walkafyre
This is huge. Grassley letter re ICIG transcripts - and they’re attached!
🚁 DustOff (Ret) 🇺🇸 🇺🇸
Who fits here? Cody Shearer? Was he CIA?
https://t.co/JPygiEjNzS— Mccabe's Porsche on blocks (@Larry_Beech) August 15, 2019
Cindi Heng
One less partisan Democrat in the Dept. of Commerce.
"Steve Haro moves to Senator Feinstein’s office from the Department of Commerce, where he serves as assistant secretary for legislative and intergovernmental affairs."
Quarkdetector 🌌
OSC = Office of Special Counsel? Carolyn Lerner?
OSC = Office of Special Counsel?
Carolyn Lerner?https://t.co/ciw19y2z3U— Quarkdetector 🌌 (@quarkdetector) August 15, 2019
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 5:16 PM, John Podesta wrote:
Talked to Valerie Green, new head of PPO. She is looking into it.
On Feb 24, 2015 2:51 PM, "Carolyn Lerner" lerner.carolyn wrote:
John – I spoke to Luke and he suggested I follow-up with you. Just to re-cap, my five year term as head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel is up next June.
If re-nominated, I anticipate getting plenty of R support
- Grassley and Lee might be my biggest fans in the Senate - but the later we go into the President’s term it may be hard for anyone to get through.
I'd also like to reassure my political folks here at OSC that re-nomination is on the horizon so they don't start leaving.
Any insights into how I should approach this would be much appreciated.
Thanks so much.
Carolyn
Timing Podesta
Timing …
Podesta https://t.co/gC2LyC8Yxd
Podestahttps://t.co/PZdE1mL4CT— Quarkdetector 🌌 (@quarkdetector) August 15, 2019
Re: Dinner tomorrow night
From:john.podesta
To: peterkadzik
Date: 2016-01-13 01:39
Subject: Re: Dinner tomorrow night
Yes sorry. 7:30 at our place
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016, Peter Kadzik wrote:
> We on?
To: john.podestaPodestahttps://t.co/SojXsEPfIl— Quarkdetector 🌌 (@quarkdetector) August 15, 2019
Date: 2015-09-30 20:02
Subject: follow up to our chat
Quick follow up: I am more concerned after our call than I was before. For all reasons discussed and many more, she and the campaign need an objective view of what occurred when, with whose advice, what motivation, etc.; on the current issue getting most traction, plus others in which the same or similar set of players were/are involved. The deep dive must be from unbiased perspective, but with legal, communications and political judgment (and obviously subject to AC privilege). Preferably from a loyalist, but not an insider. Yes, I and a team can do that, but regardless of who, I urge it happen. I have some sense of the internal politics around making this happen, but those sensitivities are exhibit A for why a change needs be made to how these issues are being understood and handled.
I am in NYC next week for the Hillblazers meeting on 7th and other client mtgs on 8 and 9th. Happy to follow up then in person if you would like (or if you aren't running in the rain). That said, getting someone to start sooner would be better - among other things, having a start on this before the debate would be useful to say the least.
Forgive the generic nature of this email, but I am not comfortable being more specific or detailed via gmail.
Steve
303-292-7957