Subject: RE: Latest Website Factsheet
From: Christina Reynolds <[email-masked]>
To: Heather Samuelson <[email-masked]>, Nick Merrill <[email-masked]>, Philippe Reines <[email-masked]>
Cc: John Podesta <[email-masked]>, Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>, Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>, Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>, Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>, Katherine Turner <[email-masked]>, "Kendall, David" <[email-masked]>, Huma Abedin <[email-masked]>, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 21:08:15 -0400

Here’s a cleaned up version of the email Q&A with the staff question. Let
me know if there are any further edits. Otherwise, we’ll have it copyedited
and prepped to go back up on the briefing once we’re ready.

*From:* Heather Samuelson [mailto:[email-masked]]
*Sent:* Sunday, August 9, 2015 2:35 PM
*To:* Nick Merrill <[email-masked]>; Philippe Reines <
[email-masked]>
*Cc:* John Podesta <[email-masked]>; Cheryl Mills <
[email-masked]>; Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>;
Christina Reynolds <[email-masked]>; Dan Schwerin <
[email-masked]>; Jennifer Palmieri <
[email-masked]>; Katherine Turner <[email-masked]>; Kendall,
David <[email-masked]>; Huma Abedin <[email-masked]>; Jake
Sullivan <[email-masked]>
*Subject:* Re: Latest Website Factsheet

For the website Q&A, what about adding this:

*Have Clinton’s State Department aides also been asked to provide the
Department and Congress with emails from their personal accounts?  *

We understand that members of her State Department staff were recently
asked to assist the Department in its record-keeping by providing
any work-related emails they may have on personal accounts.   They have
received requests from Rep. Gowdy as well.

Clinton is proud of all the dedicated public servants that were part of her
team, and pleased that her aides have committed - as she has - to being as
helpful as possible to both the Department and Congressional requests.

*From:* Nick Merrill <[email-masked]>
*Sent:* ‎Sunday‎, ‎August‎ ‎9‎, ‎2015 ‎1‎:‎53‎ ‎PM
*To:* Philippe Reines <[email-masked]>
*Cc:* John Podesta <[email-masked]>, Cheryl Mills
<[email-masked]>, Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>, Heather
Samuelson <[email-masked]>, Christina Reynolds
<[email-masked]>, Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>,
Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>, Katherine Turner
<[email-masked]>, Kendall, David <[email-masked]>, Huma Abedin
<[email-masked]>, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>

Here it is.

We'd have answer for the website FAQs that's a little more dry and to the
point, which Heather and I can formulate, but here is what PIR came up with
this past week.

"‎Well, you all know I've seen this before, and know that fair or not it
comes with the terrain. I am so proud though of what was accomplished while
I had the honor of representing the United States to the world as America's
Secretary of State. And I am so proud of all the dedicated public servants
who were part of that work - including the team that came in with me, and
left with me. I was proud of them then, and I am proud of them now. They
worked tirelessly, gave everything of themselves in support of our
country's goals. We are all accountable to the American people for our work
- but they simply don't deserve to be attacked this way.‎ Despite that
though, they have committed - as I have - to being as helpful as possible
to those asking the questions. And if those people are truly open to
listening to their answers and accepting the facts, they will see that we
should all be proud of them."

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Philippe Reines <[email-masked]> wrote:

I had drafted something last week that I want pretend was objective, but I
think works for her and those 'staff' refers to.

*From: *John Podesta

*Sent: *Sunday, August 9, 2015 1:46 PM

*To: *Cheryl Mills

*Cc: *Nick Merrill; Brian Fallon; Philippe Reines; Heather Samuelson;
Christina Reynolds; Dan Schwerin; Jennifer Palmieri; Katherine Turner;
Kendall, David; Huma Abedin

*Subject: *Re: Latest Website Factsheet

This is a campaign doc so if  it's useful to do, I think we can use a "It's
our understanding that....." formulation

On Aug 9, 2015 11:41 AM, "Cheryl Mills" <[email-masked]> wrote:

How can she answer for staff?

cdm

On Aug 9, 2015, at 1:37 PM, Huma Abedin <[email-masked]> wrote:

this doesnt have the q and a about what her staff is doing related to
requests for their emails.

she was asked last week and wasnt prepared with an answer

should we just add to this long list of q and a so at least its out there
and maybe she wont have to do it verbally again?

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Heather Samuelson <
[email-masked]> wrote:

Latest version is attached to match statement.

*From:* Heather Samuelson <[email-masked]>
*Sent:* ‎Saturday‎, ‎August‎ ‎8‎, ‎2015 ‎10‎:‎39‎ ‎PM
*To:* Kendall, David <[email-masked]>, Jennifer Palmieri
<[email-masked]>, Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>, Brian
Fallon <[email-masked]>, Huma Abedin
<[email-masked]>, Katherine
Turner <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>, Philippe
Reines <[email-masked]>, Christina Reynolds
<[email-masked]>
*Cc:* Nick Merrill <[email-masked]>

Revised attached to incorporate both of DEK's comments.   Also including
edits from CDM.

*From:* Kendall, David <[email-masked]>
*Sent:* ‎Saturday‎, ‎August‎ ‎8‎, ‎2015 ‎10‎:‎24‎ ‎PM
*To:* Heather Samuelson <[email-masked]>, Jennifer Palmieri
<[email-masked]>, Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>, Brian
Fallon <[email-masked]>, Huma Abedin
<[email-masked]>, Katherine
Turner <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>, Philippe
Reines <[email-masked]>, Christina Reynolds
<[email-masked]>
*Cc:* Nick Merrill <[email-masked]>

Two things:

1) As to the server turn over, I think we decided to say something like
"the server that was used during her tenure as Secretary of State."

2) I would prefer not to use the "March 18, 2009" date, because we know
there were other emails using the her clintonemail.com address prior to
that date. Could we make this more vague, like "early in her term as SOS"?
Or would this change provide a "gotcha" target--if so, not worth it, since
this is the date of the earliest email in the PST of her emails, as I
understand it.

*From*: Heather Samuelson [mailto:[email-masked]]
*Sent*: Saturday, August 08, 2015 09:48 PM
*To*: Kendall, David; Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>;
Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>; Brian Fallon <
[email-masked]>; Huma Abedin <[email-masked]>; Turner,
Katherine; John Podesta <[email-masked]>; Philippe Reines <
[email-masked]>; Christina Reynolds <[email-masked]>
*Cc*: Nick Merrill <[email-masked]>
*Subject*: Updated Website Factsheet

All --  Nick and I updated the factsheet/Q&A for the website.   See
attached.

I copy and pasted new/expanded questions below for ease.   All else mirrors
what’s currently on the website (
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/)
-- with some minor tweaks, such as we now have over 1250 emails deemed
personal records and adding in more “As she said before..�

Let me know your thoughts…

Thx

*New/Expanded Q’s*

*Clinton said she did not use her email to send or receive classified
information, but the State Department and two Inspectors General said some
of these emails do contain classified information. Was her statement
inaccurate?*

No information in Clinton’s emails was marked classified at the time she
sent or received them.  Clinton only used her account for unclassified
email.

When information is reviewed for public release, it is common for
information previously unclassified to be upgraded to classified
<http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/05/22/408774111/state-department-to-release-more-clinton-emails-today>
if the State Department or another agency believes its public release could
cause potential harm to national security, law enforcement or diplomatic
relations.

After reviewing a sampling of the 55,000 pages of emails, the Inspectors
General have proffered that four emails, which did not contain any
classified markings and/or dissemination controls, should have been
classified at the time they were sent.  The State Department has said it
disagrees with this assessment.

Clinton hopes the State Department and other relevant agencies will sort
out as quickly as possible which of the 55,000 pages of emails are
appropriate to release to the public.

*Is Department of Justice conducting a criminal inquiry into Clinton’s
email use? *

No. As the Department of Justice and Inspectors General made clear, the
IG’s made a security referral.  This was not criminal in nature as
misreported by some in the press.  The Department of Justice is now seeking
assurances about the storage of materials related to Clinton’s email
account.

*Is it true that her email server and a thumb drive were recently turned
over the government.   Why?*

Again, when information is reviewed for public release, it is common for
information previously unclassified to be upgraded to classified
<http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/05/22/408774111/state-department-to-release-more-clinton-emails-today>
if the State Department or another agency believes its public release could
cause potential harm to national security, law enforcement or diplomatic
relations.

It is her hope that State and the other agencies involved in the review
process will sort out as quickly as possible which emails are appropriate
to release to the public, and that the release will be as timely and as
transparent as possible.

In the meantime, her team has worked with the State Department to
ensure her emails are stored in a safe and secure manner.

As a result, she directed her team to give her email server to the
Department of Justice, as well as a thumb drive containing copies
of her emails already provided to the State Department.  We have pledged to
cooperate with the government's security inquiry—if it decides it needs to
see more, we will arrange for that to happen.

*Would this issue not have arisen if she used a state.gov
<http://state.gov> email address?*

Even if Clinton’s emails had been on a government email address and
government device, these questions would be raised prior to public release.

While State Department’s review of her 55,000 emails brought the issue to
the Inspectors Generals' attentions, the emails that were classified prior
to public release were on the unclassified .gov email system. They were not
on the separate, closed system used by State Department for handling
classified communications.

------------------------------

This message and any attachments are intended only for the addressee and
may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you have
received this message in error, please do not read, use, copy, distribute,
or disclose the contents of the message and any attachments. Instead,
please delete the message and any attachments and notify the sender
immediately. Thank you.