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

Re: Re: Leaks

From:jennifer.m.palmieri@gmail.com To: john.podesta@gmail.com Date: 2015-03-09 21:42 Subject: Re: Re: Leaks

Nice. I cant tell you how many emails there have been from him about leaks. I stopped reading them. Got real work to do, people! It is really crazy, worse than I thought. Thank you for both of these. On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:31 PM, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> wrote: > One more from me to PIR only > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "John Podesta" <john.podesta@gmail.com> > Date: Mar 9, 2015 4:16 PM > Subject: Re: Leaks > To: "Philippe Reines" <pir@hrcoffice.com> > Cc: > > 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 >>> >>>