Subject: Re: Open Letter
From: Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>
To: Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Cc: Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>, Nick Merrill <[email-masked]>, "Kendall, David" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "Turner, Katherine" <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 06:16:49 -0400

What would be other form - back to the original statement?

cdm

> On Aug 8, 2015, at 4:52 AM, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Dan - I think you've done a remarkable job with this assignment.   But
> I think the assignment is wrong.  I don't think an open letter of this
> sort will have the intended effect.  Happy to get on the phone to
> discuss.
> 
>> On Aug 8, 2015, at 3:54 AM, Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>> Well, I took a stab at an open letter that would walk through more of the background and still make some strong points we want out there in her voice. I'm not convinced that this works or that its even a good idea.  But take a look and see what you think. Will be happy to revise if folks have good ideas for how to do this better.
>> Thanks
>> Dan
>> <2015-08-08 open letter.docx>