Subject: Re: Posting
From: Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>
To: Craig Minassian <[email-masked]>
Cc: Philippe Reines <[email-masked]>, Nicholas S Merrill <[email-masked]>, Bruce Lindsey <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 07:41:52 -0500

Got it - but we should remember obligation was on foundation to pre-approve, so it does have foundation exigencies that should be considered. 

Happy to do a call later today if desired. My point was a larger one - should we get in practice of a place where folks can get foundation perspective on issue after issue (a sort of fact check place if you will).  

cdm

> On Feb 26, 2015, at 7:05 AM, Craig Minassian <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> We've discussed and I'd be very open to it.
> 
> We should remember that original response worked for two reasons. 1. It was one story that other outlets weren't really pursuing so we didn't have new follows ups every day with different angles. 2. WJC was able to address the core charge of financial mismanagement (remember the headline was something like "Unease of finances at CF". This seems a bit different which is the allegations are of conflict of interest story for her. 
> 
> We also had facts about the steps we undertook to fix the finances that we being put in place but we don't have something new to say - yet - about what happens if she runs.
> 
> I'm not buying the COI premise but I would welcome ideas about what he could say to shut it down.
> 
> We could give stats on what the money went to most of it went CHAI and we've been handcuffed by the Ira problem. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Feb 26, 2015, at 6:25 AM, Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>> Wouldn't it be good to put up a response with the data like we did for times summer piece or do you think article is fine?
>> 
>> cdm