Leaks

I've spoken or corresponded with a few people on my policy teams.  I recommend that we share no policy documents with the agency review teams -- including the leads.  For the 20-page documents this week, I have grave reservations about electronic distribution to anyone other than members of the board and the most senior members of the staff. I see very little upside to broader distribution, and a great deal of risk, especially prior to 11/4.


--
(personal email)
Christopher Edley, Jr.
Professor and Dean
UC Berkeley Law School

Hi,

 

I think this is a good idea. 

 

So it is not perceived as a snub by us policy teams, could someone on the board let the agency leads know that this is a general decision and why?  At least the HHS team knows we are working on a memo (draft has not been shared).  We are trying to do that “lashing up” thing and would appreciate that the news not come from us. 

 

Thanks, Jeanne

 

 

John,

 

Well, we didn't quite get to Friday before the "official" leaks.  Unless I get different guidance from you, I still plan no comments and no confirmations of anything, including a meeting. 

 

I have re-done my schedule for Monday at Minot Air Force Base to accommodate a 9:30 a.m. announcement in Chicago.  (I will be flying in from the west coast Sunday night.)  Because this has inconvenienced a lot of Air Force folks, I hope that plan stays in place.

 

I thought a good meeting  yesterday.  Hope you all thought so as well.

 

Bob

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. 


  Original Message  
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

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. 


  Original Message  
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

---------- 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.

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 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. 


  Original Message  
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

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

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