Hillary Clinton Finally Answers Questions About Her Email... And It Only Raises More Questions

from the that-doesn't-make-sense dept

Hillary Clinton and her team apparently felt that it was finally time to have the Candidate* address the whole email thing, which she did with a press conference, in which she tried to brush the whole thing off as nothing. Here's the key bit from her prepared remarks:
Now, I would be pleased to talk more about this important matter, but I know there have been questions about my email, so I want to address that directly, and then I will take a few questions from you.

There are four things I want the public to know.

First, when I got to work as secretary of state, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.

Looking back, it would've been better if I'd simply used a second email account and carried a second phone, but at the time, this didn't seem like an issue.

Second, the vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department.

Third, after I left office, the State Department asked former secretaries of state for our assistance in providing copies of work- related emails from our personal accounts. I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related, which totalled roughly 55,000 printed pages, even though I knew that the State Department already had the vast majority of them. We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work- related emails and deliver them to the State Department. At the end, I chose not to keep my private personal emails -- emails about planning Chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.

No one wants their personal emails made public, and I think most people understand that and respect that privacy.

Fourth, I took the unprecedented step of asking that the State Department make all my work-related emails public for everyone to see.

I am very proud of the work that I and my colleagues and our public servants at the department did during my four years as secretary of state, and I look forward to people being able to see that for themselves.

Again, looking back, it would've been better for me to use two separate phones and two email accounts. I thought using one device would be simpler, and obviously, it hasn't worked out that way.
Later, in the Q&A session she added a few "details." On the question of which emails she kept private (which she says she deleted), she claimed it was just stuff that don't need to be shared, such as emails between herself and Bill Clinton:
And the process produced over 30,000 you know, work emails, and I think that we have more than met the requests from the State Department. The server contains personal communications from my husband and me, and I believe I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will remain private and I think that the State Department will be able, over time, to release all of the records that were provided.
As for the security of the emails, she insists they were fine because they were guarded by the Secret Service:
Well, the system we used was set up for President Clinton's office. And it had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.

So, I think that the -- the use of that server, which started with my husband, certainly proved to be effective and secure.
Now the proper follow up to that is how the hell do you know there were no security breaches. Having Secret Service agents guard the physical machine is one thing. Making sure there were no online breaches is another thing entirely. Trevor Timm, over at the Guardian, notes that Clintons statements only raise a lot more questions.

For example, she claims that the private emails were things like emails with Bill. But, as Timm points out, just hours earlier, Bill Clinton's spokesperson said that the President still doesn't use email.
The former president, who does regularly use Twitter , has sent a grand total of two emails during his entire life, both as president, says Matt McKenna, his spokesman. After leaving office, Mr. Clinton established his own domain that staff use–@presidentclinton.com. But Mr. Clinton still doesn’t use email himself, Mr. McKenna said.
So, was Hillary lying when she said other emails were just her and Bill chatting -- or was Bill's own spokesperson wrong?

Timm also digs in on that "no security breaches" claim, and finds that Clinton's people did a followup with a caveat: "there is no evidence there was ever a breach." Which could mean there was one, and they just never knew about it. Furthermore, the better question (and one a reporter in the press corp. should have asked) is not about the Secret Service guys guarding the box, but who set up the computer security for the email server. But no one did. Here's Timm:
Also: what type of security professionals were looking after the server? Clinton said the secret service guarded it, but we have no idea the expertise of the person actually running it. Experts have already pointed to basic holes in the email server’s security based on public data, and as any systems administrator will tell you, running your own email server is never simple.
Another point raised by Timm: Clinton seems to be willfully misstating the rules when she claims she didn't violate them:

Clinton also said at the press conference she “fully complied with every rule I was governed by”. Well, actually: a 2005 State Department directive said “It is the Department’s general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized [Automated Information System], which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information.”

Sources told Politico the rules were “clear-cut”. An ambassador was harshly criticized in 2012 for breaking this rule in the same manner Clinton did and subsequently fired in part for using a private email account at work. And Clinton herself signed a State Department cable in 2011 saying that all ambassadors should avoid personal email for professional business.

In the end, this response tried to answer questions, but only served to raise a bunch of new ones.

* Still not officially running

Filed Under: bill clinton, clinton email, email, hillary clinton, security


Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2015 @ 4:10am

    Nobody Asked This?

    First, when I got to work as secretary of state, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.
    Apparently Hillary does not know one can have multiple email accounts on a single smartphone.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 11 Mar 2015 @ 4:54am

      Re: Nobody Asked This?

      That was going to be my first comment. I can see some security protocols the might demand this, but as an opening explanation on its own it's pretty weak without clarification.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2015 @ 5:51am

      Re: Nobody Asked This?

      Perhaps for security purposes the State Department does not permit personal email on a government issued phone?

      I've seen corporations establish similar rules.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 11 Mar 2015 @ 5:52am

      Re: Nobody Asked This?

      Apparently Hillary does not know one can have multiple email accounts on a single smartphone.


      There actually has been some discussion on this. Apparently, it was a lot more difficult for some government email systems back in 2009. Many weren't able to do this until much later. So it's not *entirely* crazy:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/10/why-couldnt-hillary-clinton-have-two -email-accounts-on-one-phone/

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        John Fenderson (profile), 11 Mar 2015 @ 7:34am

        Re: Re: Nobody Asked This?

        That explanation doesn't make sense to me. It boils down to two points: the complaint that earlier phones didn't allow you to have multiple email accounts in a unified inbox and the point that classified email systems require special client software.

        The first point is very odd to me. Even if it's true (I don't remember such a time, but let's say it is), that just means that you'd need to run two different email clients on the phone. The lack of a unified inbox doesn't address the underlying question at all.

        The second point is self-destructing, since the claim is that Clinton never used her secret email system for classified communications.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2015 @ 8:56am

          Re: Re: Re: Nobody Asked This?

          ...have multiple email accounts in a unified inbox...

          I have multiple personal email accounts and am responsible for multiple work email boxes. There's no way I will have a unified inbox even though I know it's possible.

          Do you really want a government official to have a unified inbox where they might confuse their personal account(s) with their official account(s)?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2015 @ 7:45am

      Re: Nobody Asked This?

      Government security phones are special hardware. Remember when Obama wanted to keep his Blackberry?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2015 @ 4:45am

    What about emails sent to other countries?

    What she conveniently leaves out is the many emails she sent to government leaders of other countries. Yea, we might be able to dig up the emails to the hundreds of internal people, which is no small task, but how would ever get emails sent to other countries? The answer is, we won't and that is exactly what she wanted. She wants to be able to select the emails that get archived rather than have no control over it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DaveHowe (profile), 11 Mar 2015 @ 5:18am

    Oddly...

    My phone can handle having two email accounts defined on it. What sort of phone is she using that can't?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Jeffery, 11 Mar 2015 @ 8:47am

      Re: Oddly...

      If you're using a Blackberry tied to an Exchange server, the Outlook application on the Blackberry can only tie to one account at a time. That's the most likely scenario in this case.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 11 Mar 2015 @ 5:19am

    Exactly what Americans need

    Another president that is a narcissist who believes the laws don't apply to them and plays the victim card every time they are caught breaking the laws.

    Its a shame she is white otherwise instead of just playing the "I am only criticized because I am a woman" she could also play the minority victim card "I am only criticized because I am insert colour here" as well.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2015 @ 5:21am

    The world is falling down around us and this is whay contitutes a news story.. Ridiculous..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      alternatives(), 11 Mar 2015 @ 6:28am

      Re:

      The world is falling down around us

      And who's fault is that?

      and this is whay contitutes a news story..

      This is "news" because it sure does appear the person at the center of the maelstrom wants to be the POTUS - a person who's job is all about your very 1st complaint.

      Want this to stop being "news"? It would seem not wanting to be POTUS would stop this issue being "news".

      Ridiculous..

      Glad you see yourself correctly.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2015 @ 9:41am

        Re: Re:

        This is "news" because it sure does appear the person at the center of the maelstrom wants to be the POTUS - a person who's job is all about your very 1st complaint.


        Not running.. But I'm sure if someone wamts to get into any email server it can be done gov secured or not

        She actually hasn't stated she's running as of yet unless you know something everyone doesnt..if so do tell
        Have a nice day.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 11 Mar 2015 @ 10:01am

          Re: Re: Re:

          She actually hasn't stated she's running as of yet unless you know something everyone doesnt..if so do tell

          He didn't say she's running, he said "it sure does appear the person at the center of the maelstrom wants to be the POTUS".

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    New Mexico Mark, 11 Mar 2015 @ 5:25am

    Questions / corrections

    1. First a correction. If I understand correctly, what was turned over was paper printouts. If so, Hillary has turned over exactly zero e-mails and she should have been called out on this. Until the full digital database(s) are turned over, most of the evidence is missing and may be presumed to be tampered with. Even an export with the mail headers intact would be useful. But as a lawyer she knows very well that paper printouts selected and/or edited by a defendant are worthless. It would be like a suspect being allowed to provide Photoshopped pictures of evidence (selected by the suspect) that they had in their possession rather than the actual items.
    2. Another correction... she said the e-mails she sent were stored and backed up on recipient servers so nothing was lost. Technically correct, but the equivalent of saying, "All of the evidence you are demanding has been sent to random landfills throughout the world where it is carefully archived for future generations." Without knowing the recipients of every e-mail sent, it is an impossibly broad scope of discovery. As someone familiar with the practice of law, she is of course, completely aware of this, but she continues to lie with impunity.
    3. A question not asked by reporters... "Ms. Clinton, since you feel you have the right to pick and choose which laws you obey based on personal convenience, can you provide a list of other laws do you find personally inconvenient?"
    4. Her assertion that none of the e-mails contained classified information was deliberately misleading. She may or may not have included classified information (again, no e-mails have actually been turned over yet), but for public officials, notes, remarks, communications, etc. are often classified AFTER the fact based on content. Because these were not subject to review, it is highly likely that classifiable communications were made, but again, that whole idea of classifying information based on national security and interests is probably highly inconvenient to someone who views herself as having sovereign immunity.
    4. One final correction. Reporters asked what criteria she used to select personal vs. public e-mails. However, they made the mistake of arguing from her deceitful premise. As soon as she made the decision to conduct public affairs on a "private" e-mail server, she lost the right to differentiate. ALL those e-mails are public property, just as they would be if she had used the government e-mail service. That's why official business is conducted through official channels.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jessie (profile), 11 Mar 2015 @ 5:35am

    I loved they said they were going to post the emails, but they needed to go through and redact them for security purposes. If nothing sent by it was classified, why is there a need to redact anything.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David Longfellow, 11 Mar 2015 @ 5:42am

    Hillary herself answers...

    Here's what Hillary thinks of her own behavior:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNigEJU-eCY&feature=youtu.be

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2015 @ 8:43am

      Re: Hillary herself answers...

      Wow, she directly calls out people who use personal email accounts for work. In other words she knew exactly what she was doing and the lack of DOJ response means they are allowing it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    FarSide, 11 Mar 2015 @ 5:50am

    On the other hand

    Even if she had a "professional" email account, what's to say she would use it regarding anything that was shady/embarrassing/etc?

    Sure, it would be better if she had it - you can't always predict what emails are going to look bad later on - but the idea underlying the whole news-freakout on this is that if she had a different email account, nothing shady or insecure would be possible.

    Which is just silly.

    Also, has anyone asked NSA to fill in the blanks for us?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 11 Mar 2015 @ 8:15am

      Re: On the other hand

      the idea underlying the whole news-freakout on this is that if she had a different email account, nothing shady or insecure would be possible.

      Who is saying that?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jason, 11 Mar 2015 @ 5:57am

    Tone

    What's not clear from just reading the transcript of her remarks is the tone she used to deliver them. I only saw snippets, but almost from the moment she opened her mouth she sounded condescending and juvenile. Reading her statement in print it sounds almost reasonable, even accounting for the omissions mentioned in the rest of the piece. But hearing her actually say it in person sounds completely different.

    This might not be an actual "scandal" in any real sense... who knows, maybe there really was nothing improper here. But the "who knows" is kind of the point in my mind. There is certainly an appearance of impropriety here, and it shouldn't be that hard to recognize that.

    It shouldn't have been hard to recognize it when she first became Secretary of State, either. Even if there were some rules preventing the use of personal and government email accounts on the same device, she would not be the first person to have needed to carry two phones around.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 11 Mar 2015 @ 8:16am

      Re: Tone

      This might not be an actual "scandal" in any real sense... who knows, maybe there really was nothing improper here.

      Even if everything she claims is true, it was still improper.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rich Kulawiec, 11 Mar 2015 @ 6:08am

    In re running email servers securely

    Experts have already pointed to basic holes in the email server’s security based on public data, and as any systems administrator will tell you, running your own email server is never simple.

    No, it's not. But even if they'd fixed the problem with transport layer security pointed out by Mayer, there would be many more issues to deal with.

    The threat model for a mail server and a mail client used by the Secretary of State of the United States is very different than the threat model appropriate for nearly all other mail servers/clients. I've run a lot of them, but if I were tasked with this, I'd call in Ranum, Bellovin, Kaminsky, and a heck of a lot of other people for design advice before even thinking about more mundane issues like operating system, MTA, and so on.

    It also speaks volumes that the Secretary chose personal convenience (i.e., not carrying two phones) over data security. Who else in government has made the same choice?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2015 @ 6:41am

    Re:

    Crooked is Crooked.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Xuuth, 11 Mar 2015 @ 6:58am

    Wow. Very surprising.

    Let's see... Former Secretary of State Colin Powell used private email -- nobody is saying diddly. Same with Condi Rice. In fact, John Kerry is the first SoS that actually had an official email setup with the State Department. So why is Clinton getting the Benghazi treatment?

    Ah, yes, her condescending tone (according to the Tone Police), and how she thinks she's above the law (from the Telepaths).

    So the head of an organization doesn't follow every "guideline" (not rule, not law, but just a guideline), and someone thinks this is news? Gimme a break!

    Clinton said she followed the example of her predecessors, which is TRUE. Why no criticism of them? Why the automatic presumption that she's hiding something? Where was the outrage about whether Colin Powell (who lied to the world about WMD at the U.N.) turned over all of HIS emails? Where was the investigation into whether Condi Rice (who also lied about WMD) turned over all of HER emails? Why does Clinton get special treatment?

    You know, I think she's a little paranoid for a good reason. She's had people -- mostly republicans -- trying to 'get' her for decades. They've come up with nothing. Whitewater? Zip. Insider trading? Nada. Ken Starr's whole multi-million dollar taxpayer funded fishing expedition against her? He came up with a blue dress relating to her husband, but nothing against HIllary.

    Oh, Hillary did a Williams/O'Reilly claim to having been under fire when she actually wasn't. Nobody fired Billo, and he refuses to retract his lies, where Hillary said she was mistaken.

    Are you really expecting someone who isn't particularly tech savvy to run multiple email accounts on their smartphone after someone sets them up for her? Really? Do none of you work with upper executives at all? HINT: They have expensive toys but don't know how to use them very well.

    Anyone see a double standard besides me?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Jason, 11 Mar 2015 @ 7:22am

      Re: Wow. Very surprising.

      I didn't make mention of prior Secretaries of State because the subject of the article wasn't about prior Secretaries of State. It was about Hillary Clinton.

      But fine: For the record, I think Colin Powell should have used official email, not private email. I think Condoleezza Rice should have used official email, not private email. Whatever the justifications were, using private email was the wrong decision.

      For as long as email has been a thing and government officials have been using it for official business, all of them should have been using official email accounts. While it might have been excusable a matter of convenience in the beginning, and a matter of "accepted" prior use later on, it has come to the point of being entirely unacceptable. As far as I'm concerned there is no excuse for any government official---regardless of party affiliation, gender, appearance, or technical savvy---to be using personal email accounts in the performance of their official duties.

      If you don't find the tone of Mrs. Clinton's remarks condescending, that's fine. I was only stating my own opinion and I don't presume to speak for anybody else. But just because I kept my comments focused on the specific subject of the article doesn't mean that I've suddenly developed a concern about government email use only now that Hillary Clinton is the topic. Believe me, I don't think she's that important.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 11 Mar 2015 @ 7:36am

      Re: Wow. Very surprising.

      Let's see... Former Secretary of State Colin Powell used private email -- nobody is saying diddly. Same with Condi Rice. In fact, John Kerry is the first SoS that actually had an official email setup with the State Department. So why is Clinton getting the Benghazi treatment?


      No, we're equally critical of that. In our first posting, we noted that Hillary *CLEARLY KNEW* about these rules, thanks to the KNOWN CONTROVERSY about Bush administration officials hiding stuff via private email accounts.

      If you think we're writing about this because of partisan politics, you clearly don't read this site.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2015 @ 8:27am

        Re: Re: Wow. Very surprising.

        Yawn... partisan politics is the whole reason this is even in the news. It's a GOP witch hunt. They are guilty of everything they accuse. Complete hypocrites.

        This is the "hanging chad" news story of 2015. It's being beaten to death and in the end it's not going to make a damn bit of difference anyway.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          orbitalinsertion (profile), 11 Mar 2015 @ 10:51am

          Re: Re: Re: Wow. Very surprising.

          It's news here regardless of of what any Republican news-milking agendas there might be, and whatever angle other news media has on this, and whatever anyone else did wrong, because she is the next person to be doing this incredibly stupid thing. There is a fair bit of history of people doing it wrong or intentionally playing games before or after the fact. As was noted about members of the Bush administration doing so quite on purpose (where there was much whining about what should be archived by the government or subject to FOIA requests, because dumbasses trying to be clever don't realize (or care) the email they sent using Google or whatever is still sitting in their mail client's sent box and quite possibly in the archived user mailboxes on the government computers and servers).

          It would be in the news here, very likely, even if most of the rest of the media universe had ignored it, once it was discovered. You can make a claim of partisanship in some cases as a counter-argument to some statements made elsewhere (and maybe in the comments here), but that isn't what techdirt is about, and that claim isn't a counter to anything in the article.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          alternatives(), 11 Mar 2015 @ 7:35pm

          Re: Re: Re: Wow. Very surprising.

          . partisan politics is the whole reason this is even in the news

          Bullshit.

          The magical idea 'the computers were under the guard of the secret service and therefore secure' is newsworthy enough.

          in the end it's not going to make a damn bit of difference anyway.

          That may be true. But the only chance to have a difference made is to point out the broken thinking WRT security and HOPE some people stop being anonymous cowards and extract their craniums from their rectums to start practising better op-sec.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2015 @ 7:37am

      Re: Wow. Very surprising.

      Anyone see a double standard besides me?

      If the IT field gets lucky it'll be Hillary and Scott and then we can talk about email for months.

      http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-09/scott-walker-had-his-own-secret-e-mail- problem

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2015 @ 8:14am

      Re: Wow. Very surprising.

      So the head of an organization doesn't follow every "guideline" (not rule, not law, but just a guideline), and someone thinks this is news? Gimme a break!
      Various Federal agencies long ago managed to twist the language so that guidelines are rules by another name. Try violating a "guideline" relevant to your area and see if you get away with it.
      Why the automatic presumption that she's hiding something?
      First, high level politicians of both parties have a history of doing this sort of trick to hide things, as you even noted. Second, this trick is very effective at hiding things and her conduct post-controversy does nothing to resolve concerns that this is being used for illegitimate purposes. Third, as a very public figure both for her current/past government work and the very widely held presumption she will run for POTUS in 2016, responsible citizens hold her to a higher standard than they require of your average person on the street. It is a civic responsibility to vet potential executives, especially ones seeking very powerful offices. If she cannot even act correctly on a simple matter like following well known policy for the purpose of security and records retention, how can we trust that she will follow larger and more critical policies?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John Cressman, 11 Mar 2015 @ 7:33am

    I love it!

    So... since she did it because it was "more convenient". I want to be able to use that excuse.

    1) Officer, I know I was speeding, but it was more convenient for me to do 80mph than 45 mph.

    2) IRS Agent, I know you need my receipts for the audit, but it was more convenient for me to throw them away.

    3) Grand jury, I know it's against the law to rob a bank, but it was more convenient to rob it than to work for the money.

    It's a great excuse!

    It sickens me that people in Washington - and especially this current administration - get away with so much BS.

    There is NO EXCUSE to use personal email - especially one on your OWN SERVER - to do official government business. Personal servers are under YOUR complete control - so wiping emails is easy - making cover ups and refusal to honor FOIA requests all too easy.

    They're also not subject to normal audits nor normal hardening or security or even BACKUP.

    She should be sent to prison for a few years to be made an example of, because I guarantee you if I used the "more convenient" excuse to the government, it wouldn't fly.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mike Soja, 11 Mar 2015 @ 7:35am

    With any luck...

    ... Hillary will be overseeing the FCC and "Net Neutrality" soon.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    nasch (profile), 11 Mar 2015 @ 8:19am

    Corps

    (and one a reporter in the press corp. should have asked)

    That's corps (like Marine) not corp.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2015 @ 9:54am

    Well she answered my questions

    Q: Is she was stupid?
    A: Turns out she is since she had no clue multiple email accounts on a single device.

    Q: Is she hiding something?
    A: Yes, she said she did not turn over all the emails because they were "personal". I'm sure we can trust her judgement on what is personal and whats not, right?....

    Q: Can we trust her to be honest?
    A: Nope, just a few weeks ago she talked about how she carried around an iPhone, iPad and a blackberry. Now she claims she used her own email server because it was convenient to carry only once device. Those two statements are mutually exclusive, one of them is a lie.

    In summary she seems like an unintelligent, non-transparent untruthful politician and thats all I really need to know.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 12 Mar 2015 @ 8:49am

      Re: Well she answered my questions

      I disagree with your characterization of her as unintelligent. I think she the exact opposite of that. The rest, however, I agree with -- although I think it can be stated more briefly by just saying she's a politician.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2015 @ 2:30pm

    What is Hillary's e-mail?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2015 @ 3:03pm

    well, at least hillary cant use the "if you have nothing to hide" excuse without being the hypocrate she'd turn herself in too if she did so

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Last Geek, 11 Mar 2015 @ 6:32pm

    Sounds like Bill...

    "I did not have secure business with that server, ClintonEmail.com"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.