Subject: Re: NYT Latest
From: Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>
To: Nick Merrill <[email-masked]>
Cc: Philippe Reines <[email-masked]>, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>, Heather Samuelson <[email-masked]>, Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 22:07:17 -0400

i can't figure out given the subject ambiguity if we are seeking to have
this graph speak to her behavior or others?

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 8:57 PM, Nick Merrill <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>  Philippe, Heather, Jake and I spoke earlier and made a few tweaks.
> Specifically, we added some straight-forward language in the third
> paragraph that aims to do two things: give this guy some simple context for
> the emails he references, and nudge this ever-closer to putting it in the
> Benghazi box.
>
>  See below.
>
>  ------
>
>   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
> accounts, 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 to 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 emails were sent from State.gov
> <http://state.gov/> accounts.  And in terms of the content of these
> emails from state.gov accounts, you have cited examples of both an email sent
> by Jake about the Sunday shows taped after the attacks and one about the
> Secretary's previous remarks.  Since you seem to have been provided these
> without context, it's important to note that the first is proof that
> internal State communications line up completely with how the
> administration was discussing the matter externally - that is, the publicly
> stated administration view and the privately stated administration view
> were exactly the same. And that view was guided by the intelligence
> community.  All that the second email shows is that given the maelstrom
> that formed in the aftermath of the Sunday shows, Jake was simply informing
> the Secretary of what she had personally said publicly, since many people
> were mischaracterizing her remarks.   To apply any further analysis, or to
> suggest it, would be wrong.  And this is precisely why we hope that these
> emails will be released as soon as possible, particularly those related to
> Benghazi, so everyone will have the full context and see for themselves.
>
>  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.
>
>  ###
>
>
> On Mar 22, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Philippe Reines <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>  Yes.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 22, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
>  Some of my personal emails did not end up on state accounts.  Is that
> what you mean by overwhelmingly?
>
>
>
> On Mar 22, 2015, at 4:58 PM, Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>   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?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>