Subject: Re: NYT | Email Content
From: Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>
To: Nick Merrill <[email-masked]>
Cc: Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>, Philippe Reines <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, David Kendall <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 19:31:32 -0400

yep

DOS does not anticipate releasing any materials before the end of next week
at the earliest.

cdm

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Nick Merrill <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>  The NYT is now telling us noon tomorrow is now the deadline. My vote
> would be to hit back again challenging their premise, since I don't think
> anything they've provided has really been sufficient.  And I think he knows
> he's on weak ground.  I can draft something.
>
>   From: Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>
> Date: Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 5:04 PM
> To: Jacob Sullivan <[email-masked]>
> Cc: John Podesta <[email-masked]>, Philippe Reines <
> [email-masked]>, Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>,
> David Kendall <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <
> [email-masked]>, NSM <[email-masked]>
>
> Subject: Re: NYT | Email Content
>
>   Narrowing the list
>
>  Just spoke to the COS to inquire as to their timeline for release if
> that was information they were able to share, particularly given the
> selective leaking of these documents by Congress to the NYT.
>
>  He will revert as he is traveling overseas; it does not appear that they
> are on a trajectory for today though based upon my conversation.
>
>  cdm
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
>>  That's the idea -- someone call State and ask them to release these
>> emails given that they are being selectively released to the NYT.
>>
>>  CDM, could you do that?
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> who are we pushing - State?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:58 PM, John Podesta <[email-masked]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We should push for this tonight if possible. NYT may have an incoherent
>>>> story, but they seem to be fixing to call her a liar on the front page.
>>>>  On Mar 19, 2015 2:36 PM, "Jake Sullivan" <[email-masked]>
>>>> 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 <[email-masked]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>  We have asking state to do that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cdm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   What do people think about releasing all the emails that went to
>>>>>> Gowdy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 1:53 PM, Nick Merrill <[email-masked]>
>>>>>> 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 <[email-masked]>
>>>>>> Date: Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 12:46 PM
>>>>>> To: John Podesta <[email-masked]>
>>>>>> Cc: Philippe Reines <[email-masked]>, Huma Abedin <
>>>>>> [email-masked]>, Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>,
>>>>>> Robby Mook <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <
>>>>>> [email-masked]>, Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>,
>>>>>> Jacob Sullivan <[email-masked]>, David Kendall <
>>>>>> [email-masked]>, Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>
>>>>>> 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 <[email-masked]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Where does this stand?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JP
>>>>>> --Sent from my iPad--
>>>>>> [email-masked]
>>>>>> For scheduling: [email-masked]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2015, at 11:52 PM, Nick Merrill <[email-masked]>
>>>>>> 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 <[email-masked]>
>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 8:19 PM
>>>>>> To: NSM <[email-masked]>
>>>>>> Cc: Huma Abedin <[email-masked]>, Jennifer Palmieri <
>>>>>> [email-masked]>, Robby Mook <[email-masked]>,
>>>>>> John Podesta <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
>>>>>> <[email-masked]>, Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>,
>>>>>> Jacob Sullivan <[email-masked]>, David Kendall <
>>>>>> [email-masked]>, Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>
>>>>>> 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; [email-masked]; Robby Mook;
>>>>>> Philippe Reines; John Podesta; [email-masked];
>>>>>> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>