Date: 2015-03-17 18:46 Subject:
OK with me.
Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 4:39 PM To: Jennifer Palmieri <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Robby Mook <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Philippe Reines <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Huma Abedin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, John Podesta <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, “[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>” <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Cheryl Mills <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Joanne Laszczych <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Eryn Sepp <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, NSM <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Jacob Sullivan <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Fwd: NYT |
Email Content Responding from my gmail as I’m having iCloud email issues. Can folks get on the phone at 5:15pm today? ———-
Forwarded message ———-
Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:31 PM
Subject: Fwd: NYT | Email Content
To: Marissa Astor <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> ———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Jennifer Palmieri <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:06 PM Subject: Re: NYT | Email Content
Praise Jesus. Please do, Marissa.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Robby Mook <
[email protected]<mailto:
[email protected]>> wrote: Agree Marissa can sched if you need On Mar 17, 2015, at 4:03 PM, Jennifer Palmieri <
[email protected]<mailto:
[email protected]>> wrote: +
Robby and John Strikes me as a big problem that the NYT is having selected emails leaked to them and I I think we should do a call to discuss the proper way to handle. On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Philippe Reines <
[email protected]<mailto:
[email protected]>> wrote: There’s a lot to respond to here, but first and foremost the premise is wrong. There is nothing wrong with anyone having personal email addresses or her emailing someone’s private account or vice versa. Maybe she was wishing Jake a happy birthday. Or I was sending her a note about her mom. Or she asking Monica about Oscar disappearing. We’re allowed to have personal lives. Second, it was her practice, as well as ours, to conduct work on the .gov system. In those cases we didn’t, which could have been for any reason, including State.gov<http://State.gov> being down. In those cases the onus is on us to make sure that anything that should have ended up in the right place did. Now, depending on what they are looking at, you can’t easily determine if that happened. They are looking at HER email, not ours. They don’t know what next step we took. The most important thing to ascertain from State is whether they are looking at specific email from the “300” – because in those cases Heather and I went one by one to determine if a) it needed to end up on .gov, and b) it did indeed end up there. Since there are less than a dozen instances of this in the 300 it was easy. One is me sending her a clip, no commentary. Another is her emailing me & Huma about something that I subsequently followed up on my .gov account. We did that for each and could share that if need be. If they’ve somehow seen some of the other 55k, we’d need to see each to determine what they were. Lastly, we should warn Monica. Huma, unless you want to Nick or I can.
From: Nick Merrill Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 3:13 PM
To: Jennifer Palmieri; Cheryl Mills; Philippe Reines; Heather Samuelson; Huma Abedin; Jacob Sullivan
Subject: NYT | Email Content Here is the story that I mentioned hearing from State about over the weekend. Specific questions are below. Jen when we talked over the weekend you noted that it was fairly irresponsible for them to cherry pick leaked emails and write it up as representative. And some of the questions below are a little ridiculous to say the least. I’ll call State now and see what they know and report back. I also asked what their deadline was. Nick
From: <Schmidt>, Mike Schmidt <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 2:53 PM To: NSM <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: emails Nick, We’re preparing a story on how Mrs. Clinton’s top advisers at the State Department used their private email accounts for some of their email correspondences with her. We’ve learned that Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, Philippe Reines, Jake Sullivan and Monica Hanley, used personal email accounts to correspond with her on her personal account. She also corresponded with Sidney Blumenthal about inside information he had about Libya. We have the following questions for our article: Why did the advisers use private email accounts – instead of government ones – to correspond with Mrs. Clinton? Was this the normal practice? Why did Mrs. Clinton suggest that her emails were being captured in the State Department system when she was corresponding at times with her aides on their personal accounts? Were Mrs. Clinton’s advisers given legal advice about whether it was appropriate for them to correspond with her using their personal accounts? Why did Mrs. Clinton rely on the advice of Sidney Blumenthal? — Marissa E. Astor
[email protected]<http://
[email protected]> (301) 613–3675
Observer: In Washington, D.C., many things start with words printed on congressional letterhead. Earlier this year, 64 GOP members of Congress asked the IRS to investigate why the foundation can keep its nonprofit status. The letter includes “media reports” claiming pay-to-play relationships between former President Bill Clinton, who received large speaking fees, and decisions made by Hillary Clinton to approve choices that benefited foundation donors. The sources of these reports range from The New York Times to hit-piece investigative books.
In July, the IRS sent letters back to the Congress informing members the review had begun. The letter also noted that the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division (TE/GE) office in Dallas would be conducting the review.
IRS spokespeople in Dallas and Washington won’t say why the review is being conducted in Dallas. Spokespeople claim even this information would violate rules — Code 6103, staff make sure to cite — that stop them from discussing ongoing examinations. IRS officials declined to provide details about the Dallas office, including its size, or comment on the TE/GE work in general.
In 2014, the Clinton Foundation tallied its salaries at more than $26 million, according to IRS filings. So that puts the Clinton Fpundarion square in the middle of the Work Plan’s enforcement strategy.
Stoltz says the complexity of the Clinton Foundation’s work means such an examination would take months. The IRS said it began the review in July.
Staff with Texas Congressman Pete Sessions, who signed the letter, tell the Observer that they have not heard back from the IRS with any updates or an estimate of when their examination will be complete. No one expects a decision before Nov. 8.
The case against the Clinton Foundation is multifaceted. One common attack is that the foundation has overextended its original mandate. “The Foundation’s original application to the IRS in 1997 advised that it was formed to construct a library, maintain a historical site with records, and engage in study and research,” said Tennessee Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn in an email to the
Observer. “It did not indicate an intent to conduct activities outside of the United States, which was on one of the codes included in the IRS ‘Application for Recognition for Exemption’ in effect at the time. This would appear to prohibit much of the overseas work the Foundation has performed.”
Read more here from the Dallas Observer.
