Scott Sauyet to Jenn Jennings
What is missing from this entry
- This message quoted Ms. Jennings's reply of September 13 in full below the signature, including her banner, as a mail client does on a reply. That quoted copy is not reproduced here. It is published unchanged as its own entry, 2026-09-13-jennings-sauyet.
To: jennjennings4senate@gmail.com Subject: Re: A question from a voter, and an offer to publish your answer in full Dear Ms. Jennings, Thank you for your reply. You were the first of the five candidates to answer, and you answered without hedging. You will not be surprised to hear that I disagree with your answer, but I found your candor refreshing, and I appreciate it very much. I do want to offer a brief defense of the question. I did not ask it because a state senator has any say over what a President does. I asked it because Mr. Trump leads the party whose nomination you carry, and because he is the most divisive political figure in my memory. Where a candidate stands on him seems to me a fair thing for a voter to know, alongside her views on taxes, schools, and housing, and not in place of them. You invited another question, and I may well take you up on that. I should be honest, though, that for me a refusal to disavow him is very likely disqualifying, so I may not. Your reply is now published in full at http://andoverct.info/reports/ahm/disavowal/, and this note will be added beside it. Thank you again for your candor, and for taking the time to write such a thoughtful response. Scott Sauyet Andover scott.sauyet@gmail.com
Source
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2026 18:21:36 -0400 Message-ID: <CAMpcBwrFPt_K_nCYFBcXMnyeUHvSj5A=xyoGJ0Sjdo8oou61nQ@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: A question from a voter, and an offer to publish your answer in full From: Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> To: Jenn Jennings <jennjennings4senate@gmail.com>
The headers doing evidentiary work are shown. 4 other header fields were withheld — routing records, which carry originating IP addresses, and spam-filter scores, which characterize a sender. The full block is retained and will be produced if the authenticity of this message is disputed.
A DKIM signature is strong evidence that a message arrived as sent, not proof: verifying one needs the body byte-exact and the sending domain's key still published, and campaign keys rotate.