This email has also been verified by Google DKIM 2048-bit RSA key

Re: Latest Website Factsheet

We can add. Obviously it won't stop her from getting asked and I still think she needs a short verbal answer. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 9, 2015, at 1:45 PM, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> wrote: 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" <cheryl.mills@gmail.com> wrote: > How can she answer for staff? > > cdm > > On Aug 9, 2015, at 1:37 PM, Huma Abedin <ha16@hillaryclinton.com> 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 < > hsamuelson@cdmillsgroup.com> wrote: > >> Latest version is attached to match statement. >> >> *From:* Heather Samuelson <hsamuelson@cdmillsGroup.com> >> *Sent:* ‎Saturday‎, ‎August‎ ‎8‎, ‎2015 ‎10‎:‎39‎ ‎PM >> *To:* Kendall, David <DKendall@wc.com>, Jennifer Palmieri >> <jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com>, Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com>, Brian >> Fallon <bfallon@hillaryclinton.com>, Huma Abedin >> <ha16@hillaryclinton.com>, Katherine Turner <KTurner@wc.com>, John >> Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com>, Philippe Reines <pir@hrcoffice.com>, Christina >> Reynolds <creynolds@hillaryclinton.com> >> *Cc:* Nick Merrill <nmerrill@hillaryclinton.com> >> >> Revised attached to incorporate both of DEK's comments. Also including >> edits from CDM. >> >> *From:* Kendall, David <DKendall@wc.com> >> *Sent:* ‎Saturday‎, ‎August‎ ‎8‎, ‎2015 ‎10‎:‎24‎ ‎PM >> *To:* Heather Samuelson <hsamuelson@cdmillsGroup.com>, Jennifer Palmieri >> <jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com>, Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com>, Brian >> Fallon <bfallon@hillaryclinton.com>, Huma Abedin >> <ha16@hillaryclinton.com>, Katherine Turner <KTurner@wc.com>, John >> Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com>, Philippe Reines <pir@hrcoffice.com>, Christina >> Reynolds <creynolds@hillaryclinton.com> >> *Cc:* Nick Merrill <nmerrill@hillaryclinton.com> >> >> 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:hsamuelson@cdmillsGroup.com] >> *Sent*: Saturday, August 08, 2015 09:48 PM >> *To*: Kendall, David; Jennifer Palmieri <jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com>; >> Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com>; Brian Fallon < >> bfallon@hillaryclinton.com>; Huma Abedin <ha16@hillaryclinton.com>; >> Turner, Katherine; John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com>; Philippe >> Reines <pir@hrcoffice.com>; Christina Reynolds < >> creynolds@hillaryclinton.com> >> *Cc*: Nick Merrill <nmerrill@hillaryclinton.com> >> *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. >> > >