Re: NYT: In Clinton Emails on Benghazi, a Rare Glimpse at Her Concerns

From:nmerrill@hrcoffice.com To: john.podesta@gmail.com Date: 2015-03-23 11:16 Subject: Re: NYT: In Clinton Emails on Benghazi, a Rare Glimpse at Her Concerns

Thank you John. Agree completely on using this to level-set. On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:01 AM, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com<mailto:john.podesta@gmail.com>> wrote: Nick, Great job in fighting this to more or less of a draw. Even with spoon feeding from Gowdy's staff, this story is smoke without even the warmth of a fire. We might want to think about how we use this to try to level set with the Times hierarchy. JP --Sent from my iPad-- john.podesta@gmail.com<mailto:john.podesta@gmail.com> For scheduling: eryn.sepp@gmail.com<mailto:eryn.sepp@gmail.com> On Mar 23, 2015, at 6:21 AM, Nick Merrill <nmerrill@hrcoffice.com<mailto:nmerrill@hrcoffice.com>> wrote: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/us/politics/in-clinton-emails-on-benghazi-a-rare-glimpse-at-her-concerns.html?referrer= In Clinton Emails on Benghazi, a Rare Glimpse at Her Concerns By Michael S. Schmidt WASHINGTON — It was a grueling hearing. A month after the September 2012 attack on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, House Republicans grilled a top State Department official about security lapses at the outpost. Later that day, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per> tapped out an email to a close adviser: “Did we survive the day?” she wrote. “Survive, yes,” the adviser emailed back, adding that he would continue to gauge reaction the next morning. The roughly 300 emails from Mrs. Clinton’s private account that were turned over last month to a House committee investigating the attack showed the secretary and her aides closely monitoring the fallout from the tragedy, which threatened to damage her image and reflect poorly on the State Department. They provided no evidence that Mrs. Clinton, as the most incendiary Republican attacks have suggested, issued a “stand down” order to halt American forces responding to the violence in Benghazi, or took part in a broad cover-up of the administration’s response, according to senior American officials. But they did show that Mrs. Clinton’s top aides at times corresponded with her about State Department matters from their personal email accounts, raising questions about her recent assertions that she made it her practice to email aides at their government addresses so the messages would be preserved, in compliance with federal record-keeping regulations. The emails have not been made public, and The New York Times was not permitted to review them. But four senior government officials offered descriptions of some of the key messages, on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to jeopardize their access to secret information. A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton said she and her aides had used their email accounts appropriately, while a spokesman for the Republican-controlled House committee declined to comment. The correspondence offered a glimpse inside the secretary of state’s inbox — and her elusive email personality — including during those dark days just after the attack. Mrs. Clinton exclusively used a private email account that was housed on a server at her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., while she was secretary of state, which kept many of the messages secret. Strikingly, given that she has set off an uproar over her emails, Mrs. Clinton is not a verbose correspondent. At times, she sends her highly regarded foreign policy adviser, Jake Sullivan, an email containing a news article, with a simple instruction: Please print. (Mrs. Clinton, though she has taken to Twitter and embraced other forms of modern technology, appears to like to read articles on paper.) There were also the more mundane messages that crowd many government workers’ inboxes: scheduling, logistics, even a news alert about a breaking story from Politico, forwarded to the secretary by a senior aide. The emails showed Mrs. Clinton and her inner circle reacting as the administration’s view of what happened in Benghazi changed, and the messages shed some light on a pivotal moment in the attack’s aftermath involving Susan E. Rice, then the ambassador to the United Nations. On Sept. 16, five days after the attack, Ms. Rice appeared on several Sunday news programs, including ABC’s “This Week,” to offer the administration’s view on the attack. Some conservatives suggested that Ms. Rice took on the role of public spokeswoman in those first few days after the attacks so that Mrs. Clinton could duck the controversy. (Ms. Rice has said that Mrs. Clinton declined to appear because she was tired after a grueling week.) The emails do not settle that question, the senior officials said. But they do suggest that Mrs. Clinton and her aides were ultimately relieved that she had not gone as far as Ms. Rice had in her description of the attacks. The day that Ms. Rice appeared on the shows, Mr. Sullivan, who served as Mrs. Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and is one of her most trusted advisers, emailed Mrs. Clinton a transcript of Ms. Rice’s remarks on ABC’s “This Week.” Mr. Sullivan’s message was brief, but he appeared pleased by how it had gone. Ms. Rice, on the show, described it as a spontaneous eruption of violence, triggered by an offensive anti-Muslim video. “She did make clear our view that this started spontaneously then evolved,” Mr. Sullivan wrote to Mrs. Clinton. But in the days that followed, the administration’s view of what occurred grew more complicated. Amid intense criticism from Republicans, who accused the White House of playing down the attack in an election year, administration officials began to call it “a terrorist attack.” Ms. Rice’s initial description of the attack as spontaneous came under intense scrutiny. Two weeks after that first email assessing Ms. Rice’s appearance, Mr. Sullivan sent Mrs. Clinton a very different email. This time, he appeared to reassure the secretary of state that she had avoided the problems Ms. Rice was confronting. He told Mrs. Clinton that he had reviewed her public remarks since the attack and that she had avoided the language that had landed Ms. Rice in trouble. “You never said ‘spontaneous’ or characterized their motivations,” Mr. Sullivan wrote. The 300 emails are a small fraction of those Mrs. Clinton has handed over to the State Department. Last summer, State Department lawyers responding to document requests from the House committee investigating Benghazi found correspondence showing Mrs. Clinton used a private email account. The lawyers determined that they needed all of Mrs. Clinton’s emails to respond to the committee requests. In December, Mrs. Clinton turned over 30,000 of her emails to the State Department, and the department sent the House committee the 300 related to Benghazi or Libya. The scrutiny of how she used email has created the first test of her all-but-announced presidential campaign. At the time she was secretary of state, federal regulations said agencies that allow employees to use private email addresses, “must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.” Nick Merrill, the spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, defended the aides’ use of personal email, saying that it was “their practice to primarily use their work email when conducting state business, with only the tiniest fraction of the more than one million emails they sent or received involving their personal accounts.” Some may not be satisfied with that explanation or the records Mrs. Clinton has provided. Trey Gowdy, the South Carolina Republican who chairs the House Select Committee on Benghazi, has said he suspected Mrs. Clinton has not turned over all the Benghazi-related emails, and has asked Mrs. Clinton to turn over her server to a neutral party to examine all of her emails, including ones she deleted, to determine if others should be provided to his panel. Mr. Gowdy’s committee is also likely to press Mrs. Clinton on why her advisers occasionally used personal email accounts to communicate with her. At least four of Mrs. Clinton’s closest advisers at the State Department did so, including her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills; senior adviser, Philippe Reines; personal aide, Huma Abedin; and Mr. Sullivan. Elijah E. Cummings, the Maryland Democrat and ranking member on the committee, said in a statement that “instead of having emails leaked piecemeal — and mischaracterized,” the committee’s chairman, Mr. Gowdy, “should release all of them — as Secretary Clinton has asked — so the American people can read them for themselves.” On Mar 22, 2015, at 10:08 PM, Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com<mailto:cheryl.mills@gmail.com>> wrote: K - no additions On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Philippe Reines <pir@hrcoffice.com<mailto:pir@hrcoffice.com>> wrote: Ours. i can't figure out given the subject ambiguity if we are seeking to have this graph speak to her behavior or others? On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 8:57 PM, Nick Merrill <nmerrill@hrcoffice.com<mailto:nmerrill@hrcoffice.com>> wrote: Philippe, Heather, Jake and I spoke earlier and made a few tweaks. Specifically, we added some straight-forward language in the third paragraph that aims to do two things: give this guy some simple context for the emails he references, and nudge this ever-closer to putting it in the Benghazi box. See below. ------ Mike, please treat this reply as my on the record response to your questions. There are any number of reasons why people emailed from their non-work accounts, and every one of them are perfectly understandable and allowable - evidenced by the simple fact that the State Department tells every employee they're allowed to and how to properly do so. The most obvious reason people didn't use their work account was when they weren't emailing about work. That includes sharing newspaper articles about the 2012 reelection, birthday wishes, or asking about movies. The next most common reason is that the State Department system was down which happened frequently. But it was their practice to primarily use their work email when conducting State business, with only the tiniest fraction of the more than one million email they sent or received involving their personal accounts. And in those cases it was their responsibility, as it is for all State Department employees, to make sure what needed to end up in the State Department system did. And we're confident that when the public is able to read them all they'll see that's what overwhelmingly happened, and then some. As for how you've characterized them, yes, we have disagreed. Starting with the simple fact that you presented several email as examples of using personal accounts when in fact those emails were sent from State.gov<http://state.gov/> accounts. And in terms of the content of these emails from state.gov<http://state.gov/> accounts, you have cited examples of both an email sent by Jake about the Sunday shows taped after the attacks and one about the Secretary’s previous remarks. Since you seem to have been provided these without context, it’s important to note that the first is proof that internal State communications line up completely with how the administration was discussing the matter externally - that is, the publicly stated administration view and the privately stated administration view were exactly the same. And that view was guided by the intelligence community. All that the second email shows is that given the maelstrom that formed in the aftermath of the Sunday shows, Jake was simply informing the Secretary of what she had personally said publicly, since many people were mischaracterizing her remarks. To apply any further analysis, or to suggest it, would be wrong. And this is precisely why we hope that these emails will be released as soon as possible, particularly those related to Benghazi, so everyone will have the full context and see for themselves. Again, this is on the record in response to your questions. And if you would like to post online our entire exchange about your story for every reader to see for themselves, I am more than happy for you to do so. It might be the best way for them to understand. ### On Mar 22, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Philippe Reines <pir@hrcoffice.com<mailto:pir@hrcoffice.com>> wrote: Yes. [cid:] On Mar 22, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Jake Sullivan <jake.sullivan@gmail.com<mailto:jake.sullivan@gmail.com>> wrote: Some of my personal emails did not end up on state accounts. Is that what you mean by overwhelmingly? On Mar 22, 2015, at 4:58 PM, Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com<mailto:cheryl.mills@gmail.com>> wrote: I am fine on this Jen - can you review and advise. cdm On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Philippe Reines <pir@hrcoffice.com<mailto:pir@hrcoffice.com>> wrote: I think you need to send your on the record response in a very clear way. Because it's crazy that after all this back and forth he claims to not have anything on the record. My suggestion is to send him this, obviously after everyone is comfortable but with my strong urging not to lawyer this too much. Mike, please treat this reply as my on the record response to your questions. There are any number of reasons why people emailed from their non-work account, and every one of them are perfectly understandable and allowable - evidenced by the simple fact that the State Department tells every employee they're allowed and how to properly do so. The most obvious reason people didn't use their work account was when they weren't emailing about work. That includes sharing newspaper articles about the 2012 reelection, birthday wishes, or asking about movies. The next most common reason is that the State Department system was down which happened frequently. But it was their practice to primarily use their work email when conducting State business, with only the tiniest fraction of the more than one million email they sent or received involving their personal accounts. And in those cases it was their responsibility, as it is for all State Department employees, to make sure what needed to end up in the State Department system did. And we're confident that when the public is able to read them all they'll see that's what overwhelmingly happened, and then some. As for how you've characterized them, yes, we have disagreed. Starting with the simple fact that you presented several email as examples of using personal accounts when in fact those email were sent from State.gov<http://State.gov> accounts. Again, this is on the record in response to your questions. And if you would like to post online our entire exchange about your story for every reader to see for themselves, I am more than happy for you to do so. It might be the best way for them to understand. Here is where we are. I’m going to have a cup of tea and bring my blood pressure down, then I will send around how I propose we proceed in our response. In the meantime, if anyone can tell me how we can get to Cummings office, I can follow up on that track. Nick, I'm not sure what else to tell you. We are still seeking on the record responses to the questions below. Unless that changes, our story will say that we did not receive a response from your side. Thanks, Mike Why did Mrs. Clinton's staffers at times use their personal accounts to communicate with her? Were all these emails captured in the State Department's network? Were Mrs. Clinton’s advisers given legal advice about whether it was appropriate for them to correspond with her using their personal accounts? Do you disagree with our characterization of any of the emails that we have described? If so, please point out where you think we're off. On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Nick Merrill <nmerrill@hrcoffice.com<mailto:nmerrill@hrcoffice.com>> wrote: Mike, I truly am not trying to do anything but arrive at a reasonable solution here, and I'm happy to discuss any terms you think reasonable, and I'm sure we can come to an agreement. But I'm also still trying to get some basic questions answered that I think fall well within the appropriate scope of the reporter-spokesperson relationship. You are writing about the use of personal emails, or at least you began that way. But the evidence provided suggests another narrative that seems unrelated, and if that is now the question at hand I think it fair that you explain that and allow us the chance to respond. I don't know which if any of these emails you have, but I would far prefer you had all of them. In the absence of that, I'm hoping that you can lay out the basics of your story beyond the charge of personal emails that has not been substantiated by your sources, and we can come to a resolution. Please let me know how you wish to proceed. Thanks very much. Nick On Mar 20, 2015, at 10:34 PM, Schmidt, Michael <schmidtm@nytimes.com<mailto:schmidtm@nytimes.com>> wrote: thanks for getting back to me i appreciate it are these responses on the record? On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Nick Merrill <nmerrill@hrcoffice.com<mailto:nmerrill@hrcoffice.com>> wrote: Mike, I have to tell you that at this point I’m squarely in the category of frustrated. There have been times that I’ve respectfully disagreed with reporters about angles on their stories, or components of stories, but this by a standard deviation the most time I have ever spent trying to get very basic information straight about a story being written and remained so confused. And I think at this point that by anyone’s standard, it’s a very reasonable response. Once again, the emails you referenced below are all correspondence to and from Jake and/or Cheryl’s official state.gov<http://state.gov/> accounts: -A month after the Benghazi attacks, the Republican controlled House Oversight Committee held a hearing about the security at the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi. Pat Kennedy testified at the hearing. That day Mrs. Clinton wrote in an email to Mr. Sullivan: "Did we survive the day?" “Survive, yes,” Mr. Sullivan said in response. “Pat helped level set things tonight and we’ll see where we are in the morning.” - A month after that hearing, Cheryl Mills forwarded Mrs. Clinton a breaking news alert from Politico about how David Petraeus, who was the director of the C.I.A. at the time of the Benghazi attacks, was going to testify before the House intelligence committee. Mrs. Clinton responded by asking when Mr. Petraeus was going to testify before the Senate intelligence committee. - Shortly after Susan Rice appeared on several Sunday talk shows just five days after the Benghazi attacks Mr. Sullivan sent Mrs. Clinton a transcript from one of Ms. Rice's appearances. "She did make clear our view that this started spontaneously then evolved," Mr. Sullivan said. - Two weeks later, Mr. Sullivan sent Mrs. Clinton an email assuring her that she never described the attacks as spontaneous and never suggested the assailants were motivated by a video. I’m still not sure what emails you are referring to on personal accounts, so once again, I’m not sure how we can respond to the basic premise of your story. The emails you have cited were sent on official accounts, so why we are here again talking about personal emails is beyond me, since you’ve provided no evidence of a pattern. But for the sake of the exercise, there are a plethora of reasons why someone might email from their non-work account, every one of them perfectly understandable and allowable. The most obvious reason to not use your State account is when you're not emailing about State Department business. Could have been sharing a political column throughout the 2012 reelection. Next best reason is that the State system was down, which was not an uncommon occurrence. It was everyone's practice to primarily use their State account for State business. The numbers bear that out, so let me try and break them down here in brief. Of the 300, I can only presume you are referring to four emails referenced in the Committee’s letter today. In those instances, one is an email requesting a copy of a movie/DVD, the second is the email you reference below which is nearly identical to a draft previously forwarded to a state.gov<http://state.gov/> account (this draft is within the 300 as well), the third is correspondence she forwarded to a state.gov<http://state.gov/> account, and lastly was email traffic on state.gov<http://state.gov/> account forwarded to a personal account for printing. Again, the rules allow personal email to be used so long as what needs to be preserved, gets preserved. And these did. We are no further along than we were 72 hours ago, and in fact it seems like you have sources that continue to mislead you. I have answered many more questions than have been answered for me at this point, and remain far from understanding what the basic facts are and how they bear out coherently. Nick On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Schmidt, Michael <schmidtm@nytimes.com<mailto:schmidtm@nytimes.com>> wrote: Nick, I read your email. I hear that you are finding this confusing. Here is a final run down of the information we have. At the bottom are the questions we are seeking answers to. For each section of information, if you have an issue with the accuracy or context we would be interested in your feedback. We can give you until 4 p.m. this afternoon. Thnx, Mike -At least four of Mrs. Clinton's closest advisers at the State Department -- her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, senior adviser, Philippe Reines, personal aide Huma Abedin, and deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan -- sent some emails to Mrs. Clinton from their personal accounts. One email that Mr. Sullivan sent from his personal account to Mrs. Clinton five months before the Benghazi attacks highlighted for her the role she had played in the administration’s toppling of the regime of Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya. -A month after the Benghazi attacks, the Republican controlled House Oversight Committee held a hearing about the security at the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi. Pat Kennedy testified at the hearing. That day Mrs. Clinton wrote in an email to Mr. Sullivan: "Did we survive the day?" “Survive, yes,” Mr. Sullivan said in response. “Pat helped level set things tonight and we’ll see where we are in the morning.” -A month after that hearing, Cheryl Mills forwarded Mrs. Clinton a breaking news alert from Politico about how David Petraeus, who was the director of the C.I.A. at the time of the Benghazi attacks, was going to testify before the House intelligence committee. Mrs. Clinton responded by asking when Mr. Petraeus was going to testify before the Senate intelligence committee. -Shortly after Susan Rice appeared on several Sunday talk shows just five days after the Benghazi attacks Mr. Sullivan sent Mrs. Clinton a transcript from one of Ms. Rice's appearances. "She did make clear our view that this started spontaneously then evolved," Mr. Sullivan said. -Two weeks later, Mr. Sullivan sent Mrs. Clinton an email assuring her that she never described the attacks as spontaneous and never suggested the assailants were motivated by a video. Questions: Why did Mrs. Clinton's staffers at times use their personal accounts to communicate with her? Were all these emails captured in the State Department's network? Were Mrs. Clinton’s advisers given legal advice about whether it was appropriate for them to correspond with her using their personal accounts?