Subject: Re: NYT Latest
From: Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>
To: Philippe Reines <[email-masked]>
Cc: Nick Merrill <[email-masked]>, Jacob Sullivan <[email-masked]>, Heather Samuelson <[email-masked]>, Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 16:58:40 -0400

I am fine on this

Jen - can you review and advise.

cdm

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Philippe Reines <[email-masked]> wrote:

>  I think you need to send your on the record response in a very clear
> way. Because it's crazy that after all this back and forth he claims to not
> have anything on the record. My suggestion is to send him this, obviously
> after everyone is comfortable but with my strong urging not to lawyer this
> too much.
>
>  Mike, please treat this reply as my on the record response to your
> questions.
>
>  There are any number of reasons why people emailed from their non-work
> account, and every one of them are perfectly understandable and allowable -
> evidenced by the simple fact that the State Department tells every employee
> they're allowed and how to properly do so.
>
>  The most obvious reason people didn't use their work account was when
> they weren't emailing about work. That includes sharing newspaper articles
> about the 2012 reelection, birthday wishes, or asking about movies. The
> next most common reason is that the State Department system was down which
> happened frequently. But it was their practice to primarily use their
> work email when conducting State business, with only the tiniest fraction
> of the more than one million email they sent or received involving their
> personal accounts. And in those cases it was their responsibility, as it
> is for all State Department employees, to make sure what needed to end up
> in the State Department system did. And we're confident that when the
> public is able to read them all they'll see that's what overwhelmingly
> happened, and then some.
>
>  As for how you've characterized them, yes, we have disagreed. Starting
> with the simple fact that you presented several email as examples of using
> personal accounts when in fact those email were sent from State.gov
> accounts.
>
>  Again, this is on the record in response to your questions. And if you
> would like to post online our entire exchange about your story for every
> reader to see for themselves, I am more than happy for you to do so. It
> might be the best way for them to understand.
>
>
>      *From: *Nick Merrill
> *Sent: *Sunday, March 22, 2015 3:37 PM
> *To: *Cheryl Mills; Jacob Sullivan; Philippe Reines; Heather Samuelson;
> Jennifer Palmieri
> *Subject: *NYT Latest
>
>  Here is where we are.
>
>  I'm going to have a cup of tea and bring my blood pressure down, then I
> will send around how I propose we proceed in our response.
>
>  In the meantime, if anyone can tell me how we can get to Cummings
> office, I can follow up on that track.
>
>   From: <Schmidt>, Mike Schmidt <[email-masked]>
> Date: Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 3:07 PM
> To: NSM <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: NYT | Personal Emails
>
>   Nick, I'm not sure what else to tell you. We are still seeking on the
> record responses to the questions below. Unless that changes, our story
> will say that we did not receive a response from your side. Thanks, Mike
>
>
>  Why did Mrs. Clinton's staffers at times use their personal accounts to
> communicate with her?
>
> Were all these emails captured in the State Department's network?
> 
> Were Mrs. Clinton's advisers given legal advice about whether it was
> appropriate for them to correspond with her using their personal accounts?
>
>  Do you disagree with our characterization of any of the emails that we
> have described? If so, please point out where you think we're off.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Nick Merrill <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
>>   Mike,
>>
>>  I truly am not trying to do anything but arrive at a reasonable
>> solution here, and I'm happy to discuss any terms you think reasonable, and
>> I'm sure we can come to an agreement.
>>
>>  But I'm also still trying to get some basic questions answered that I
>> think fall well within the appropriate scope of the reporter-spokesperson
>> relationship.
>>
>>  You are writing about the use of personal emails, or at least you began
>> that way.  But the evidence provided suggests another narrative that seems
>> unrelated, and if that is now the question at hand I think it fair that you
>> explain that and allow us the chance to respond.
>>
>>  I don't know which if any of these emails you have, but I would far
>> prefer you had all of them.  In the absence of that, I'm hoping that you
>> can lay out the basics of your story beyond the charge of personal emails
>> that has not been substantiated by your sources, and we can come to a
>> resolution.
>>
>>  Please let me know how you wish to proceed.
>>
>>  Thanks very much.
>>
>>  Nick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 20, 2015, at 10:34 PM, Schmidt, Michael <[email-masked]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  thanks for getting back to me
>> i appreciate it
>> are these responses on the record?
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Nick Merrill <[email-masked]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>   Mike,
>>>
>>>  I have to tell you that at this point I'm squarely in the category of
>>> frustrated.  There have been times that I've respectfully disagreed with
>>> reporters about angles on their stories, or components of stories, but this
>>> by a standard deviation the most time I have ever spent trying to get very
>>> basic information straight about a story being written and remained so
>>> confused.  And I think at this point that by anyone's standard, it's a very
>>> reasonable response.
>>>
>>>  Once again, the emails you referenced below are all correspondence to
>>> and from Jake and/or Cheryl's official state.gov accounts:
>>>
>>>   -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. Pat Kennedy testified at the hearing. That
>>> day Mrs. Clinton wrote in an email to Mr. Sullivan:
>>>
>>> "Did we survive the day?"
>>>
>>> "Survive, yes," Mr. Sullivan said in response. "Pat helped level set
>>> things tonight and we'll see where we are in the morning."
>>>
>>> - A month after that hearing, Cheryl Mills forwarded Mrs. Clinton a
>>> breaking news alert from Politico about how David Petraeus, who was the
>>> director of the C.I.A. at the time of the Benghazi attacks, was going to
>>> testify before the House intelligence committee. Mrs. Clinton responded by
>>> asking when Mr. Petraeus was going to testify before the Senate
>>> intelligence committee.
>>>
>>> - Shortly after Susan Rice appeared on several Sunday talk shows just
>>> five days after the Benghazi attacks Mr. Sullivan sent Mrs. Clinton a
>>> transcript from one of Ms. Rice's appearances.
>>>
>>> "She did make clear our view that this started spontaneously then
>>> evolved," Mr. Sullivan said.
>>>
>>> - Two weeks later, Mr. Sullivan sent Mrs. Clinton an email assuring her
>>> that she never described the attacks as spontaneous and never suggested the
>>> assailants were motivated by a video.
>>>
>>>
>>>  I'm still not sure what emails you are referring to on personal
>>> accounts, so once again, I'm not sure how we can respond to the basic
>>> premise of your story.  The emails you have cited were sent on official
>>> accounts, so why we are here again talking about personal emails is beyond
>>> me, since you've provided no evidence of a pattern.
>>>
>>> But for the sake of the exercise, there are a plethora of reasons why
>>> someone might email from their non-work account, every one of them
>>> perfectly understandable and allowable.  The most obvious reason to not use
>>> your State account is when you're not emailing about State Department
>>> business. Could have been sharing a political column throughout the 2012
>>> reelection. Next best reason is that the State system was down, which was
>>> not an uncommon occurrence.
>>>
>>> It was everyone's practice to primarily use their State account for
>>> State business. The numbers bear that out, so let me try and break them
>>> down here in brief.
>>>
>>> Of the 300, I can only presume you are referring to four emails
>>> referenced in the Committee's letter today.  In those instances, one is an
>>> email requesting a copy of a movie/DVD, the second is the email you
>>> reference below which is nearly identical to a draft previously forwarded
>>> to a state.gov account (this draft is within the 300 as well), the
>>> third is correspondence she forwarded to a state.gov account, and
>>> lastly was email traffic on state.gov account forwarded to a personal
>>> account for printing.
>>> 
>>>  Again, the rules allow personal email to be used so long as what
>>> needs to be preserved, gets preserved. And these did.
>>>
>>> We are no further along than we were 72 hours ago, and in fact it seems
>>> like you have sources that continue to mislead you.  I have answered many
>>> more questions than have been answered for me at this point, and remain far
>>> from understanding what the basic facts are and how they bear out
>>> coherently.
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Schmidt, Michael <[email-masked]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nick,
>>>>
>>>> I read your email. I hear that you are finding this confusing. Here is
>>>> a final run down of the information we have. At the bottom are the
>>>> questions we are seeking answers to.  For each section of information, if
>>>> you have an issue with the accuracy or context we would be interested in
>>>> your feedback. We can give you until 4 p.m. this afternoon.
>>>>
>>>> Thnx,
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> -At least four of Mrs. Clinton's closest advisers at the State
>>>> Department -- her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, senior adviser, Philippe
>>>> Reines, personal aide Huma Abedin, and deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan
>>>> -- sent some emails to Mrs. Clinton from their personal accounts. One email
>>>> that Mr. Sullivan sent from his personal account to Mrs. Clinton five
>>>> months before the Benghazi attacks highlighted for her the role she had
>>>> played in the administration's toppling of the regime of Muammar el-Qaddafi
>>>> in Libya.
>>>>
>>>> -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. Pat Kennedy testified at the hearing. That
>>>> day Mrs. Clinton wrote in an email to Mr. Sullivan:
>>>>
>>>> "Did we survive the day?"
>>>>
>>>> "Survive, yes," Mr. Sullivan said in response. "Pat helped level set
>>>> things tonight and we'll see where we are in the morning."
>>>>
>>>> -A month after that hearing, Cheryl Mills forwarded Mrs. Clinton a
>>>> breaking news alert from Politico about how David Petraeus, who was the
>>>> director of the C.I.A. at the time of the Benghazi attacks, was going to
>>>> testify before the House intelligence committee. Mrs. Clinton responded by
>>>> asking when Mr. Petraeus was going to testify before the Senate
>>>> intelligence committee.
>>>>
>>>> -Shortly after Susan Rice appeared on several Sunday talk shows just
>>>> five days after the Benghazi attacks Mr. Sullivan sent Mrs. Clinton a
>>>> transcript from one of Ms. Rice's appearances.
>>>>
>>>> "She did make clear our view that this started spontaneously then
>>>> evolved," Mr. Sullivan said.
>>>>
>>>> -Two weeks later, Mr. Sullivan sent Mrs. Clinton an email assuring her
>>>> that she never described the attacks as spontaneous and never suggested the
>>>> assailants were motivated by a video.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Questions:
>>>>
>>>>  Why did Mrs. Clinton's staffers at times use their personal accounts
>>>> to communicate with her?
>>>>
>>>> Were all these emails captured in the State Department's network?
>>>>
>>>> Were Mrs. Clinton's advisers given legal advice about whether it was
>>>> appropriate for them to correspond with her using their personal accounts?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>