Re: NYT Latest

From:nmerrill@hrcoffice.com To: pir@hrcoffice.com CC: jake.sullivan@gmail.com, cheryl.mills@gmail.com, hsamuelson@cdmillsgroup.com, jennifer.m.palmieri@gmail.com, john.podesta@gmail.com Date: 2015-03-22 19:54 Subject: Re: NYT Latest

The below is perfect in my view. In terms of content, do we just not get into that or do we think about filling that out for him some with what Heather pulled? On Mar 22, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Philippe Reines <pir@hrcoffice.com<mailto:pir@hrcoffice.com>> wrote: Yes. [X] 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?