Subject: Re: Follow up from press on trade
From: Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>
To: Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>
Cc: John Podesta <[email-masked]>, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>, Robby Mook <[email-masked]>, Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:01:04 -0400

I might add in there somewhere that "she laid out her tests," or words to
that effect

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Jennifer Palmieri <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Talked with Jake.  We think we should say that her focus is on TPP
> because that's the true concern, bill was dropped yesterday and we are
> taking a look at it.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Apr 17, 2015, at 5:30 PM, John Podesta <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm for the second,
> >
> > JP
> > --Sent from my iPad--
> > [email-masked]
> > For scheduling: [email-masked]
> >
> >> On Apr 17, 2015, at 5:08 PM, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> We seem to have 2 options if we're not going to (grudgingly) support.
> >>
> >> Say its procedural and we're not weighing in.    Grin and bear it
> through incoming.
> >>
> >> Say we're studying and then oppose next week (giving White House time).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Apr 17, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Jennifer Palmieri <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Being asked by wapo and Bloomberg what her specific view on TPA is.
> >>>
> >>> Should we deploy the answer that the bill is a procedural matter for
> >>> Senate to resolve?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
>