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

Re: Latest Website Factsheet

Here it is. We'd have answer for the website FAQs that's a little more dry and to the point, which Heather and I can formulate, but here is what PIR came up with this past week. "‎Well, you all know I've seen this before, and know that fair or not it comes with the terrain. I am so proud though of what was accomplished while I had the honor of representing the United States to the world as America's Secretary of State. And I am so proud of all the dedicated public servants who were part of that work - including the team that came in with me, and left with me. I was proud of them then, and I am proud of them now. They worked tirelessly, gave everything of themselves in support of our country's goals. We are all accountable to the American people for our work - but they simply don't deserve to be attacked this way.‎ Despite that though, they have committed - as I have - to being as helpful as possible to those asking the questions. And if those people are truly open to listening to their answers and accepting the facts, they will see that we should all be proud of them." On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Philippe Reines <pir@hrcoffice.com> wrote: > I had drafted something last week that I want pretend was objective, but I > think works for her and those 'staff' refers to. > > *From: *John Podesta > *Sent: *Sunday, August 9, 2015 1:46 PM > *To: *Cheryl Mills > *Cc: *Nick Merrill; Brian Fallon; Philippe Reines; Heather Samuelson; > Christina Reynolds; Dan Schwerin; Jennifer Palmieri; Katherine Turner; > Kendall, David; Huma Abedin > *Subject: *Re: Latest Website Factsheet > > 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. >>> >> >>