email-masked]>, Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 00:06:24 -0400

Realizing Jen is making edits presently, I have three flags:

1. I also dislike the current reference to her 2007 Blackberry. As written,
it seems like a strained attempt to make her seem relatable. If the point
of it is to say that she was used to having only one email when she was a
senator, and simply wanted to continue that arrangement when she became
Secretary, then the Blackberry reference would make sense bc it would help
explain how she made this decision in the first place. But it needs to be
rewritten to be understood that way.

2. This line - "‎This process of looking backwards to see if something
should have been classified at the time is fine" - is problematic. We
should not think it is fine to find something that "should have been
classified at the time." Our position is that no such material exists, else
it could be said she mishandled classified info. We need to clarify to make
clear we mean that it is fine to perform redactions today, but in doing so
it doesnt mean that the material was classified at the time it was sent.

3. In this line - "Some will be serious, some will be personal or mundane"
- the word "serious" reads ominously/ suggestive of wrongdoing. I would say
something like "some will give a real window into the day-to-day workings
of the State Department..."

On Friday, August 21, 2015, Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Yeah – I am trimming down more.
>
>
>
> *From:* Robby Mook [mailto:[email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>]
> *Sent:* Friday, August 21, 2015 11:29 PM
> *To:* Mandy Grunwald <[email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>>
> *Cc:* Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>>;
> Margolis, Jim <[email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>>; Dan Schwerin <
> [email-masked] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>>;
> John Podesta <[email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>>; Brian Fallon <
> [email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>>
> *Subject:* Re: Script
>
>
>
> Voila.  But sounds like Jen has more edits.
>
> Hello. I'm sure you are hearing a lot about my emails when I was Secretary
> of State.  So I want to take some time to try and explain what's going on
> to you directly, in one place, at one time, as best as I can.
>
> In 2007, when I was a U.S. Senator, I got my first Blackberry. I used it
> to keep up with the news, with friends & family - like anyone else.
>
> When President Obama asked me to serve as Secretary of State, ‎ it seemed
> simpler to have just one email address. After all, my predecessors at State
> had not relied on Department email.  In hindsight, though, this has proven
> anything but simple.  There's a difference between what we are allowed to
> do and what's smart to do. I shouldn't have used separate personal and
> government accounts. I should have set a standard that others‎ were
> expected to meet. To do it all again, I would have used two email
> addresses.
>
> But I can't do it all again. I can only tell you it was a mistake, regret
> it, explain it, and help the State Department and others fix any challenges
> it caused.
>
> That's what I did. Now I want to explain what I didn't do.
>
> I didn’t keep my email secret. Whenever I emailed, it was from my address.
> Whenever people emailed me, it was to ‎my account. Work, personal,
> whatever.
>
> I also didn't do this to skirt rules.  And I didn’t do it to avoid having
> my records preserved.  When the State Department asked former Secretaries
> of State who served since email was widely used to help fill out the
> archival record, I did so, printing 55,000 pages of email including
> anything related to my work at the State Department. To get a sense of how
> outdated some of the government’s archiving practices are, we had to print
> all 55,000 pages because that's what the rules demand. Believe me, printing
> more than 30,000 email instead of handing them over electronically isn't
> something anyone does by choice.
>
> That's 30,000 more emails than every other former Secretary produced
> combined.  No one else has produced their emails so far. I'm the only one.
>
> And yes, there were 30,000 more messages that were completely personal and
> had nothing to do with official business.
>
> I do believe transparency in government is important. And by this point,
> there isn't much you don't know about me. My finances are out there. My
> medical history is out there. You know how much I've made, where I've gone,
> what I'm allergic to.
>
> Now I want to address the most serious aspect.
>
> When it came to classified information, I certainly never used my
> Blackberry.  And that had nothing to do with using a personal email
> address. If I had been [email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');> I could not
> have used it for classified information either. At the State Department,
> mobile devices aren't used to communicate secrets.  Almost everything of a
> classified nature was presented to me via paper or in person. When I
> traveled, elaborate steps were taken. ‎Secure phones were set up, secure
> tents were constructed. I took my responsibilities in safeguarding our
> nation's secrets seriously. So did my team did. Everyone at the State
> Department did .
>
> ‎This process of looking backwards to see if something should have been
> classified at the time is fine. I don't want anything released to the
> public that puts us at risk. And we’re all learning that different agencies
> have very different views and procedures about what should be classified
> and what shouldn’t.
>
> As Secretary I was proud of what we accomplished. I was proud of the
> thousands of people who've dedicated themselves to public service‎ -
> including those who came into State with me and left with me. I was proud
> of them then, I'm proud of them now.
>
> After nearly a year of offering to come to testify to Congress at any time
> and anyplace, in October I'll be on Capitol Hill before the committee
> looking at the tragic events of September 2012 in Benghazi, Libya. They
> wanted to talk to me behind closed doors, but I insisted on all of you
> being able to see what I was asked and how I answered.
>
> I'm sure this issue will come up. It's unclear to me how it will help us
> understand what happened in Benghazi or how to help prevent future
> tragedies - but I'm going to do my best to answer whatever they ask.
>
> And while I can't predict the future, let me finish by taking a stab:
>
> ‎• There will be many more emails to pour through.
>
> • Some will be serious, some will be personal or mundane.
>
> ‎• You know I'm not great with a fax, but you're also going to learn my
> secret salad dressing recipe and who sent me LinkedIn requests. (And whose
> I didn't accept!)
>
> But when the State Department finishes releasing all my emails, you will
> be able to see them all and judge for yourself.
>
> Which is how it's supposed to work.
>
> If you've made it this far, thank you for watching. And please spread the
> word to your friends and family.
>
>
> On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:24 PM, Mandy Grunwald <[email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>> wrote:
>
> Could someone pls send me Robbys version?
>
> Mandy Grunwald
>
> Grunwald Communications
>
> 202 973-9400
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:16 PM, Jennifer Palmieri <
> [email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>> wrote:
>
> Plus Brian to this chain.
>
>
>
> I agree with all of Mandy’s comments.
>
>
>
> Robby’s version is better, but still focuses on the Blackberry, which is
> weird and press will find suspicious.
>
>
>
> Making more edits.
>
>
>
> *From:* Margolis, Jim [mailto:[email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>]
> *Sent:* Friday, August 21, 2015 11:13 PM
> *To:* Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>>
> *Cc:* Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>>; John Podesta <
> [email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>>; Robby Mook <
> [email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>>
> *Subject:* Re: Script
>
>
>
> Agree w Jen
>
> Adding Mandy
>
> Jim Margolis
>
> Sent from my iPhone.
>
> Please excuse typos.
>
>
> On Aug 21, 2015, at 10:53 PM, Jennifer Palmieri <
> [email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>> wrote:
>
> Still think it is way too long and has too many tangents that are
> distracting and press will chase.  Also I don't think it has our core
> argument that nothing she sent or rec'd was classified at the time.  I will
> make more edits and send back around.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Aug 21, 2015, at 10:33 PM, Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>> wrote:
>
> Shorter script that's still similar enough that she'll recognize it:
>
> Hello. I thought you might find it useful to have some answers to share
> with your friends if they ask about all these news stories out there about
> my email habits when I was Secretary of State.  So I want to take some time
> to try and explain it to you directly, in one place, at one time, as best
> as I can.
>
>
>
> Please bear with me because parts are confusing, and like many of you, I
> don't understand all of the technological aspects.  [But when you hear all
> the facts, I think you’ll agree that all the political noise over this
> issue is just that – political noise.]
>
>
>
> In 2007, when I was a U.S. Senator, I got my first Blackberry. I used it
> to keep up with the news, with friends & family - and yes, I also got my
> fair share of unsolicited forwards that sometimes made me laugh and
> sometimes made me want to throw it away.  In short, I used email like most
> people.
>
>
>
> Fast forward to 2009.  One of my husband's staff members bought the domain
> name clintonemail.com so his team could switch from the various email
> providers they were relying on to one consolidated system.  I joined them.
>
>
>
> This was all before I started my new job as Secretary of State. Had
> President Obama not asked me to join his team, if I had stayed in the U.S.
> Senate, I still would have switched to this new email.
>
>
>
> And when I did get to State, ‎ it seemed simpler to have just the one
> address. After all, my predecessors at State had not relied on Department
> email.  In hindsight, though, this has proven anything but simple.
>
>
>
> That's the explanation - but it's no excuse. There's a difference between
> allowed to do and smart to do. I shouldn't have done it this way. I should
> have set the standard that others‎ were expected to meet. To do it all
> again, I would have used two email addresses.
>
>
>
> But I can't do it all again. I can only tell you it was a mistake, regret
> it, explain it, and help State and others fix any challenges it caused.
>
>
>
> That's what I did. Now I want to explain what I didn't do.
>
>
>
> I didn’t keep my email secret. Whenever I emailed, it was from my address.
> Whenever people emailed me, it was to ‎my account. Work, personal,
> whatever. And yes, I continued to get my fair share of unsolicited forwards.
>
>
>
> I also didn't do this to skirt rules.  And I didn’t do it to avoid having
> my records preserved.  When State asked former Secretaries of State who
> served in the era of electronic communications to help fill out the
> archival record, I did so, printing 55,000 pages of email including
> anything related to my work at the State Department. To get a sense of how
> outdated some of the government’s archiving practices are, we had to print
> all 55,000 pages because that's what the rules demand. Believe me, printing
> more than 30,000 email instead of handing them over electronically isn't
> something anyone does by choice.
>
>
>
> That's 30,000 more emails than every other former Secretary produced
> combined .
>
>
>
> And yes, there were 30,000 more messages that were completely personal and
> had nothing to do with official business.
>
>
>
> I do believe transparency in government is important. And by this point,
> there isn't much you don't know about me. My finances are out there. My
> medical history is out there. You know how much I've made, where I've gone,
> what I'm allergic to.
>
>
>
> But what wasn't work wasn't the government's business. ‎So I didn't keep
> those emails.  I didn't print them. I knew no matter what I decided to do
> with them, I was in for criticism. So I chose to keep a modicum of privacy.
> I hope you can understand that.
>
>
>
> Now I want to address the most serious aspect.
>
>
>
> When it came to classified information, I certainly never used my
> Blackberry.  And that had nothing to do with using a personal email
> address. If I had been [email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');> I could not
> have used it for classified information either. At the State Department,
> mobile devices aren't used to communicate secrets.  Almost everything of a
> classified nature was presented to me via paper or in person. When I
> traveled, elaborate steps were taken. ‎Secure phones were set up, secure
> tents were constructed. More than once when a tent was set up in some
> far-away hotel, I was told to read the classified material with the blanket
> over my head. No, that's not a joke. I took my responsibilities in
> safeguarding our nation's secrets seriously. So did my team did. Everyone
> at the State Department did .
>
>
>
> ‎This process of looking backwards to see if something should have been
> classified at the time is fine. I don't want anything released to the
> public that puts us at risk. And we’re all learning that different agencies
> have very different views and procedures about what should be classified
> and what shouldn’t. What's not fine is to criticize people – especially
> career officials who have devoted their lives to serving our country -- for
> handling what they didn't know might be deemed classified years later by
> another part of the government. That's an impossible standard to meet.
> Members of Congress and their staff also handled some of these messages.
> Some articles being written about this issue today contain classified
> information. Should someone sending that article to a colleague be told in
> 2020 that they broke the rules? I hope not.
>
>
>
> As for the security of my email, ‎in more than a little bit of irony,
> every day we learn of a new hack by the Chinese, by the Russians. That
> millions of Americans' personal information has been stolen.
>
>
>
> As Secretary I was proud of what we accomplished. I was proud of the
> thousands of people who've dedicated themselves to public service‎ -
> including those who came into State with me and left with me. I was proud
> of them then, I'm proud of them now.
>
>
>
> I wish that a video was enough to address this. I know it isn't though.
> But I wanted to try to put everything in one place.
>
>
>
> Along those lines, after nearly a year of offering to come up at any time
> anyplace, in October I'll be on Capitol Hill before the committee looking
> at the tragic events of September 2012 in Benghazi, Libya. They wanted to
> talk to me behind closed doors, but I insisted on all of you being able to
> see what I was asked and how I answered.
>
>
>
> I'm sure this issue will come up. It's unclear to me how it will help us
> understand what happened in Benghazi or how to help prevent future
> tragedies - but I'm going to do my best to answer whatever they ask.
>
>
>
> And while I can't predict the future, let me finish by taking a stab:
>
>
>
> ‎• There will be many more email to pour through.
>
> • Some will be serious, some will be embarrassing.
>
> ‎• You know I'm not great with a fax, but you're also going to learn my
> secret salad dressing recipe and who sent me LinkedIn requests. (And whose
> I didn't accept!)
>
> • There will be more dramatic leaks and assertions that prove to be untrue.
>
>
>
> But at some point, you're going to have them all. And if you suffer
> through all 55,000 pages, you'll be able to judge for yourself.
>
>
>
> Which is how it's supposed to work.
>
>
>
> If you've made it this far, thank you for watching.
>
>
>
> This email is intended only for the named addressee. It may contain
> information that is confidential/private, legally privileged, or
> copyright-protected, and you should handle it accordingly. If you are not
> the intended recipient, you do not have legal rights to retain, copy, or
> distribute this email or its contents, and should promptly delete the email
> and all electronic copies in your system; do not retain copies in any
> media. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
> promptly. Thank you.
>
>