Subject: RE: WaPo - Draft Quote
From: Craig Minassian <[email-masked]>
To: Tina Flournoy <[email-masked]>
Cc: Bruce Lindsey <[email-masked]>, Cheryl Mills Contact <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Maura Pally <[email-masked]>, Bari Lurie contact <[email-masked]>, Matt Mckenna - gmail <[email-masked]>, "Angel Urena - PC" <[email-masked]>, Nick Merrill ([email-masked]) <[email-masked]>, Kamyl Bazbaz contact <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:16:35 +0000

I'm sensitive to  that (which is why I'm asking) but those CHAI Stats are on nearly every public listing of CF accomplishment. I'm want to make people think twice about calls for dropping grants to CF or return the money and the HIV/AIDS work hits home in a way that other stats don't. Plus it's international work. I'm concerned about saying we used money to fund healthy schools (because we didn't use the funding for that).

From: Tina Flournoy [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 4:09 PM
To: Craig Minassian
Cc: Bruce Lindsey; Cheryl Mills Contact; [email-masked]; Maura Pally; Bari Lurie contact; Matt Mckenna - gmail; Angel Urena - PC; Nick Merrill ([email-masked]); Kamyl Bazbaz contact
Subject: Re: WaPo - Draft Quote

I am worried - particularly given the meeting i'm sitting in - that we're using CHAI stats and haven't told them

On Feb 25, 2015, at 4:03 PM, Craig Minassian <cminassian@ .org> wrote:

All,

For the WaPo story we have been discussing, they asked for an on the record response to the following question. Draft response is below with includes feedback from Jen, Nick, Philippe, Matt etc.

Including everyone on this email because I need a quick response about including the CHAI stats. The fact is, at the time, CHAI was more compelling metric, most understandable accomplishment to the public and, importantly, what a majority of the foreign government funding supported.

Please let me know if you have any concerns in the next 30 minutes.

Thanks,

Craig

Q. Why was it important for the foundation that some foreign government donations be allowed to continue after Hillary Clinton became secretary of state (i.e. those from governments that had been giving and then continued to do so at a steady pace, as well as new or increased donation that cleared a state department review)? Why do foundation officials believe such donations did not pose any conflicts of interest given Secretary Clinton's role, as some have alleged?

"As with other global charities, we rely on the support of individuals, organizations, corporations and governments who have the shared goal of addressing critical global challenges in a meaningful way. When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it goes towards Foundation programs that save lives. The majority of this support from governments is for specific, multi-year programs that are improving the lives of millions of people around the world and were underway well before Secretary Clinton took office.  It's hard to imagine someone arguing that funding should be cut off for the more than 8 million people getting access to live-saving HIV/AIDS medicine in more than 70 countries, the nearly 40,000 farmers in Malawi, Tanzania, and Rwanda trying to earn a better living or the reduction of 33,500 tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually."