Fwd: Re: Leaks

From:john.podesta@gmail.com To: jennifer.m.palmieri@gmail.com Date: 2015-03-09 21:31 Subject: Fwd: Re: Leaks

One more from me to PIR only ---------- Forwarded message ---------- I don't condone leaks, but she has a very tough job to do tomorrow. Do you really think it helps get her in the right head space to tell her she can't trust anyone she just brought on board? Why are you fanning this with her? CNN thinking Andrea Mitchell is getting an interview is about the least of our problems. I am happy to fire someone for leaking whether they did or they didn't just to make the point, but let's try to get through the next few days. On Mar 9, 2015 2:26 PM, "Philippe Reines" <pir@hrcoffice.com> wrote: > John, > > With all due respect, and reluctantly to do this in front of HRC except > for wanting to defend myself against being labeled as a cancer - but the > conclusion that it is ME that has to stop "this" is really unfair. ‎This > has happened too much over the last six weeks to chalk it up to the press > guessing correctly. They don't even get facts correctly. Cnn guessed Andrea > Mitchell? Come on. That flies in the face of common sense. > > Not to mention I'm following up on a topic last night where you yourself > felt it enough of a problem to have warned the Secretary her people yap. I > didn't whip you up. You took that into consideration when discussing a 24 > hour delay. That never should have been a factor. > > Lastly, if you think I'm the only one on this chain bothered by this - > and not because I whipped them up - then I have a bridge to nowhere to sell > you. When I had dinner with Jim Margolis weeks ago, he broached with me > that he is shocked by what he's reading, is sure it's close, and fears HRC > is looking at him and the rest of them funny. I think that's a problem when > her team is looking funny at each other. > > And for anyone to be justifiably upset to not be read in earlier on our > current challenge, and then wonder why it's difficult to speak freely about > something so sensitive in large in expanded settings, is a lack of > self-awareness. This topic's a unique doozy, but it's not the last delicate > one. That someone yapped about the lamest 10%‎ of our conversations is > better than the most sensitive 10% is besides the point. But either way > we're going to have to agree to disagree on whether 10% is just the price > of doing business. > > Again, with all due respect, your reaction to me is unfair in that's > it's stronger than any admonition anyone else has received who is actually > doing something wrong. > > I agree though that being at each others' throats will get us nowhere, > and if you want me to keep it to myself, ok, done. But it's the underlying > problem that's going to be the problem, not me stating the obvious. > > With that, I'm going to sit queitly in the corner until Cheryl calls me > to admonish me for sending this reply and digging myself into an even > deeper hole with you than I already was. > > For those keeping score, that will be two more admonishment than the > culprit(s) have received. > > Philippe > > > *From: *John Podesta > *Sent: *Monday, March 9, 2015 4:51 PM > *To: *Philippe Reines > *Cc: *Cheryl Mills; H > *Subject: *Re: Leaks > > Philippe, > You got to stop this. The press is trading in rumors that can easily > originate in their own newsrooms. If someone wanted to leak juicy tidbits, > they have a lot more to work with than our press planning. If we are going > to be at each others throats before we start, we are going nowhere. > John > On Mar 9, 2015 1:13 PM, "Philippe Reines" <pir@hrcoffice.com> wrote: > >> Ok, this has gone too far. The email below is from Craig to Nick to me >> where someone knows an interview with Andrea was on the table. Seperately, >> Andrea just sent Nick this: "we are hearing news conference tomorrow?" >> >> ‎The Andrea part especially should only have been known to 10-12 people, >> 3 of whom are John, Cheryl & me. >> >> >> >> From: Nick Merrill <nmerrill@hrcoffice.com> >> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 4:04 PM >> To: Craig Minassian >> Cc: Matt Mckenna - gmail; Philippe Reines >> Subject: Re: CNN >> >> + PIR >> >> This is nuts. >> >> On 3/9/15, 3:59 PM, "Craig Minassian" <craig@minassianmedia.com> wrote: >> >> >This is just for you Nick but our favorite CNN source says that Brianna >> >(who is filling in for Erin this week) and Dan have been speculating that >> >HRC lined up an interview with Andrea Mitchell about emails. >> > >> >Now she obviously shouldn't be telling me this so please don't burn the >> >source or Madre may pay the price. >> > >> >Sent from my iPhone >> >>