Wikileaks Hillary et al weasel words on Benghazi dead Americans emails technology, Podesta Kendall Mills Abedin and host of others, “I don’t mind the “backs of dead Americans” because we need a bit of moral outrage”, Media “allies”
“I watched her on countless occasions blatantly lie to the American people and knowingly lie.”…Linda Tripp
“The question that I had in my mind, was why did we not do something to protect our forces?”…Charles Woods, father of slain Navy Seal
“The devil’s in that woman.”…Miss Emma, Clinton’s cook, governor’s mansion
The emails speak for themselves.
“From:DKendall@wc.com To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, KTurner@wc.com, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com more Date: 2015-10-18 16:05 Subject: Re: DRAFT: Opening Statement
I like it. My one question: in the 6th graf, before “At this point . . .”, should the following be inserted–“After previously testifying about this matter in both the Senate and the House,”?
From: Dan Schwerin [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 01:40 PM To: Jake Sullivan ; Turner, Katherine; Mandy Grunwald ; Jennifer Palmieri ; Kendall, David; John Podesta ; Adrienne Elrod ; Philippe Reines ; Sara Latham ; Cheryl Mills ; Heather Samuelson ; Brian Fallon ; Huma Abedin ; Phil Schiliro ; Phil Barnett ; Matt Siegler Subject: Re: DRAFT: Opening Statement
Flagging this draft again in hopes folks can take a look. Thanks Dan
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Dan Schwerin > wrote:
Here’s a revised opening statement based on our discussion this morning. Dan
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Jake Sullivan > wrote:
This is a big line of Gowdy questioning. How did you strike balance? Elsewhere you so close up shop when things get dangerous.
On Oct 17, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Turner, Katherine > wrote:
One further thought on the current draft: we might consider softening the “Chris did not believe retreat was an option – and neither do I” line. I don’t think we want to suggest that there was a commitment to be there at any and all costs; but rather, that the known risks were being balanced with the reasons for being there, regular assessments of this balance were made, and that the people on the ground were best-positioned to contribute to those assessments.
From: Dan Schwerin [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 8:07 PM To: Mandy Grunwald; Jennifer Palmieri; Kendall, David; Jake Sullivan; John Podesta; Adrienne Elrod; Philippe Reines; Sara Latham; Cheryl Mills; Heather Samuelson; Turner, Katherine; Brian Fallon; Huma Abedin; Phil Schiliro; Phil Barnett; Matt Siegler Subject: Re: DRAFT: Opening Statement
A few more edits after talking with Phil S
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Dan Schwerin > wrote:
Here are some modest revisions. Am going to send this over to HRC so she can start thinking about it as well. Thanks all. Dan
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Dan Schwerin > wrote:
That “backs of dead Americans” line is stolen from Hard Choices, so maybe a good idea to tweak slightly anyhow. I’ll play with some alternatives. If folks have other concerns before I send on to HRC, please let me know.
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mandy Grunwald > wrote:
I also think it’s strong.
I don’t mind the “backs of dead Americans” because we need a bit of moral outrage. I suppose we can dial the language back, but the sense of outrage should remain. Mandy Grunwald Grunwald Communications 202 973-9400
I think it is good. Imagine the clip they will use is the partisan slugfest sentence. I don’t love “backs of dead Americans” in that sentence. I think that is too graphic and splashes back on her as appearing to exploit their deaths. Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 16, 2015, at 3:40 PM, Kendall, David > wrote:
I like it. Just two thoughts. We twice call the ARB “independent”—I’d prefer to call it “non-partisan” as we do once in the draft. Hard Choices did not call it “independent”, and since it’s appointed by and responsible to the Secretary, I think we open an avenue of attack by calling it “independent”. Can we get some more numbers into the early “diplomacy is dangerous” discussion? Sixty-six American diplomatic personnel and over a hundred contractors and locally employed staff killed since the 1970’s (or whatever the numbers are). I recognize we have some numbers on page 3 (Beirut bombing, 1998 attacks).
From: Dan Schwerin [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 2:31 PM To: Jake Sullivan; John Podesta; Adrienne Elrod; Mandy Grunwald; Philippe Reines; Sara Latham; Cheryl Mills; Heather Samuelson; Kendall, David; Turner, Katherine; Brian Fallon; Jennifer Palmieri; Huma Abedin; Phil Schiliro; Phil Barnett; Matt Siegler Subject: DRAFT: Opening Statement
Here is a draft of HRC’s opening statement based on our discussion today. As Cheryl mentioned, we’d love to get this to HRC for a first read tonight or tomorrow, so quick feedback would be great. Thanks Dan”
From:email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: 2015-03-13 11:02 Subject: Re: Statement
He reacted badly when asked on Sunday show. My perspective is that we want the fight to be about Benghazi, not about servers in her basement. This helps move the story back in that direction. JP –Sent from my iPad– email@example.com For scheduling: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Mar 13, 2015, at 8:50 AM, Cheryl Mills wrote:
Not on board – why poke the bear.
On Mar 13, 2015, at 8:48 AM, John Podesta wrote:
Thoughts? I think we are off an aggressive statement saying I’m ready to testify any place any time. Kendall thinks it will take 3 weeks to prepare on emails, which puts us right up against the launch time. The statement below intended to insert ourselves back into the offense without opening up a response of “ok be here Monday.”
David is ok with calling for the release of what’s already been sent to committee as we are trying to do here. Massively opposed to the first idea of “I’m ready to testify” bravado. Thoughts?
–Sent from my iPad–
For scheduling: email@example.com
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kristina Schake
Date: March 12, 2015 at 7:31:32 PM EDT
To: John Podesta , Jen Palmieri , Robert Mook firstname.lastname@example.org>
John, below is the draft statement that we discussed this morning for your review. After we receive your edits and if you are ok to proceed, we will send this to her in the morning with a note explaining the strategy. Our plan would be to release it mid-day tomorrow to get ahead of Sunday’s shows.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton released the following statement joining the Democrats on the House Select Committee on Benghazi in calling on Chairman Trey Gowdy to publicly release the hundreds of Benghazi-related emails that the State Department has already provided to the Committee.
“The terrorist attacks in Benghazi were a tragedy for our nation and most of all for the families of the brave public servants we lost that day. As Secretary of State, I was ultimately responsible for my people’s safety, and my greatest regret from my time as Secretary is that not all of them returned home to their families. That is why from the start I ordered everyone at the State Department to cooperate fully with every investigation and every attempt to learn lessons from this tragedy that could help better protect our people in the future.
In addition to a comprehensive investigation by an independent Accountability Review Board, nine different Congressional committees have now held hearings on Benghazi and reviewed thousands of pages of documents.
I myself have publicly testified before both the House and Senate and held a classified briefing for members, and the State Department has provided hundreds of relevant documents and emails. I’ve already said that I’m more than happy to testify again. We should all focus on constructive steps that advance our national security, not political posturing.
Today I join Congressman Cummings and the Democrats on the House Select Committee on Benghazi in calling on Chairman Gowdy to immediately release all my emails related to Benghazi, many of which he has had since August. Those emails should be available immediately while the State Department works on my request to release all of my work-related emails to the public – an unprecedented disclosure far beyond any official requirement.
I hope the Committee acts quickly, and that it’s focus going forward is on preventing attacks like this in the future.
From:email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: 2015-08-08 14:59 Subject: Re: Open Letter
On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 12:54 PM, John Podesta wrote:
Sorry, one more edit. I think we should drop the sentence on how
classified info was delivered. It opens the door to “briefed classified
info” ending up in emails.
Otherwise I’m fine.
On Saturday, August 8, 2015, Huma Abedin wrote:
if we aim for statement today, avail monday and univision on tuesday, i
On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Jennifer Palmieri
Dan – I will send her the statement and press plan so we can present in
I have a new thought on potential interviewer – Maria Elena Salinas of
I would bill it as an interview on college affordability and she would
ask her a few questions on emails.
As you all know, I had hoped that we could use the “server moment” as an
opportunity for her to be viewed as having take a big step to deal with the
email problem that would best position us for what is ahead. It is clear
that she is not in same place (unless John has a convo with her and gets
her in a different place).
Accepting that, I think Univision is best chance for success. We have
momentum coming out of Jeb’s women’s health comment and their bad debate.
A Univision interview will be viewed as more offense and show that she is
confident and not rattled.
How does that strike folks?
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 8, 2015, at 12:22 PM, Dan Schwerin
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 8, 2015, at 12:28 PM, Heather Samuelson
I’m fine with “consistent with practice of prior Secretaries..” But
will remove reference to Powell in factsheet so we don’t single him out.
Will send around revisions to factsheet momentarily.
*From:* Dan Schwerin
*Sent:* Saturday, August 8, 2015 12:22 PM
*To:* Jennifer Palmieri
*Cc:* Heather Samuelson, Christina Reynolds, Huma Abedin, Nick Merrill, Kendall,
David, Cheryl Mills, Robby Mook, Brian Fallon, Kristina Schake, Jake
Sullivan, Katherine Turner, John Podesta
Revised. Please take another quick look as I think we should get to her
asap. Two questions:
1) What do we do about Powell? Here I’ve mirrored language from the
Q&A, which says “consistent with the practice of prior Secretaries of
State,” but are we comfortable with that?
2) Am i sending her this and the spox statement or Jen, so you want to
do that? Either way, we’ll need to explain the two options.
On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Jennifer Palmieri
Plus Reynolds to this chain
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 8, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Heather Samuelson
How about this: Dan — will call you.
When I arrived at the State Department in early 2009, I immediately got
to work rebuilding America’s tarnished global reputation and take on
pressing challenges in nearly every region of the world. At the time,
using a personal account seemed convenient. Previous Secretaries of
State had used personal email accounts with no problems.”
“One other point is that there is very little in the talking points about the emails. That may make sense, but if you want talking points for allies to use, here would be two possible ones to add:”
More emails involving Attorney David Kendall here: