Subject: Fwd: thoughts
From: Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>
To: John Podesta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:41:56 -0400

for when we talk
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jim Kennedy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:37 PM
Subject: thoughts
To: Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>

maybe more as i think about it, but initially:

   - all their obsessive/compulsive email questions should be answered in one
   paragraph, basically stating that they have been given every email
   that's relevant to their inquiry.  Period.  That's all they need to know.
   Any other questions (who paid for the server, blah, blah) are irrelevant to
   the Benghazi inquiry and outside the scope of their investigation.  (Maybe
   Cummings should make that point first, or in addition).  Certainly no
   reason to get trapped into playing their game.

   - restate desire and willingness to testify in a hearing about Benghazi
   (including any discussion regarding the content of emails or other
   documents relating to Benghazi), taking any and all questions.

   - perhaps suggest that their plan for two hearings, one about emails and
   the other about Benghazi, is without precedent and wholly improper.
   Designed for blatantly political purposes, not official ones.  (if letter
   coming from Kendall, I'd even think about throwing in some zingers about
   how the public would be very interested in seeing the content of email
   exchanges among the Republican members of the Committee, their staffs and
   outsiders on this topic, and noting that, but of course, Congress has
   exempted itself from FOIA, so that will never be possible).

   - consider giving them a day and time certain - in the short term - when
   she'd be willing to appear, because the media will of course highlight
   that, which would underscore her willingness to testify, and any hedging
   they do in response puts them on the defensive and/or underscores their
   political aims.  Maybe keep repeating the specific offer, and even have her
   be in DC on that day and time, as a way of continuing to showcase that
   they're not really interested in fact-gathering; they're interested in
   circus promoting.

   - of course the response should capture once again how much she has
   cooperated already, as well as restating all the exculpatory conclusions
   of prior reviews.  People should be reminded that she's turned over more
   information and testified longer than (almost?) any Cabinet secretary about
   any particular public matter in (recent?) history.

   - and in response to their inevitable follow-up claims of stonewalling
   or coverup, keep to a simple, clear script, along the lines of "Every
   relevant document and email has been turned over, and the Secretary is
   fully prepared to be on Capitol Hill on June XX at 10 a.m. to testify,
   under oath."