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.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:
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.
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.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.
So, I think that the -- the use of that server, which started with my husband, certainly proved to be effective and secure.
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:
In the end, this response tried to answer questions, but only served to raise a bunch of new ones.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.
* Still not officially running
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bill clinton, clinton email, email, hillary clinton, security
Reader Comments
The First Word
“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?
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Nobody Asked This?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nobody Asked This?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nobody Asked This?
I've seen corporations establish similar rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nobody Asked This?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nobody Asked This?
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/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nobody Asked This?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nobody Asked This?
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)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nobody Asked This?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nobody Asked This?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about emails sent to other countries?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oddly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oddly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean like President Clinton?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Like President fill-in-the-blank.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Questions / corrections
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hillary herself answers...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNigEJU-eCY&feature=youtu.be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hillary herself answers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On the other hand
Who is saying that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tone
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tone
Even if everything she claims is true, it was still improper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In re running email servers securely
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow. Very surprising.
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow. Very surprising.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow. Very surprising.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow. Very surprising.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow. Very surprising.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow. Very surprising.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow. Very surprising.
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow. Very surprising.
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love it!
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I love it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With any luck...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corps
That's corps (like Marine) not corp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well she answered my questions
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well she answered my questions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like Bill...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]