Kevin Allen, Ragan's PR Daily
If
you’ve worked in public relations or media relations for a certain
amount of time, you’ve probably had the urge at some point to send an
angry email to
a reporter.
Hopefully, you slept on it and thought better of it—either tempering your rhetoric or deleting your draft. But longtime Hillary Clinton aide Philippe Reines, though not specifically a PR pro, didn’t follow that advice.
In a series of lengthy (and often angry) email exchanges with reporters, Reines’ intention, no doubt, was to put an end to questions around the use of personal email for government business.
The story has dominated the news as the news media’s vetting process for soon-to-be presidential candidate Clinton has begun early. Clinton asked the State Department Wednesday to disclose her emails to the public and then tweeted her first ever response to a crisis situation via Twitter:
Reporter CJ Ciaramella reached out to Reines via email for comment. What followed was a now well-publicized series of exchanges, where Reines decided to bring in more reporters to the mix who had also written (in his estimation, unfairly) about the Clinton email scandal.
Here’s part of the exchange below (Gawker has the exchange with updated replies). Let us know what you think, PR Daily readers: Justified indignation, or ill-advised communications?
Email No. 1:
Email No. 2:
Email No. 3:
Email No. 4:
Email No. 5:
Subscribe to
Hopefully, you slept on it and thought better of it—either tempering your rhetoric or deleting your draft. But longtime Hillary Clinton aide Philippe Reines, though not specifically a PR pro, didn’t follow that advice.
In a series of lengthy (and often angry) email exchanges with reporters, Reines’ intention, no doubt, was to put an end to questions around the use of personal email for government business.
The story has dominated the news as the news media’s vetting process for soon-to-be presidential candidate Clinton has begun early. Clinton asked the State Department Wednesday to disclose her emails to the public and then tweeted her first ever response to a crisis situation via Twitter:
Reporter CJ Ciaramella reached out to Reines via email for comment. What followed was a now well-publicized series of exchanges, where Reines decided to bring in more reporters to the mix who had also written (in his estimation, unfairly) about the Clinton email scandal.
Here’s part of the exchange below (Gawker has the exchange with updated replies). Let us know what you think, PR Daily readers: Justified indignation, or ill-advised communications?
Email No. 1:
From: CJ Ciaramella
To: Philippe Reines
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 6:47 p.m.
Subject: Comment on private email address at State Dept
To: Philippe Reines
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 6:47 p.m.
Subject: Comment on private email address at State Dept
Hi Philippe,
This is CJ Ciaramella, a reporter for the Washington Free Beacon and
Vice. Wondering if you have any response to this Gawker article alleging
that you and
Huma Abedin used private email addresses to conduct official government
business while at the State Dept:
http://gawker.com/source-top-clinton-aides-used-secret-email-accounts-at-1689246408
As I'm sure you well know, not archiving official business conducted on a
private email address is a violation of the Federal Records Act. A FOIA
request
for your State Dept. emails is also currently being appealed. Please
email or call: [phone number redacted]
Best,
CJ Ciaramella
From: Philippe Reines
To: CJ Ciaramella, J.K. Trotter, Erick Wemple, Brian Stelter, Nick Merrill
Date: Tuesay, March 3, 9:57 p.m.
Subject: Email
To: CJ Ciaramella, J.K. Trotter, Erick Wemple, Brian Stelter, Nick Merrill
Date: Tuesay, March 3, 9:57 p.m.
Subject: Email
Hi CJ. And hi JK.
Since this fundamentally comes down to honesty, transparency and
accountability, I thought we'd go through an exercise together - with
Erik Wemple of The
Washington Post and Brian Stelter of CNN included as observers.
JK,
In your piece, which CJ references below, you wrote:
“'Her top staffers used those Clinton email addresses' at the agency,
said the source, who has worked with Clinton in the past. The source
named two
staffers in particular, Philippe Reines and Huma Abedin, who are said to
have used private email addresses in the course of their agency
duties."
That's a pretty clear assertion by you through your source that they had
firsthand knowledge of my having and using an email account on the
clintonemail.com domain. You then wrote:
"We were able to independantly [SIC] verify that Abedin used a
ClintonEmail.com address at some point in time. There are several email
addresses associated
with Abedin’s name in records maintained by Lexis-Nexis; one of them is huma@clintonemail.com. An email sent to
that address today went through without bouncing."
A few questions:
1) Did you attempt to verify your source's assertion of my use of such
an email using the same creepy methods you did with my close friend and
colleague
Huma Abedin? Assuming you did, why doesn't your piece note the results
of your creepy methods?
2) Did you attempt to send an email to me at that domain, and if so did
it go "through without bouncing"? Assuming you did, why don't you note
the results
of your test?
3) If your lying liar pants on fire source worked with me at a federal
agency as you and they contend, did you ask them to provide even a
single email
exchange with my using that account?
4) Better yet, in the off chance they don't have every single email they
ever sent or received, have you availed yourself of the same FOIA laws
to petition
the lying liar's agency for any email between them and me that you have
with our email?
I mean, you either naively or knowingly swallowed quite the whopper. Not sure which is worse. Actually, that's not true.
Now, on the subject of FOIA...
You have to ask State about your requests, appeals, etc.
But while I have you I'm really hoping you can explain something to me.
You wrote that "The use of private email addresses may explain the State
Department’s puzzling response to several FOIA requests filed by Gawker
in the past two years," continuing, "That request was confoundingly
denied on the
grounds that the State Department had no record of Reines—whose job it
was to communicate with reporters—emailing Hastings or any other
journalists."
So, is your cockamamie theory that the reason there is no record of my
emailing with reporters is because I improperly used my personal email
address to
email with those reporters in an attempt to circumvent FOIA, and that
every one of the many reporters you reasonably assume I emailed with are
in on this
conspiracy of having only emailed with me on my non-official email? All
sorts of media outlets reached out to me, including FOX and The Daily
Caller. Are
they in on it? Is everyone in on it aside from Gawker?
Now, to answer your question: email is a two way street. You'd be
surprised how many reporters deliberately email government officials to
their personal
accounts. You'd be equally surprised to know that when they did, I moved
the exchange to my state.gov account because, between you and me, my
personal
account is about the last place I want to be emailing reporters or
conducting work.
Which brings me to my last question(s) - for both JK & CJ:
Have either of you ever deliberately emailed a US Government official
anywhere other than their official address to discuss official US
Government
business? If so, why? Have you ever received an email from a US
Government official from anywhere other than their official address to
discuss official US
Government business? If so did you ask them why?
Looking forward to your responses!
Philippe
Email No. 3:
From: CJ Ciaramella
To: Philippe Reines, CJ Ciaramella, J.K. Trotter, Erick Wemple, Brian Stelter, Nick Merrill
Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2:30 a.m.
Subject: Re: Email
To: Philippe Reines, CJ Ciaramella, J.K. Trotter, Erick Wemple, Brian Stelter, Nick Merrill
Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2:30 a.m.
Subject: Re: Email
Hi Philippe,
And hello JK and Erik and Brian and Nick. It's wonderful that we can all be here, together.
JK can speak to his article, but the reason I'm interested in your
response is because if, like you say, you didn't use private email and
copied any work
messages to your state.gov account, then State is either lying through
its teeth or wildly incompetent, and flouting the Freedom of Information
Act either
way. That's a distinct possibility, although I'd note that Ben Smith
tweeted out tonight that your exchange with Michael Hastings was
conducted over a
Gmail account.
Best,
CJ Ciaramella
From: Philippe Reines
To: Ben Smith, Josh Gerstein, CJ Ciaramella, J.K. Trotter, Erick Wemple, Brian Stelter, Nick Merrill
Date: Wednesday, March 4
Subject: Re: Email
To: Ben Smith, Josh Gerstein, CJ Ciaramella, J.K. Trotter, Erick Wemple, Brian Stelter, Nick Merrill
Date: Wednesday, March 4
Subject: Re: Email
Good Morning All,
And let me welcome Ben to our little party, because, well, he’s flat out wrong.
Michael emailed me that morning on my State account, I responded from my
State account, I even added a second State person’s State account to
that
exchange, and it entirely remained on our State accounts without my
personal account being referenced or used in any way.
But hey, why let truth or facts get in the way of a good Tweet.
And along those lines, I’ve also added Josh Gerstein of Politico since
I’m now noticing that he is simply swallowing JK's dreck whole and
stating it as
fact. And so Gawker will be repeated over and over because someone flat
out lied to them about my email habits, claiming firsthand knowledge
that I had an
account that I never did. Which was why I originally initiated this
group exchange. Still looking forward to JK’s answers.
As for your requests, I understand your point — and even your
frustration — but I simply can’t address or explain any of that, the
Department has to. That
however doesn’t mean I and others shouldn’t be given the benefit of the
doubt. As I think we can all agree, USG officials are permitted to use
non-official
accounts in the course of their job. There are reasons that happens. An
outsider could email you at your personal account, maybe because they
only have
that address. Maybe their official email is on the fritz. Maybe they
lost their device. Maybe they made a mistake. I don’t know. But again,
there are
legitimate non-nefarious reasons, and there should be a measure of
benefit of the doubt afforded to people. In four years, I must have sent
and received
nearly half a million email. The vast vast vast vast majority, maybe
four ‘vast’s, the overwhelming majority, whatever term means closer to
100% than 99%,
that’s where I’m guessing my average is. If you want to skewer me over a
non-100% rate, I can’t do much about that.
From my perspective, if I were emailing with a reporter, I had to assume
that it could end up in the public domain, as the exchange with Michael
reminded
me the very hard way. That’s just the nature of the beast, and what
email account you use isn’t going to prevent that. Not to mention that
much of what’s
written to reporters is purposefully meant for the public domain since
that’s the job. And believe me, I’d be far happier with you all having a
field day
poring through my largely boring and tedious email, than unfairly and
erroneously reading that I intentionally undermined or circumvented the
process. That
frustrates me as much as State responses are frustrating you.
Anyway, hope this helps.
Philippe
From: Ben Smith
To: CJ Ciaramella, Philippe Reines, CJ Ciaramella, J.K. Trotter, Erick Wemple, Brian Stelter, Nick Merrill
Date: Wednesday, March 4, 7:37 a.m.
Subject: Re: Email
To: CJ Ciaramella, Philippe Reines, CJ Ciaramella, J.K. Trotter, Erick Wemple, Brian Stelter, Nick Merrill
Date: Wednesday, March 4, 7:37 a.m.
Subject: Re: Email
Hey guys: this is my fault. I misremembered. I'm sorry for sewing confusion.
I have corresponded with Philippe on his gmail, but this was not that.
Apologies.
Ben
1 comment:
Asking questions are truly nice thing if you are not understanding anything fully, however this article gives fastidious understanding yet.
Post a Comment