Download raw source

Delivered-To: john.podesta@gmail.com Received: by 10.25.24.103 with SMTP id o100csp4268064lfi; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 17:41:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.176.228 with SMTP id cl4mr23937230igc.2.1433292077794; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 17:41:17 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: <ntanden@gmail.com> Received: from mail-ig0-x22d.google.com (mail-ig0-x22d.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22d]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j5si12231145igh.50.2015.06.02.17.41.17 for <john.podesta@gmail.com> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Jun 2015 17:41:17 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ntanden@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22d as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22d; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ntanden@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22d as permitted sender) smtp.mail=ntanden@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: by mail-ig0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id pi8so99923996igb.1 for <john.podesta@gmail.com>; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 17:41:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=GVLInSP23qNqKby7Mj0DJh7pTKRqitVyDgL/rjFWDb8=; b=HcOrD6b46r0I2PkSEd+d41Y1d7YvLYzOyGw+7OoW86ns+IjCMDHeqtgR2nwfumqgys mwUrix4uwYQtB+98UrpiDFAxApbVxZffGMEL0PabebHWZIyGaG3J5s4Q/he3+fW7LSvI Nanjwgiusw39YzwVYYPVdKJt1ySTJv227ioiBHVecL2rCh7uV2v6Qw/E3nQ/ZG32LpDW SVsa90aEj4L8YjdhStmv3cEGWIuDSFH1bJgpVb/36U/JwQnas5dCEyDYjy8wGQM0HsRp FbbG4Curg+x5ZjMYZWqxWbFZjqO7R9dVnn/NiYv3vlVj0QFuU5bSEFTy3BgjGVwwlv/p L8OQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.129.40 with SMTP id nt8mr23290796igb.24.1433292077085; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 17:41:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.90.39 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 17:41:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <29b4b7b4e923663bd7fb8d68b01e261f@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJiTYQaX=wB2bujZEAJLhU_KfBGMP2wX3r_PR0KYgvbid8Qqwg@mail.gmail.com> <120338598654565189@unknownmsgid> <CAJiTYQa58HZUT0+yhUVgHo8ysJd1ihnC680g4AwTo_fxR+XMpQ@mail.gmail.com> <29b4b7b4e923663bd7fb8d68b01e261f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 20:41:17 -0400 Message-ID: <CAJiTYQYCSmhQ5KzZFzovZqRDvQrB+yf3APcO0vjduzNz+sizfQ@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: King v Burwell From: Neera Tanden <ntanden@gmail.com> To: Jake Sullivan <jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com> CC: Jennifer Palmieri <jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com>, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b4143201d3e610517925156 --047d7b4143201d3e610517925156 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ok. And to clarify, the candidate wouldn't have to do anything. I think we could move the story with just a nod from the campaign on the strategy. On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Jake Sullivan <jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com= > wrote: > I=E2=80=99m into it but defer to Jen on this one. > > > > *From:* Neera Tanden [mailto:ntanden@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 2, 2015 8:37 PM > *To:* Jake Sullivan > *Cc:* Jennifer Palmieri; John Podesta > *Subject:* Re: King v Burwell > > > > oops! > > I mentioned this to John some time back, but think it's a bit more curren= t > now. > > > > It is most likely that this decision has already been made by the Court, > but on the off chance that history is repeating itself, then it's possibl= e > they are still deciding (last time, seems like Roberts went from striking > the mandate to supporting it in the weeks before). As Jennifer will > remember, it was pretty critical that the President threw the gauntlet do= wn > last time on the Court, warning them in the first case that it would > politicize the role of the Court for them to rule against the ACA. As a > close reader of the case, I honestly believe that was vital to scaring > Roberts off. > > > > In this case, I'm not arguing that Hillary spend a lot of time attacking > the Court. I do think it would be very helpful to all of our interest in= a > decision affirming the law, for Roberts and perhaps Kennedy to see negati= ve > political consequences to ruling against the government. > > Therefore, I think it would be helpful to have a story of how progressive= s > and Hillary would make the Supreme Court an election issue (which would b= e > a ready argument for liberals) if the Court rules against the government. > It's not that you wish that happens. But that would be the necessary > consequence of a negative decision...the Court itself would become a huge= ly > important political issue. > > > > At CAP Action, we can get that story started. But kinda rests on you guy= s > to make it stick. > > > > What do you think? If you want to proceed, we should move soon. > > > > Let me know thoughts. And I'm happy to discuss. > > > > Neera > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Jake Sullivan < > jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: > > No content in message? > > > > > On Jun 2, 2015, at 8:20 PM, Neera Tanden <ntanden@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > --047d7b4143201d3e610517925156 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr">ok.<div><br></div><div>And to clarify, the candidate would= n't have to do anything.=C2=A0 I think we could move the story with jus= t a nod from the campaign on the strategy.</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_e= xtra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Jake S= ullivan <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:jsullivan@hillaryclinton.co= m" target=3D"_blank">jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>= <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"p= urple"><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-fam= ily:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">I=E2=80=99m into it but d= efer to Jen on this one.</span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"fo= nt-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">= =C2=A0</span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;= font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style=3D"= font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Neera Tanden = [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:ntanden@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">ntanden@gmai= l.com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 2, 2015 8:37 PM<br><b>To:</b> Jak= e Sullivan<br><b>Cc:</b> Jennifer Palmieri; John Podesta<br><b>Subject:</b>= Re: King v Burwell</span></p><div><div class=3D"h5"><p class=3D"MsoNormal"= >=C2=A0</p><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal">oops!</p><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal"= >I mentioned this to John some time back, but think it's a bit more cur= rent now.=C2=A0</p><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0</p></div><div><p clas= s=3D"MsoNormal">It is most likely that this decision has already been made = by the Court, but on the off chance that history is repeating itself, then = it's possible they are still deciding (last time, seems like Roberts we= nt from striking the mandate to supporting it in the weeks before).=C2=A0 A= s Jennifer will remember, it was pretty critical that the President threw t= he gauntlet down last time on the Court, warning them in the first case tha= t it would politicize the role of the Court for them to rule against the AC= A. As a close reader of the case, I honestly believe that was vital to scar= ing Roberts off. =C2=A0</p></div><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0</p></di= v><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal">In this case, I'm not arguing that Hillar= y spend a lot of time attacking the Court.=C2=A0 I do think it would be ver= y helpful to all of our interest in a decision affirming the law, for Rober= ts and perhaps Kennedy to see negative political consequences to ruling aga= inst the government. =C2=A0</p></div><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal">Therefore,= I think it would be helpful to have a story of how progressives and Hillar= y would make the Supreme Court an election issue (which would be a ready ar= gument for liberals) if the Court rules against the government.=C2=A0 It= 9;s not that you wish that happens.=C2=A0 But that would be the necessary c= onsequence of a negative decision...the Court itself would become a hugely = important political issue. =C2=A0</p></div><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2= =A0</p></div><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal">At CAP Action, we can get that sto= ry started.=C2=A0 But kinda rests on you guys to make it stick.</p></div><d= iv><p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0</p></div><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal">What = do you think?=C2=A0 If you want to proceed, we should move soon.</p></div><= div><p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0</p></div><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal">Let = me know thoughts.=C2=A0 And I'm happy to discuss. =C2=A0</p></div><div>= <p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0</p></div><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal">Neera</p= ></div><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0</p></div><div><p class=3D"MsoNorm= al">=C2=A0</p></div></div></div><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0</p><div>= <p class=3D"MsoNormal">On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Jake Sullivan <<a= href=3D"mailto:jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com" target=3D"_blank">jsullivan@h= illaryclinton.com</a>> wrote:</p><blockquote style=3D"border:none;border= -left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margi= n-right:0in"><p class=3D"MsoNormal">No content in message?<br><br><br><br>&= gt; On Jun 2, 2015, at 8:20 PM, Neera Tanden <<a href=3D"mailto:ntanden@= gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">ntanden@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>></p></= blockquote></div><p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0</p></div></div></div></div><= /div> </blockquote></div><br></div> --047d7b4143201d3e610517925156--