Re: Leaks

From:john.podesta@gmail.com To: pir@hrcoffice.com Date: 2015-03-09 22:39 Subject: Re: Leaks

I'm not trying to throw you in the ditch. I just want you to stop whipping her up beyond what she is quite capable of doing on her own. On Mar 9, 2015 5:09 PM, "Philippe Reines" <pir@hrcoffice.com> wrote: > My reaction was more than a little because I don’t want the next thing > we read to be that Cheryl & my (and Heather’s) names were part of this, > then not. > > I’d also like you to know though that last night I suggested very > strongly to her in writing and then on the phone that if she disagreed with > their recommendation — which at that time she was doing — I would not relay > that back, that he/they/one of them deserved the right to make their case > directly to her to either change her mind or know they couldn’t, that it > can’t keep being me or Cheryl with the, HRC said X, HRC told us Y. That > doing so will only lead people to say If only, and that she should call Joel… > Believe me it did not go over well with her. All sorts of crazy responses, > my favorite being, Well he can call me whenever he wants. But I’m happy I > did, because as you know she called him first thing this morning. I’m going > to give myself a pat on the back because I believe she needs to work with > them directly. I’m probably as happy about it as he is. So while our > exchange might not make it seem so, and my too-often caustic nature doesn’t > help, I want this to succeed far more than you know. And I firmly believe > that doing so means I shouldn’t be 50% in 50% out. Should be 100/0 or > 0/100. It’s clear you don’t think it should be 100% in. That’s a bitter > pill to swallow. Not because I want to, but because how much I respect you > and how hard it is to accept that you have determined that my downsides > have exceeded my upsides. > > 0% in is an extreme, but I want to be as close to that as possible. So > it being tough to accept after nearly 13 years of waking up everyday > working for her, you and I are in agreement. Things like this will > occasionally make that tough, especially at the outset, but it will be far > far easier than everyone thinks. I have told each person I’ve met > with — John A., Jim, Jen, Kristina, who were great in reaching out — that > if she wants to be President, I want to help her do so. And I am more than > prepared to define help as stepping back & away to allow a new team to gel > & function without someone saying, She doesn’t like this, she won’t go for > that. Who cares what’s happened. The past didn’t work out too well and > there’s far less downside to reinventing the wheel than people always say. > Maybe there’s a better wheel. Or at worst, you end up with the same wheel > but needed to go through that process yourself to come to that > conclusion. I am completely serious on that point and have said it to Jen & > Kristina on a near-daily basis. She picked the right press team, they don’t > need me as training wheels. They need to be able to succeed the way they > will, but occasionally fail along the way. > > Once we are past the worst of this, my participation should be dialed > way back down to where you decided it to be, with clear boundaries, which > honestly, is where I need it to be for myself. > > > > From: Philippe Reines > Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 7:38 PM > To: John Podesta > Subject: Re: Leaks > > Ok. > > From: John Podesta > Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 7:16 PM > To: Philippe Reines > Subject: Re: Leaks > > 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 >>> >>>