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

Re: one chain on DOMA

Last line should read "wink-wink walkback", by which I mean a statement that doesnt technically disavow HRC's debunked theory, but that our LGBT allies will nevertheless view as a mea culpa. On Oct 25, 2015 9:05 PM, "Brian Fallon" <bfallon@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: > Yes, if we want to be in the story. Keep in mind: the story will suck > regardless. But I would just say we should use it as the vehicle for giving > a statement that reads as a walkback, even as HRC will never approve a true > walkback, and then we circulate the story to our LGBT friends so they see > that both they humbled us with a bad story and we highlight our statement > giving a win-win walkback, and we move on. > On Oct 25, 2015 9:01 PM, "Robby Mook" <re47@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: > >> Do we need to get back to Huffpo tonight? >> >> >> >> On Oct 25, 2015, at 8:40 PM, Brian Fallon <bfallon@hillaryclinton.com> >> wrote: >> >> Here is what we have: Huffington post is doing a story tomorrow "fact >> checking" the idea that there was a push for a constitutional amendment in >> 1996, as HRC claimed was true. The piece will essentially say there was >> not, and will quote Rosen's tweet and Evan Wolfson saying this was not true >> and was hardly a basis for DOMA to be signed by WJC. >> >> Xochitl has also gotten an inquiry from the Blade. >> >> In addition to this, Socarides tells us he heard from NYT on this, though >> the campaign has not, so we do not know what he is referring to. I would >> not be surptised, however, if activists we're pitching this. >> >> All that said, I do not think a statement from HRC is warranted simply >> based on these inquiries. Indeed, I think a statement from her likely >> attracts more coverage than just these inquiries and also could give the >> appearance that we are responding to Bernie at JJ, rather than clarifying >> our own remarks to Maddow. I missed the beginning of tbe conf call this >> afternoon on thia, but i had assumed we were preparing an HRC statement >> less for HuffPo and more because that is what political thought was needed >> to quell the LGBT backlash. >> >> If that is not the case, then for my purposes, I would just propose a >> spokesman statement that accounts for Dan's point (that she will not >> disavow her theory about the constitutional amendment) but also addresses >> the community's outrage over the idea that we might be trying to justify >> support for the law in 96 by saying something like, "Regardless of the >> differing motives that led to the passage of DOMA, none were justifiable >> since, as both Hillary and President clinton have said, the law was clearly >> discriminatory." >> I'm not sure anyone has asked. We would put it out there. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Oct 25, 2015, at 7:53 PM, Kristina Schake <kschake@hillaryclinton.com> >> wrote: >> >> Sorry to be late to this but what outlets have made the statement request >> and what is the deadline? >> >> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Dominic Lowell < >> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: >> >>> Amanda and I tried to address Tony and Dan's points -- as well as Karen >>> who pointed out the context is bigger than just Maddow -- while taking into >>> account the concerns of our cabinet. Below is what we landed on. Appreciate >>> feedback. >>> >>> ** >>> >>> On Friday, and in many instances previously, I was asked about my >>> position on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I appreciate that people >>> have differing views of the DOMA situation [other word?] in 1996. The >>> environment for gays and lesbians was different then and there were >>> struggles about the best paths to take. That is common in all social change >>> movements. I have been very open that my own views have evolved over the >>> years. >>> >>> I hope the important thing is that we are now moving forward toward >>> justice, together. >>> In 2013, I added my voice in support of marriage equality “personally >>> and as a matter of policy and law.” As I said then, LGBT Americans are >>> full and equal citizens and they deserve the full and equal rights of >>> citizenship. Like so many others, my personal views have been shaped over >>> time by people I have known and loved, by my experience representing our >>> nation on the world stage, my devotion to law and human rights, and the >>> guiding principles of my faith. That’s why, as a Senator, I pushed for laws >>> that would extend protections to the LGBT community in the workplace and >>> that would make violence towards LGBT individuals a hate crime. And as >>> Secretary of State, I put LGBT rights on the global agenda and told the >>> world that “gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights.” >>> In my speech last night in Iowa, I didn’t look back to the America of the >>> past, I looked forward to the America we need to build together. I pledged >>> to fight for LGBT Americans who, despite all our progress, in many places >>> can still get married on Saturday and fired on Monday just because of who >>> they are and who they love. In this campaign and as President, I will keep >>> fighting for equality and opportunity for every American. >>> >>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Amanda Renteria < >>> arenteria@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The hope is to squash the story bc it's not going away. >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 7:35 PM, Kristina Schake < >>>> kschake@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> What do we actually have to do here? I'm not sure a statement will >>>> help us. Do we need to response to the Huffington Post? Is that the main >>>> request? >>>> >>>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Amanda Renteria < >>>> arenteria@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> What about broadening the perspectives at that time? >>>>> Acknowledging there were a lot of diff views vs she was wrong. ? >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:57 PM, Tony Carrk <tcarrk@hillaryclinton.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> And also for awareness for everyone to have, attached are HRC’s >>>>> comments on DOMA Carter from my team put together. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Dan Schwerin [mailto:dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com] >>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, October 25, 2015 6:56 PM >>>>> *To:* Amanda Renteria <arenteria@hillaryclinton.com> >>>>> *Cc:* Dominic Lowell <dlowell@hillaryclinton.com>; Karen Finney < >>>>> kfinney@hillaryclinton.com>; Maya Harris <mharris@hillaryclinton.com>; >>>>> Heather Stone <hstone@hillaryclinton.com>; Robby Mook < >>>>> re47@hillaryclinton.com>; Jake Sullivan <jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com>; >>>>> Jennifer Palmieri <jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com>; Brian Fallon < >>>>> bfallon@hillaryclinton.com>; Kristina Schake < >>>>> kschake@hillaryclinton.com>; Marlon Marshall < >>>>> mmarshall@hillaryclinton.com>; Tony Carrk <tcarrk@hillaryclinton.com>; >>>>> Brynne Craig <bcraig@hillaryclinton.com>; Sally Marx < >>>>> smarx@hillaryclinton.com>; Teddy Goff <tgoff@hillaryclinton.com>; >>>>> John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com>; Christina Reynolds < >>>>> creynolds@hillaryclinton.com> >>>>> *Subject:* Re: one chain on DOMA >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think everyone agrees we shouldn't restate her argument. Question is >>>>> whether she's going to agree to explicitly disavow it. And I doubt it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Amanda Renteria < >>>>> arenteria@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> There is no way we have friends to back us up on her interpretation. >>>>> This is a major problem if we revisit her argument like this. It's better >>>>> to do nothing than to re-state this although she is going to get a question >>>>> again. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Working w Dominic now. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:34 PM, Dan Schwerin < >>>>> dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'm not saying double down or ever say it again. I'm just saying that >>>>> she's not going to want to say she was wrong about that, given she and her >>>>> husband believe it and have repeated it many times. Better to reiterate >>>>> evolution, opposition to DOMA when court considered it, and forward looking >>>>> stance. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Dominic Lowell < >>>>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Jumping on a call with the kitchen cabinet now to give them an update. >>>>> Will turn to this ASAP. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The most recent Blade article has Elizabeth Birch quoted as saying >>>>> there was no amendment threat in 1996. Hilary Rosen has already tweeted the >>>>> same. I'll ask on the call, but my sense is that there aren't many friends >>>>> who will back us up on the point. That's why I'm urging us to back off as >>>>> much as we can there. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> More soon. >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dan Schwerin < >>>>> dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'd welcome specific edits. I'm fine not mentioning WJC if that's >>>>> problematic, but my two cents is that you're not going to get her to >>>>> disavow her explanation about the constitutional amendment and this >>>>> exercise will be most effective if it provides some context and then goes >>>>> on offense. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:15 PM, Karen Finney <kfinney@hillaryclinton.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> If the criticism is that she has said before and reiterated on Friday >>>>> then hit by Bernie yesterday is t that the context? >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Dominic Lowell < >>>>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, on phone so focused more on overall thoughts than line edits. >>>>> Can call you directly if any of this is unclear. Sending to all so people >>>>> can react, push back, etc. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I originally flagged HRC's Maddow remarks as potentially problematic >>>>> in part because her wording closely linked her to two unfavorable policies >>>>> of the past even as no one in the community was asking her to "own" them. >>>>> Given that, my recommendation would be to make this statement about just >>>>> her, her evolution, and her record -- not bring in WJC. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Relatedly, if we release a statement tonight, it will very clearly be >>>>> in response to the Maddow interview. To the extent we can, I advocate for >>>>> owning that so that we can clean this up completely, rightly position her >>>>> as a champion of LGBT issues, and make sure we move on from any discussion >>>>> of looming amendments or her being involved in passing either DADT or DOMA. >>>>> Without getting into the weeds, can we say that the broader point is that >>>>> the country is in a different place now on LGBT issues -- and thank >>>>> goodness it is -- and that she's so happy each policy has been placed in >>>>> the dustbin of history? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Last thought: I have raised this a few times to a smaller number of >>>>> people on this thread but will flag this for the larger group as well. At >>>>> Keene State College, she specifically cited friends playing a part in her >>>>> evolution, which we echo here. That's fine, IMO, and quite believable. But >>>>> if I were a reporter and wanted to keep the evolution story alive, I would >>>>> start asking which friends she was talking to and ask us to provide them. >>>>> Not a problem per se, but I think it is worth flagging now so we aren't >>>>> caught by surprise later. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dan Schwerin < >>>>> dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This is a little long, but see what you think. Tried to 1) place this >>>>> in a context of 'asked and answered,' 2) point to how they've both >>>>> forthrightly explained their evolution, 3) cite her positive LGBT record, >>>>> 4) get in a little dig at Sanders for being so backwards looking. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> STATEMENT >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In 2013, when the Supreme Court was considering whether to uphold the >>>>> Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Bill and I explained publicly how and why >>>>> we became strong supporters of marriage equality. Bill, who signed DOMA >>>>> nearly twenty years ago after an overwhelming vote in Congress, called the >>>>> law a discriminatory vestige of a less tolerant America and urged the Court >>>>> to strike it down. I added my voice in support of marriage equality >>>>> “personally and as a matter of policy and law.” As I said then, LGBT >>>>> Americans are full and equal citizens and they deserve the full and equal >>>>> rights of citizenship. Like so many others, my personal views have been >>>>> shaped over time by people I have known and loved, by my experience >>>>> representing our nation on the world stage, my devotion to law and human >>>>> rights, and the guiding principles of my faith. That’s why, as a Senator, >>>>> I pushed for laws that would extend protections to the LGBT community in >>>>> the workplace and that would make violence towards LGBT individuals a hate >>>>> crime. And as Secretary of State, I put LGBT rights on the global agenda >>>>> and told the world that “gay rights are human rights and human rights are >>>>> gay rights.” In my speech last night in Iowa, I didn’t look back to the >>>>> America of the past, I looked forward to the America we need to build >>>>> together. I pledged to fight for LGBT Americans who, despite all our >>>>> progress, in many places can still get married on Saturday and fired on >>>>> Monday just because of who they are and who they love. In this campaign >>>>> and as President, I will keep fighting for equality and opportunity for >>>>> every American. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Dominic Lowell < >>>>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> +Amanda's work account. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Maya Harris <mharris@hillaryclinton.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> From Richard: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Since I was asked on Friday about the Defense of Marriage Act in an >>>>> interview on MSNBC, I've checked with people who were involved then to make >>>>> sure I had all my facts right. It turns out I was mistaken and the effort >>>>> to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage came some >>>>> years later. The larger point I was trying to make about DOMA, however, is >>>>> still true. It was neither proposed nor supported by anyone in the Clinton >>>>> administration at the time. It was an effort by the Republicans in Congress >>>>> to distract attention from the real issues facing the country by using gay >>>>> marriage, which had very little support then, as a wedge issue in the >>>>> election. The legislation passed by overwhelming veto-proof margins in both >>>>> houses of Congress and President Clinton signed it with serious >>>>> reservations he expressed at the time. Luckily the country has evolved way >>>>> beyond this in the last 20 years and most Americans, including the Supreme >>>>> Court, now embrace LGBT equality. We are a better country for it. Although >>>>> there is much work that remains, and I'm eager to help advance the day when >>>>> we are all truly equal. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Dominic Lowell < >>>>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> + JP's personal email >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dominic Lowell < >>>>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Here is what Gautam put together to be helpful: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "I'm not my husband. I understand why he believed that was the right >>>>> thing to do at the time, but obviously I wish it had gone differently. >>>>> Look, we've all come along way since the 90s and I'm proud to have been a >>>>> part of an Administration that has made it possible for gay troops to serve >>>>> openly and loving gay couples to get married. I'm also proud of MY record >>>>> as Secretary of State. I think the community knows I will be the ally they >>>>> deserve." >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dan Schwerin < >>>>> dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This WJC op-Ed may be helpful: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bill-clinton-its-time-to-overturn-doma/2013/03/07/fc184408-8747-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bill Clinton: It’s time to overturn DOMA >>>>> >>>>> *The writer is the 42nd president of the United States.* >>>>> >>>>> *I*n 1996, I signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Although that was >>>>> only 17 years ago, it was a very different time. In no state in the union >>>>> was same-sex marriage recognized, much less available as a legal right, but >>>>> some were moving in that direction. Washington, as a result, was swirling >>>>> with all manner of possible responses, some quite draconian. As a >>>>> bipartisan group of former senators stated in their March 1 amicus brief to >>>>> the Supreme Court, many supporters of the bill known as DOMA believed that >>>>> its passage “would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment >>>>> banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or >>>>> more.” It was under these circumstances that DOMA came to my desk, opposed >>>>> by only 81 of the 535 members of Congress. >>>>> >>>>> On March 27, DOMA will come before the Supreme Court >>>>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2012/12/07/the-supreme-court-takes-up-doma/>, >>>>> and the justices must decide whether it is consistent with the principles >>>>> of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all, and is >>>>> therefore constitutional. As the president who signed the act into law, I >>>>> have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in >>>>> fact, incompatible with our Constitution. >>>>> >>>>> Because Section 3 of the act defines marriage as being between a man >>>>> and a woman, same-sex couples who are legally married in nine states and >>>>> the District of Columbia are denied the benefits of more than a thousand >>>>> federal statutes and programs available to other married couples. Among >>>>> other things, these couples cannot file their taxes jointly, take unpaid >>>>> leave to care for a sick or injured spouse or receive equal family health >>>>> and pension benefits as federal civilian employees. Yet they pay taxes, >>>>> contribute to their communities and, like all couples, aspire to live in >>>>> committed, loving relationships, recognized and respected by our laws. >>>>> >>>>> When I signed the bill, I included a statement >>>>> <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/ftp/wpaf2mc/clinton.html> with >>>>> the admonition that “enactment of this legislation should not, despite the >>>>> fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to >>>>> provide an excuse for discrimination.” Reading those words today, I know >>>>> now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law >>>>> is itself discriminatory. It should be overturned. >>>>> >>>>> We are still a young country, and many of our landmark civil rights >>>>> decisions are fresh enough that the voices of their champions still echo, >>>>> even as the world that preceded them becomes less and less familiar. We >>>>> have yet to celebrate the centennial of the 19th Amendment, but a society >>>>> that denied women the vote would seem to us now not unusual or >>>>> old-fashioned but alien. I believe that in 2013 DOMA and opposition to >>>>> marriage equality are vestiges of just such an unfamiliar society. >>>>> >>>>> Americans have been at this sort of a crossroads often enough to >>>>> recognize the right path. We understand that, while our laws may at times >>>>> lag behind our best natures, in the end they catch up to our core values. >>>>> One hundred fifty years ago, in the midst of the Civil War, President >>>>> Abraham Lincoln concluded a message to Congress by posing the very question >>>>> we face today: “It is not ‘Can any of us imagine better?’ but ‘Can we >>>>> all do better <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29503>?’ >>>>> ” >>>>> >>>>> The answer is of course and always yes. In that spirit, I join with >>>>> the Obama administration, the petitioner Edith Windsor >>>>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/edie-windsors-fight-for-same-sex-marriage-rights-continues-even-after-partners-death/2012/07/19/gJQARguhwW_story.html>, >>>>> and the many other dedicated men and women who have engaged in this >>>>> struggle for decades in urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of >>>>> Marriage Act. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Kate Offerdahl < >>>>> kofferdahl@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all - we are going to do 4:30. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Those here at the Hilton can take the call from the staff room. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Call-In: 718-441-3763, no pin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 4:14 PM, Heather Stone <hstone@hillaryclinton.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Looping in Kate. She is going to get it scheduled. >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dominic Lowell < >>>>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> All times are good for me. >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Heather Stone <hstone@hillaryclinton.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Sounds like tony can do 4:15? Can others? If not I could do anytime >>>>> before 5:15 or after 6. >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Robby Mook <re47@hillaryclinton.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Adding Dominic. >>>>> >>>>> Agree--let's get our people on a call and push back >>>>> >>>>> I'm also tied up for next few hours @ finance stuff. But let's get >>>>> this moving. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jake Sullivan < >>>>> jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Adding Tony, who recalls this from ’08 when she made a similar >>>>> argument. We did not turn up much to support idea that alternative was a >>>>> constitutional amendment. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Also adding Schwerin. I think we should pull her statements around >>>>> the time she embraced marriage equality and place greatest emphasis on the >>>>> fact that she fully acknowledges that she evolved. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I’m on calls next two hours but Maya has my proxy. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Jennifer Palmieri [mailto:jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com] >>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, October 25, 2015 3:46 PM >>>>> *To:* Brian Fallon <bfallon@hillaryclinton.com>; John Podesta < >>>>> jp66@hillaryclinton.com>; Robby Mook <re47@hillaryclinton.com>; >>>>> Kristina Schake <kschake@hillaryclinton.com>; Maya Harris < >>>>> mharris@hillaryclinton.com>; Jake Sullivan < >>>>> jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com>; Marlon Marshall < >>>>> mmarshall@hillaryclinton.com>; Heather Stone < >>>>> hstone@hillaryclinton.com> >>>>> *Subject:* one chain on DOMA >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Think all of us are getting incoming from friends in LGBT community >>>>> about DOMA comments. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> HuffPo has reached out to us. I heard from Socarides that NYT was >>>>> doing something. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have no understanding of the issue – but clear this has a head of >>>>> steam. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Brian can put a statement out, but policy and political need to tell >>>>> us what you want us to do. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would suggest a conference call with relevant parties for how we are >>>>> going to handle all around – press, groups, politics. I have a bad >>>>> schedule for rest of day and may not be able to be on such a call but >>>>> don’t think I am needed. We just need guidance and then on political end >>>>> think we need a plan for how to hose down anxious friends. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Dominic Lowell >>>>> >>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America >>>>> >>>>> 661.364.5186 >>>>> >>>>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Dominic Lowell >>>>> >>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America >>>>> >>>>> 661.364.5186 >>>>> >>>>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Dominic Lowell >>>>> >>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America >>>>> >>>>> 661.364.5186 >>>>> >>>>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Dominic Lowell >>>>> >>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America >>>>> >>>>> 661.364.5186 >>>>> >>>>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Dominic Lowell >>>>> >>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America >>>>> >>>>> 661.364.5186 >>>>> >>>>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Dominic Lowell >>>>> >>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America >>>>> >>>>> 661.364.5186 >>>>> >>>>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <HRC DOMA.DOCX> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Kristina Schake | Communications >>>> Hillary for America >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dominic Lowell >>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America >>> 661.364.5186 >>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Kristina Schake | Communications >> Hillary for America >> >> >>