Pillory Hillary

Documents

red-rex-revived
  • Pillory Hillary Clinton Wants You to See Her E-Mails, Except Those She Didn't Hand Over by Mark DrajemIndira Lakshmanan 2:51 PM EST March 5, 2015
  • Flashback: Hillary Clinton Bashes Bush Officials for Secret Email Accounts (VIDEO) Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, March 5, 2015, 9:34 AM On June 20, 2007, Hillary Clinton complained about Bush officials shredding the US Constitution by having secret email accounts. Two years later, as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton set up a secret email account and secret servers in her basement for all of her official business. In this Oct. 18, 2011, file photo, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton checks her Blackberry from a desk inside a C-17 military plane upon her departure from Malta, in the Mediterranean Sea, bound for Tripoli, Libya. Photographer: Kevin Lamarque-Pool/AP Photo (Bloomberg) -- Hillary Clinton says she wants the public to see her e-mails. But there are some that voters may never see: the ones she didn’t give to the government.
  • Clinton used a private server and e-mail address while U.S. secretary of state, and the law doesn’t force her to release any of the e-mails that she hasn’t turned over to the State Department. Clinton, through spokesmen, said she turned over all e-mail about public business when she was the nation’s chief diplomat, and other messages may include notes to friends and personal contacts. Open-government advocates say that’s not the point: the public should have a complete record of official e-mail communications, but Clinton’s may forever have gaps. “There really is not a way to force an agency to turn those over, because they are not under the agency’s control,” Patrice McDermott, executive director of OpentheGovernment.org, a coalition that works to make more government records public, said. “They are not government records until they are turned over.” There are certain to be other communications from Clinton’s inner circle that will never be made public. Her top aides frequently used instant text messages to talk with each other, a form of communication that isn’t captured or archived by the State Department. Instant Messages It is not clear whether Clinton herself used her Blackberry’s instant message service, as her aides did. Clinton, who was secretary of state from 2009 until February 2013, used a private e-mail account that was routed through a server at her suburban New York home. She says she turned over 55,000 pages of documents from the trove to the State Department in response to a request by the agency to all former secretaries of state. The State Department asked for all government records that Clinton had, though left it up to her to cull through the data. Late Wednesday night Clinton tweeted that she wants them to be released. “I want the public to see my e-mail” she said on Twitter. “I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.” Sensitive Information There is a process for removing sensitive or personal information, such as names of people working with the State Department in foreign countries or private telephone and Social Security numbers, a State Department official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. The review process might take months, the official said.
  • The disclosures this week emerged as Clinton is preparing to announce a campaign for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president. Her activities at the State Department and her work with the Clinton Foundation, created by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, already are providing fodder for Republican critics who say she hasn’t been fully transparent about her activities. The use of a private e-mail by Clinton was uncovered after a congressional committee sought Clinton’s e-mails in its investigation of the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012. The attack killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. House Subpoena The House panel Wednesday issued a subpoena for any of Clinton’s private e- mails relevant to its probe, and asked Internet service providers to preserve whatever records they have of relevant electronic communications. A subpoena isn’t limited by the same public records limitations, and can encompass any public or private documents related to an investigation -- including those on her private server. While Clinton said that she turned over all the public records on her private e-mail, that’s not how it works when a government e-mail system is used and messages are automatically archived and subject to requests by the public, news media and others. Clinton has an obligation to provide any e-mails related to government business to the State Department; however, there’s no mechanism to review messages that Clinton or her private staff decide aren’t public documents, according to Steve Zansberg, an attorney specializing in Freedom of Information Act law. Government Control The issue came up in a separate lawsuit this week. A federal judge in Washington on Tuesday denied a petition from a free-market group to force the Obama administration to search the e-mails that White House science adviser John Holdren kept on a non-government server. Because the government didn’t possess those messages, it couldn’t be asked to produce them under Freedom of Information laws, a government attorney argued. “The law is clear, however, that agencies do not -- merely by way of the employer/employee relationship -- gain ‘control’ over their employees’ personal e- mail accounts,” U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled in the case brought by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “That is precisely why agencies admonish their employees to use their official accounts for government business.”
  • While the government can’t be asked to search a private e-mail provider, the employee has the responsibility to transfer e-mails about public business to the agency, Zansberg said. Clinton’s Staff The question advocates for open government are asking now is how the public will know if all the relevant e-mails have been sent to the State Department. Instead of a government employee reviewing the records, Clinton staff members did the work. “Her staff did the sorting, but what the law requires is for a government official to do the sorting,” said Tom Blanton, the head of the National Security Archive, a group that uses FOIA requests and lawsuits to uncover government actions. “There are other motivations going on here, and she should have been on notice.” Judicial Watch, a self-described conservative organization that promotes transparency in government, said it filed three new Freedom of Information requests with the State Department Thursday for Clinton’s e-mails. Previous requests it had made for information about Benghazi and other matters never turned up any e-mails from Clinton, which raised suspicions, said Tom Fitton, the group’s president. ‘Totally Inappropriate’ “The idea that Mrs. Clinton’s private lawyers can go in and decide what records are public records and what are not is totally inappropriate,” he said. The issue of government versus private e-mails was raised more than two years ago by the State Department inspector general. A watchdog report from August 2012, when Clinton was secretary, criticized the ambassador in Nairobi, Kenya, for using a non-government e-mail account. “It is the department’s general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized information system, which has the proper level of security controls,” the report said. “The use of unauthorized information systems increases the risk for data loss, phishing, and spoofing of e-mail accounts, as well as inadequate protections for personally identifiable information.” To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Drajem in Washington at [email protected]; Indira A.R. Lakshmanan in Washington at [email protected] To contact the editors responsible for this story: Jon Morgan at [email protected] Steve Geimann
  • Hillary Clinton Still Doesn't Get It Nice tweet, but she still seems trapped on the wrong side of the bridge to the 21st century. By Ron Fournier (Photo illustration by Sean McCabe) March 5, 2015 A cornered Clinton is a craven Clinton, which is why we should view Hillary Rodham Clinton's latest public relations trick with practiced skepticism. "I want the public to see my email," she tweeted Wednesday night. "I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible." If she wants us to see her email, why did she create a secret account stored on a dark server registered at her home?
  • (RELATED: More Security Fears Surround Clinton's "Homebrew" Email Server) If she wants us to see her email, why didn't she give State all of her email rather than a self-censored fraction of the correspondence? If she wants us to see her email, Clinton should turn over every word written on her dark account(s) for independent vetting. Let somebody the public trusts decide which emails are truly private and which ones belong to the public. Like everything else about the response to this controversy, Clinton's tweet is reminiscent of the 1990s, when her husband's White House overcame its wrongdoing by denying the truth, blaming Republicans, and demonizing and bullying the media. It's a shameless script, unbecoming of a historic figure who could be our next president – and jarringly inappropriate for these times. (RELATED: Meet the Non-Clinton Clinton Defense Team) In the 15 years since Bill Clinton left office, the internet has made almost everybody a researcher and a journalist—equipped to judge wrongdoing for themselves and insist upon accountability. We can now spot the lies ourselves, stand up to bullies, and remind our leaders that two wrongs don't make a right. The actions of Hillary Clinton and her team raise the question: Is she trapped on the wrong side of the bridge to the 21st century? This is part of a pattern of bad behavior. My former employer, The Associated Press said Wednesday that it was considering legal action over years of stonewalling its requests for government documents covering Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. The AP has sought her full schedules and calendars and for details on the State Department's decision to grant a special position to a longtime Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, among other documents, the New York Times, reported. The oldest AP request was made in March 2010. "We believe it's critically important that government officials and agencies be held accountable to the voters," said AP's general counsel, Karen Kaiser. "In this instance, we've exhausted our administrative remedies in pursuit of important documents and are considering legal action." This is the problem: If she wants us to see her emails, Clinton would show us her emails. If she wants to be transparent, she'd be transparent. If she wants to be a modern, forward-looking leader who earns the trust of a disillusioned public, she'd call off her attack dogs, stop spinning, and do the right thing. She would return the unseemly foreign donations to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Foundation.
  • She wouldn't call them "my email." She would know that the emails of a public official belongs to the public. They're ours. Cough 'em up. Clinton won't take questions at event honoring journalism  Colin Campbell Mar. 5, 2015, 12:39 PM Wi n McNamee/GettyFormer US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. See Also
  • Hillary Clinton says she asked the State Department to release her emails (except she has the server at her home)i Here's how Hillary Clinton's Republican 2016 rivals reacted to her email scandalii Read the angry emails Hillary Clinton's top aide sent to a bunch of reportersiii Hillary Clinton reportedly will not be taking any questions at an event honoring excellence in journalism. Organizers of the March 23 Toner Prize Celebration, which is named after the late New York Times reporter Robin Toner, told the Center for Public Integrity the event would be open to reporters. However, the keynote speaker, Clinton, does not plan to take their inquiries. Business Insider reached out to Clinton's office to confirm the report. A Clinton spokesman referred the question back to the event's organizers. Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for president in 2016, is embroiled in a controversy surrounding her exclusive use of personal email addresses while she served as secretary of state. According to The New York Times, this may have violated federal guidelines and could have left state secrets vulnerable on an
  • unsecure server. Both Clinton's email issue and her alleged avoidance of the press have fueled criticism she is insufficiently transparent. After days of relentless media coverage since Monday, Clinton addressed the emails in a tweet late Wednesday night. "I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible," she wrote. However, many questions remain, including why she decided to use a private email server in the first place. For now it doesn't appear Clinton has any intention of answering them. TMZ ambushed her at Reagan National Airport on Wednesday and pressed her on the email controversy. She smiled but didn't respond.
  • Hillary Clinton Banned Use of Private Email by State Department Employees … While She Conducted All Her Business By Private Email fullscreen Share article on Facebookshare Tweet articletweet Plus one article on Google Plus+1 Print Article Email article Adjust font size AA by Andrew C. McCarthy March 5, 2015 6:09 PM Fox News’s Catherine Herridge reports (via Fox’s Greta Van Susteren) that, in an internal 2011 State Department cable, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton directed employees not to use personal email accounts for official business due to security concerns. Nevertheless, throughout her tenure as Secretary, Mrs. Clinton used personal email accounts to conduct her State Department business – setting up her own personal servers in her New York home precisely to avoid the State Department system under which government electronic communications were maintained and disclosed pursuant to federal law. Ms. Herridge elaborates: Sent to Diplomatic and Consular Staff in June 2011, the unclassified cable, with Clinton’s electronic signature, makes clear to “avoid conducting official Department from your personal e-mail accounts” and employees should not “auto-forward Department email to personal email accounts which is prohibited by Department policy.” The Cable was addressed to all diplomatic and consular posts with the subject line “Securing Personal E-mail Accounts.” While the cable told employees to secure personal/home email accounts given increased targeting of government employees, it makes clear that these personal accounts should never be used for government business and cites the departure procedures which prohibit the practices. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414970/hillary-clinton- banned-use-private-email-state-department-employees-while-she
  • A Clinton candidacy is weakened by string of revelations By David Lightman McClatchy Washington BureauMarch 5, 2015 Updated 15 hours ago Sept. 12, 2012 - then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at the State Department in Washington. ALEX BRANDON — AP WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton is suddenly a weaker presidential candidate. While the former secretary of state remains a strong favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination, she’s now more vulnerable to a party challenger – and, perhaps more ominously, more likely to give an already- alienated electorate new reasons to drop out of the political process.
  • The furor over foreign money and secret emails may be prodding Clinton to engage politically faster than she’d planned. She issued her first personal statement near midnight Wednesday night on the newest problem, that she’d used a private email account to conduct State Department business. She’s been added to the list of speakers alongside her husband and daughter at a Saturday meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative. And she may be moving up the formal launch of her campaign. Clinton strove to defuse the latest controversy with a late-night tweet that tried, likely without success, to turn the tide of the email stories and make it appear she was the one demanding transparency. “I want the public to see my email,” she said, and added that she’d asked the State Department to release it. Clinton did turn over thousands of pages of emails to State, but she and her aides decided which one to give the officials. The department said early Thursday that it would review the emails, a process that could take several months. Give us a break, Republicans protested. “Hillary Clinton must think we’re all suckers,” said Michael Short, Republican Party spokesman. “The fact Hillary Clinton set up a ‘homebrewed’ email system in her house to skirt federal record-keeping regulations is a pretty good indicator of just how transparent she’s interested in being.” Here we go again. Nothing Can Bring Her Down! Hillary Clinton Addresses Email Scandal Inform
  • Big money that’s hard to account for? Forty percent of top donors over the past 10 years to the Clinton Foundation are based in foreign countries, McClatchy reported. Clinton was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, and she joined the foundation after leaving office. The flap is reminiscent of President Bill Clinton’s wooing big money by inviting well-heeled donors to attend fancy coffees or sleep over at the White House. Secret, private emails? Could be an echo of the early Clinton administration, when first lady Hillary Clinton, in charge of overhauling the nation’s health care system, would not at first release the names of hundreds of people on her task force. Transparency? “I think I’m the most transparent person in public life,” Clinton said in 2008. But would the public have learned of the email account if the Republican- led House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi incident hadn’t uncovered it? To voters, all this opens Clinton to more, sharper criticism about how she’d campaign and govern. Or who has her ear. The Clinton Foundation said it had acted properly in its fundraising. “Like other global charities, the Clinton Foundation receives support from individuals, organizations and governments from all over the world. Contributions are made because the foundation’s programs improve the lives of millions of people around the globe,” it said in a statement. “The Clinton Foundation has a record of transparency that goes above what is required of U.S. charities.” The political world saw the foundation’s operations through a different prism, however. “This has potential to have real legs. It feeds a sense of uneasiness about foreign money coming into this country,” said Wayne Lesperance, director of the Center for Civic Engagement at New England College in Henniker, N.H. Clinton retains some huge political advantages. “People already think they know her,” said veteran political author Richard Reeves. “People who don’t like her already will like her less, and those who like her won’t change their minds.” But she faces two threats. In the Democratic nomination race, the more she stumbles, the more a prominent candidate might decide to challenge her. In South Carolina, former state Democratic Chairman Dick Harpootlian was livid about Clinton’s controversies. “It boggles the mind,” he said. “She should be exemplifying a standard of ethics and transparency far beyond the minimum requirements of the law.”
  • Harpootlian, a Columbia, S.C., attorney, met recently with Vice President Joe Biden, who’s been visiting early primary and caucus states. “He didn’t say no” about a run, Harpootlian said. On the left, the party’s liberal wing has long seen Clinton as too cozy with official Washington and corporate interests. The foreign-money flap reinforces that view. So far, though, Clinton benefits from her stature and fundraising ability. Liberal favorite Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., doesn’t want to run. Sen. Bernard Sanders, a Vermont independent, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb might. None so far has shown much ability to move blocs of voters away from Clinton, and they refrained from talking about Clinton this week. “I have nothing much to say about it,” Sanders said of Clinton’s troubles. “He hasn’t commented and doesn’t plan to,” said Lis Smith, O’Malley’s spokeswoman. It’s all part of a narrative that seems to acquire new chapters all the time, and the newest flaps rob Clinton of any ability to become the juggernaut she wants to be. Email: [email protected]; Twitter: @lightmandavid. Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/03/05/258816/a-clinton-candidacy-is- weakened.html#storylink=cpy
  • House investigators: Hillary Clinton engaged in a 'scheme to conceal' her email  Hunter Walker Mar. 5, 2015, 12:23 PM The congressional committee dedicated to investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks on the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya believes that Hillary Clinton engaged in a "scheme to conceal" her email while she was secretary of state.
  • Jamal Ware, a spokesman for the committee which is chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina), issued a statement on Wednesday responding to a tweet Clinton sent the prior night. Clinton wrote that she wants "the public to see" her email and asked the State Department to release her messages. Ware dismissed this and said it "does not answer questions" about Clinton's email "scheme." Ware's response highlighted the fact that Clinton's aides reviewed her emails and decided which ones should be turned over to the State Department. "As Chairman Gowdy noted, former Secretary Clinton has left herself in the unique position of being the only one to determine what records the American people are entitled to," Ware said. "This has significant negative implications for transparency and government oversight, as well as for media and others who have a legitimate interest in understanding the Secretary's time in office." On Wednesday, the committee issued a subpoena in an effort to examine Clinton's email use. The subpoena came after a New York Times article was published on Monday that detailed how Clinton exclusively used a personal address rather than a governmental one during her time leading the State Department. According to the Times, Clinton's use of a private address for official business could have violated federal rules. Clinton's team has disputed this and argued her use of personal email went above and beyond regulatory requirements. The Benghazi committee has long sought to obtain Clinton's emails. Gowdy has said he will refrain from calling Clinton to testify before the committee until it is able to examine her email. Republicans have been critical of the State Department's handling of the Benghazi attacks, which left four Americans dead including US Ambassador Christopher Stevens. In recent months, Clinton's team turned over about 55,000 printed copies of her emails to the State Department in response to a request the department has described as part of an effort to update its record-keeping. Ware's statement suggested that the fact that Clinton's aides decided which emails to hand in raises questions about the "integrity" of the records, which necessitated the committee's subpoena. "The former Secretary's tweet does not answer questions about why this was not done when she left office, the integrity of the emails while she controlled them, the scheme to conceal them, or the failure to provide them in logical course," Ware said. "Chairman [Gowdy] has said the former secretary is welcome to and should release all of her emails, but legitimate investigations do not consider partial records. And that is the point of the subpoena issued yesterday by the Benghazi Committee."
  • As House panel issues subpoenas, questions mount over Clinton e-mails A House committee issued subpoenas for e-mails from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s personal account. (Yuri Gripas/Reuters) By Rosalind S. Helderman, Carol D. Leonnig and Anne Gearan March 5 A congressional committee issued subpoenas Wednesday seeking information about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s use of a private e-mail account for official business while she was secretary of state, setting up a potential legal clash with the presumptive Democratic front-runner for president. The move followed the revelation that Clinton had installed a private server at her New York home that allowed her, and not the State Department, to store her e- mail correspondence and later decide which ones to turn over as public records. The subpoenas, sent by the special House committee probing the fatal 2012 terrorist attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, reflected the angry response more broadly from Republican lawmakers and conservative watchdogs who said Clinton’s private e-mail system allowed her to evade scrutiny from investigations and legal proceedings. Late Wednesday, Clinton responded to the issue for the first time tweeting, “I want the public to see my e-mail. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.” The Fix: That tweet isn’t going to solve the problem. Not even close.] State Dept. defends Clinton e-mail account(2:02) In a tense exchange with reporters Wednesday, State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf denied anything inappropriate occurred after revelations that former secretary of state Hillary Clinton used a private e-mail account for work. (C-Span) Marie Harf, deputy state department spokeswoman, said the e-mails provided by Clinton will be reviewed for public release “using a normal process” that guides such releases. “We will undertake this review as quickly as possible,” she said.
  • “Given the sheer volume of the document set, this review will take some time to complete.” Meanwhile, government transparency advocates expressed concern over the level of control Clinton had asserted over her records. Security experts wondered if hackers could exploit weaknesses in the Clinton server to gain access to sensitive information. And, on the political front, some Democrats worried about whether the e-mail issue would damage Clinton’s strength as a presidential candidate. “There’s always another shoe to drop with Hillary,” said Dick Harpootlian, a former Democratic Party chairman in South Carolina who has said he hopes Vice President Biden runs. “Do we nominate her not knowing what’s in those e-mails?” [Democrats are looking around for a 2016 alternative — but they don’t see anyone] The subpoenas issued Wednesday seek all Clinton e-mails related to Libya during her time as secretary of state — an attempt to collect new e-mails sent from the clintonemail.com domain, the private account Clinton established when she took office in 2009. Also Wednesday, the president of Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, said the organization is considering filing legal petitions to reopen as many as nine cases in which the group unsuccessfully sought public records from the State Department. The cases were either dismissed, closed or settled after the administration claimed it found no records involving Clinton related to the group’s requests. Why Clinton’s private e-mail address is bad news(1:21) Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail address that she used while secretary of state reinforces everything people don’t like about her, argues The Post’s Chris Cillizza, and is very dangerous to her presidential ambitions. (The Washington Post) And other lawmakers who have tried to investigate Clinton’s tenure at State said they were outraged and felt misled, and were concerned many of the public records they had requested had not been provided because of the use of private e-mail. State Department officials have confirmed that Clinton exclusively used a personal account, instead of a government e-mail address, during her time in office.
  • Instead of using State Department servers to send and receive those e-mails, she used a server housed at her private home in Chappaqua, N.Y., a Clinton ally familiar with her e-mail practices confirmed Wednesday. The server’s existence was first reported by the Associated Press. The Clinton ally said the server and e-mail addresses were established after the conclusion of Clinton’s unsuccessful bid for president in 2008, as she was transitioning away from using an account held by her defunct campaign. [The Fix: Jon Stewart compares Clinton’s email strategy to Doritos] Neither State Department officials nor Clinton aides would provide information about which officials had signed off on the arrangement, whether a legal analysis was performed and whether any agency officials ever raised questions about Clinton’s e-mail system. Beyond her late night tweet, Clinton herself has not addressed the e-mail issue, and her spokesman has not expanded on a brief statement issued Monday, in which he said Clinton had complied with both the letter and spirit of the law. The spokesman, Nick Merrill, also said that other secretaries of state have used private e-mail accounts. State Department officials said Clinton turned over 55,000 pages of e-mail records last year after officials requested that former secretaries turn over public documents in their possession. But, agency officials said, the decision over which e-mails would be deemed public record fell to Clinton and her private advisers — not to government officials or archivists. State Department spokesman Harf told reporters Wednesday that she could not answer “when it was set up, and all that.” She referred questions about the system’s security to Clinton’s personal office. Harf said there was no indication that Clinton had used the account for classified information, but she acknowledged that she was relying on information conveyed by Clinton and her aides. [Clinton warned of hackers breaking into ‘personal e-mail accounts’ in her memoir] White House spokesman Josh Earnest also defended Clinton, saying he had seen no evidence to suggest Clinton’s team had failed to turn over everything in its possession. But Earnest also took pains to say that he was relying on the Clinton team for his information.
  • “I also want to just be crystal clear about the fact that this is a responsibility that they assumed,” he said. Federal regulations in place while Clinton was in office required that e-mails sent on non-government accounts be preserved in the “appropriate agency record- keeping system.” Harf said the regulation contained no “time requirement” to turn over records, meaning Clinton’s response — more than a year after she left office — complied. But government transparency advocates said the use of a private e-mail account and a private server meant that for years, Clinton’s e-mails were off-limits to public records requests filed with the State Department. The long delay in turning records over to the State Department also places enormous power in the hands of her closest aides to decide which of her e-mails should be made public and which should be shielded from view. “There’s no legitimate way to claim that there wasn’t a requirement, certainly to keep with the spirit of the law, to make real-time copies available to the agency,” said David Sobel, senior counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. In Congress, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said new subpoenas were a good step because lawmakers do not have confidence Clinton has turned over all of her relevant e- mails to the State Department. Agency officials have said they have submitted 300 of Clinton’s e-mails to the committee investigating the Benghazi attack. “The prime reason to set up an account like this is to skirt the law, avoid disclosure,” Chaffetz said. “The question isn’t the number of e-mails she has turned over, it’s the percentage. I want to know who decided what we could see.” Likewise, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said he is concerned that the State Department did not turn over all e-mails by Clinton aide Huma Abedin that he requested in 2013 as part of an effort to see whether Abedin was simultaneously working for the government and an outside consulting firm. Abedin, like Clinton, sometimes used a private clintonemail.com account. “The trend of using private e-mail for public business is detrimental to good government,” Grassley said. “The public’s business ought to be public with few exceptions.” A number of Democrats insisted Wednesday that the e-mail issue would fade quickly in voter’s minds.
  • “As somebody who desperately wants her to run and wants her to win, on a scale of 1 to 10 this is a negative 12,” said Paul Begala, a longtime Clinton family friend and Democratic strategist. No real voter, Begala said, is going to base a decision on whether “she had a non-archival-compliant e-mail server.” Alice Crites, Tom Hamburger, Steven Rich, Philip Rucker and Katie Zezima contributed to this report. Rosalind Helderman is a political enterprise and investigations reporter for the Washington Post. Carol Leonnig covers federal agencies with a focus on government accountability. Anne Gearan is a national politics correspondent for The Washington Post.
  • Hillary Clinton's private emails are getting subpoenaed  Hunter Walker Mar. 4, 2015, 3:46 PM AP/Marcio Jose SanchezHillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton might need to call her lawyer. A House of Representatives committee dedicated to investigating the 2012 terrorist attack on the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya issued subpoenas on Wednesday in an effort to examine Clinton's use of a private email address when she was secretary of state.
  • In a statement on the subpoenas, Jamal Ware, a spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said letters were also sent to companies involved with Clinton's email account. "The Select Committee on Benghazi today issued subpoenas for all communications of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton related to Libya and to the State Department for other individuals who have information pertinent to the investigation," Ware said. "The Committee also has issued preservation letters to internet firms informing them of their legal obligation to protect all relevant documents." The Washington Post was first to report on the committee's plans to issue the subpoenas. Clinton's emails have been the focus of a growing controversy since Monday when a New York Times report suggested her exclusive use of a personal email address while she was at the State Department may have violated federal regulations. The issue has cast a shadow on Clinton, who is widely expected to be preparing a 2016 presidential bid. Her team has insisted Clinton complied with the rules and took care to loop in government addresses whenever she conducted official business on the private account. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina), the chairman of the Benghazi committee, has previously sought to obtain Clinton's emails related to the attacks. Clinton's handling of the Benghazi attacks have long been criticized by Republicans. Democrats have claimed Clinton agreed to testify before the committee last year, but Gowdy said he would wait to obtain the emails before calling her. The Post reported "one person familiar with deliberations" said the committee discovered Clinton was using the private address last summer. Gowdy's office did not respond to multiple requests from Business Insider on Wednesday asking about potential subpoenas. After the Times story was published, Gowdy told reporters that Clinton "used personal email in lieu of government email" and that she "had more than one private email account." Because of this, Gowdy said the State Department "cannot certify that have produced all of former Secretary Clinton’s emails." "They do not have all of former Secretary Clinton’s emails nor do they control access to them," Gowdy said. Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, said Gowdy was wrong about the former secretary using multiple private email addresses. In a statement sent to Business Insider on Wednesday, Merrill suggested Gowdy may have gotten a mistaken impression due to a technicality.
  • However, afterwards, Ware issued a statement repeating Gowdy's claim that Clinton had more than one private address. "The Select Committee on Benghazi is in possession of records with two separate and distinct email addresses used by former Secretary Clinton and dated during the time she was Secretary of State," Ware said. Ware added the committee could not definitively say why it uncovered multiple addresses without obtaining information from Clinton's email server. "Without access to the relevant electronic information and stored data on the server—which was reportedly registered to her home—there is no way the Committee, or anyone else, can fully explain why the Committee uncovered two email addresses," Ware said. Ware's statement on the pair of email addresses outlined the committee's rationale for issuing the subpoenas. "As Chairman Gowdy has noted, this is why former Secretary Clinton’s exclusive use of personal emails to conduct official U.S. government business is so problematic and raises significant issues for transparency," Ware said. "The American people have a right to a full accounting of all the former Secretary’s emails, and the Committee is committed to working to uncover all the facts." This post was updated at 6:23 p.m. with Ware's statement announcing the subpoena issuance. i Hillary Clinton says she asked the State Department to release her emails  Bryan Logan Mar. 4, 2015, 11:49 PM
  • Re utersFormer U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton speaks at the U.S. Agency for International Development at "Cookstoves Future" summit in New York, November 21, 2014. Hillary Clinton has responded on Twitter to the widespread criticism she received this week for using a personal email account to conduct state business. That comes after three days of political rebuke Clinton received for using a personal email address while she served as Secretary of State under the Obama administration. The story has only added to the numerous criticisms Clinton has faced for her alleged lack of transparency. It didn't take long for Clinton's potential 2016 challengers to comment on the story Monday night. Jeb Bush (R-Fl.) weighed in on Twitter and posted a link to the site where emails from his time as Florida governor can be downloaded. Now, after much talk about the how and why of the matter – including a heated email exchange Wednesday between one of Clinton's top aides and some journalists – Hillary has finally spoken up:
  • The New York Times first reported Clinton's email practices Monday evening. There have also been questions about whether Clinton broke federal FOIA regulations for shunning a government-issued email address and whether she placed herself or the State Department at risk in the process. For its part, the Clinton camp has told Business Insider "Clinton was careful to use the address in a manner that went above and beyond regulatory requirements and ensured her communications were preserved." It's unclear when, or how many of Clinton's emails the State Department will release. ii Here's how Hillary Clinton's Republican 2016 rivals reacted to her email scandal  Leslie Larson Mar. 4, 2015, 5:13 PM
  • Re utersFormer U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The likely Republican presidential contenders have been more than willing to pile onto Hillary Clinton's email controversy. In the wake of Monday's New York Times report that Clinton exclusively used a personal email account as secretary of state, former Gov. Jeb Bush (R), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina all weighed in. On Fox News and on Twitter, these White House hopefuls criticized Clinton. Many accused her of intentionally circumventing federal regulations to avoid disclosing her communications. And at least one potential Clinton foe said Clinton put vital state secrets at risk by using an unsecured email server. The potential Democratic contenders have apparently been far less eager to weigh in. Business Insider rounded up the Republicans' reactions below: Jeb Bush
  • Bush was the first among the field of presumed GOP candidates to pounce on Clinton after news broke of the email scandal late Monday. Bush's tweet was a reference to his newly-launched website where he released thousands of his emails from his two terms as Florida's governor. The website only includes messages that relate to official state business — such as emails to state officials, constituents, and reporters. It does not contain emails about campaign activity or communication with Bush's family and friends. "Gov. Bush does not have a plan to release his personal e-mails not related to state business, like where he was planning to have dinner or when his tee times were," Bush spokeswoman Kristy Campbell told the Washington Post on Tuesday. Marco Rubio Rubio told Fox News on Tuesday that Clinton's use of a personal email server jeopardized state secrets and "clearly violated" federal rules for archiving official communication. "Using a private server outside the government system is extremely vulnerable to hackers and all sorts of foreign countries that can hack in and get secrets. The secretary of state potentially transacting national business on an unsecured server or a private server and that leaves our secrets and not only just that, but our strategies, exposed to the Chinese and the Russians and other intelligence agencies," Rubio told Fox anchor Megyn Kelly. "The State Department has a rule because the diplomatic discourse and so forth is part of the archives of the United States," he added. "So that rule was clearly violated." Rand Paul Paul told Fox News on Wednesday that Clinton will have to explain herself after "directly flouting the law." He also said authorities may have to look into another issue, Clinton's family foundation's acceptance of foreign contributions while she was at the State Department. "Not only is it the emails and directly flouting the law, I think there's going to be a constitutional question of whether or not she was receiving foreign gifts while in office," he said. "The constitution explicitly says that as a senator or as a secretary of state you’re not allowed to receive gifts from foreign countries. They've been receiving millions of dollars in their foundation. Now, they're going to say, 'That's not us, me directly.' But do they profit any way from their foundation, does it pay for their travel, does it pay for any of their expenses? She's got a lot of questions she’s going to have to answer." Rick Perry Also on Fox News, Perry argued Clinton's email scandal is just the latest in a pattern of stonewalling by the former Secretary of State.
  • "When you think of the dollars that she took, there's an ethical issue with the foreign dollars for the foundation. There's a pattern here and I think that's what got most of the people really concerned," he said Tuesday. Perry further predicted that populist Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) and other liberal critics will begin to question Clinton on the matter. "There's a pattern here of non-transparency I guess is the real concern for most people. It's an ethical problem that she’s gonna have to address. It continues to be building here. I’m thinking that Sen. Warren is probably gonna jump on this, along with some other folks and continue to cause real questions about is Hillary gonna be the right candidate or not from the standpoint of transparency and openness with the American people." As far as his own email usage in state government, Perry said he "followed all the statutes in the state of Texas as relative to our email acquisitions." Carly Fiorina Fiorina, who has never held public office, similarly questioned Clinton's actions in a Fox News interview Wednesday. Fiorina connected the private email account to Clinton's other "disturbing" controversies, including her foundation's foreign contributions. "How many ways can we count that she’s been hypocritical?" Fiorina asked. "Not only does Hillary Clinton obviously believe that people should do as she says not as she does, not only does she obviously believe that the rules don't apply to her, but it's yet another example of something that clearly looks like a problem, clearly looks like a conflict just as the Clinton Foundation taking donations from foreign governments while she's secretary of state. Honestly, I think it’s a pattern she doesn’t think the rules apply to her and that’s very disturbing." iii iii Read the angry emails Hillary Clinton's top aide sent to a bunch of reporters  Colin Campbell and Hunter Walker Mar. 4, 2015, 1:57 PM
  • AP /Carolyn KasterHillary Clinton. See Also Condoleezza Rice 'rarely used email' as secretary of state
  • Governor Mitt Romney used personal email like Secretary of State Clinton Hillary's emails are on a homebrew server registered to a pseudonym (see below) A key member of Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton's team sent several angry emails to a group of journalists on Tuesday night. The messages criticized a source for being a "lying liar" and what the aide described as a reporter's "cockamamie theory." The heated exchange was the latest chapter in the growing controversy over Clinton's use of a private email address for official business when she was secretary of state from 2009 until 2013. It began after Gawker writer J.K. Trotter published a story indicating two of Clinton's top aides used "secret email accounts" while they worked for her at the State Department. CJ Ciaramella, a reporter for Vice and the Washington Free Beacon, subsequently emailed Philippe Reines, a veteran Clinton communications aide, asking about the Gawker story. In his response, Reines CC'd multiple media critics and Trotter. Among other things, Reines' email criticized Trotter's "creepy" reporting methods and accused him of relying on a source who lied about Clinton. Update (March 5, 2014 11:18 a.m.): An internal email Gawker editor-in-chief Max Read sent to Trotter and his executive editor for investigations, John Cook, was published on the site's story about this chain. We included it here to ensure our version of the email chain is complete. Trotter's piece said an unnamed source who "has worked with Clinton in the past" alleged both Reines and another top Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, used private email addresses on the domain
  • clintonemail.com when they worked under Clinton at the State Department. The accusation came on the heels of a New York Times report published Monday that suggested Clinton's use of a private clintonemail.com address to conduct official State Department business may have violated federal regulations and prevented the government from preserving her communications. Clinton's team has insisted her use of the private email complied with the rules and did not interfere with recordkeeping. In his email to Trotter and Ciaramella, Reines vehemently denied he ever used personal email without including his government address. Chi p Somodevilla/GettyThen-Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton, center, with her press secretary, Philippe Reines, left, in 2009. Reines provided Business Insider with a copy of the exchange on Wednesday. In addition to Trotter and Ciaramella, Reines included Washington Post media reporter Erik Wemple and CNN's senior media correspondent Brian Stelter. Reines explained his rationale for bringing Wemple and Stelter in the conversation at the beginning of his message.
  • "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," Reines wrote. Reines proceeded to offer a point-by-point rebuttal of Trotter's article. In the story, Trotter wrote that Lexis Nexis records indicated Abedin had a clintonemail.com address. He also noted he wrote to the address listed in Nexis and the message did not bounce back. Reines dismissed this as "creepy" and questioned whether Trotter attempted to use similar techniques to check if he also had a clintonemail.com address. "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?" Reines wrote, adding, "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?" Reines went on to question whether Trotter's unnamed source had been able to provide email exchanges proving Clinton's aides used the private addresses. "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?" Reines asked in the email, which was first reported by The Washington Post. On Wednesday, Trotter sent a response to Reines, which he posted on Gawker. In it, he addressed each of the criticisms and defended his work. Trotter's initial story said the source's claim that Reines and Abedin used private email addresses might explain "the State Department’s puzzling response to several FOIA requests filed by Gawker in the past two years." The first of those requests was sent by Gawker in September 2012. Trotter said the request sought correspondence between Reines and a "variety of reporters" in the wake of a memorable, expletive-filled exchange Reines had with the late BuzzFeed reporter Michael Hastings in 2012. "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 (Gawker is currently appealing the rejection)," Trotter wrote. Trotter also claimed a 2011 FOIA request from Gawker to the State Department asking for copies of Abedin's correspondence was also denied. In his email, Reines suggested the idea private email addresses would prevent the State Department from responding to FOIA requests for his communications with the media was a wild "conspiracy."
  • "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?" Reines asked. "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?" Last March, Business Insider filed our own FOIA request asking the State Department for records of Reines' communications with several news organizations from the start of 2012 until after Clinton left her position as secretary of state in February 2013. A response sent to Business Insider by the State Department on March 21, 2014 indicated they would "being processing" the request and that they do have records of Reines' emails with the media. "Unusual circumstances (including the number and location of Department components involved in responding to your request, the volume of requested records, etc.) may arise that would require additional time to process your request," the State Department response said. The State Department, which has been criticized for failing to respond to records requests related to Clinton in a timely manner, rejected Business Insider's request for expedited processing and has not returned any records of Reines' communications. Ciaramella responded to Reines and began with a greeting for the many reporters CC'd on the exchange. "Hi Philippe, And hello JK and Erik and Brian and Nick. It's wonderful that we can all be here, together," he wrote. Ciaramella went on to note that, if Reines' claim he "didn't use private email" is correct, then the State Department was "either lying through its teeth or wildly incompetent" in its response to Gawker's FOIA request.
  • RE UTERS/Kevin LamarqueThen-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Business Insider reached out to the State Department on Wednesday to ask about its response to Gawker. State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki did not immediately respond. Ciaramella concluded by pointing out that BuzzFeed Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith tweeted a claimed that Reines used a private Gmail account for his exchange with Hastings. This would seem to be solid evidence Reines was indeed using private email for State Department business. Reines responded with another email where he looped in Smith. "Let me welcome Ben to our little party, because, well, he’s flat out wrong," Reines wrote. "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." Smith answered with an apology for the tweet, which he said was incorrect.
  • "Hey guys: this is my fault. I misremembered. I'm sorry for sewing confusion," Smith wrote. "I have corresponded with Philippe on his gmail, but this was not that." Read the entire email exchange Reines sent to Business Insider below. It was lightly edited for consistent formatting and to remove all personal contact information. Email 1: From: CJ Ciaramella 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 Email 2: From: Philippe Reines To: CJ Ciaramella, J.K. Trotter, Erik 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 [email protected] 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 3: From: CJ Ciaramella To: Philippe Reines, CJ Ciaramella, J.K. Trotter, Erik 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 Email 4:
  • From: Philippe Reines To: Ben Smith, Josh Gerstein, CJ Ciaramella, J.K. Trotter, Erik 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 Email 5: From: Max Read Date: Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:16 AM Subject: Re: Re: Email To: Keenan Trotter Cc: John Cook This seems fun! I’m feeling left out! Email 6: From: Ben Smith To: CJ Ciaramella, Philippe Reines, CJ Ciaramella, J.K. Trotter, Erik 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 Update (6:40 p.m.): Here are more emails in the thread that Reines forwarded to Business Insider: Email 7: From: J.K. Trotter To: Ben Smith, CJ Ciaramella, Philippe Reines, CJ Ciaramella, J.K. Trotter, Erik Wemple, Brian Stelter, Nick Merrill, Huma Abedin Date: Wednesday, March 4, 1:26 p.m. Subject: Re: Email Hi Philippe, thanks for the email. Here are the answers you requested. 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? Yes. I looked for but could not find a ClintonEmail.com listed under your name on Lexis-Nexis. That is why I asked your spokesperson, Nick Merrill, about whether you actually possessed a ClintonEmail.com address. He said you did not, and I included his statement in the same article to which you refer. 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? No, because I didn¹t find a ClintonEmail.com under your name and because your boss's email address, [email protected], was deliberately obscure. I decided to hold off on trying to email easily guessable usernames (e.g., [email protected]) until we had heard back from Merrill. Only after Merrill denied that you had a ClintonEmail.com address did I discover that Huma Abedin had a ClintonEmail.com address. For reasons that remain unclear, however, Merrill only addressed questions concerning you; he repeatedly refused to address questions about Abedin the one Clinton staffer whose possession of a ClintonEmail.com account has been publicly confirmed. 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? Neither I nor my source contended that they worked at a federal agency with you. They only claimed to be aware of the fact that Clinton's closest aides used private email accounts to conduct official government business, based on their experience working with Clinton. I worked to confirm that the source was correct, and reported Merrill's claim that you did not have a ClintonEmail.com address. Again, I included all of this in the very article to which you refer. 4) Better yet, in the off chance they don¹t 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? No, I didn't file a FOIA request for emails between you and the source. Doing so would have put the source's name on the public record, and as you know, the State Department often takes years to respond to even the most simple requests. It is unlikely that such a request would have been fulfilled by deadline. 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? My theory is that, if the State Department has been repeatedly unable to locate records of known email exchanges for a reason other than institutional incompetence‹then the reason might have to do with the the deliberate flouting of record-keeping regulations by State Department staffers. Nobody has provided an alternative explanation. 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. You¹d be equally surprised to know thatwhen 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. This is not, in fact, an answer. You were employed by the State Department when Gawker filed a FOIA request for correspondence between you and Michael Hastings. You were also employed by the State Department when your agency denied that request. And yet you refuse to clarify why the State Department could not locate a record of your exchange with Hastings. 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? No. Now that I've addressed your questions, would you mind answering these? 1. Were you made aware of Gawker's FOIA request for correspondence between you and 34 media outlets, which was submitted and later denied, on the grounds that no record of the correspondence was found‹when you were a State Department employee? If not, when did you become aware of the request? 2. Why have several FOIA requests for known email exchanges been rejected, because no records of them were found, when Clinton was secretary of state? 3. Why were you not given a ClintonEmail.com address, but Huma Abedin was? 4. How many people have ClintonEmail.com addresses, and what are their names? 5. You wrote that you received emails from reporters to your personal email while you were at State. Did you take steps to ensure those records were preserved under the rules set by the National Archives and Records Administration and the Freedom of Information Act?
  • 6. Did you conduct any other State Department business on an email account other than your @state.gov one? If so, did you take similar steps to preserve those emails as well? 7. In your September 2012 exchange with Michael Hastings, he wrote in a message to you: I now understand what women say about you, too! Any new complaints against you lately? What was he referring to? I also have a few questions for your colleague Huma Abedin (whom I've CC'd on this email): 1. Why were you given a ClintonEmail.com email address? 2. What do you use this email address for? 3. Did you use this email address for official State Department business? 4. Why do two of your colleagues, Nick Merrill and Philippe Reines, refuse to answer any questions about your possession of a ClintonEmail.com account? Thanks again, Keenan Email 8: From: Philippe Reines To: J.K. Trotter, Ben Smith, CJ Ciaramella, CJ Ciaramella, J.K. Trotter, Erik Wemple, Brian Stelter, Nick Merrill, Michael Calderone, Dylan Byer Date: Wednesday, March 4, 5:42 p.m. Subject: Re: Email Keenan, I didn’t ask why you didn’t include Nick’s statement. I asked you why you didn't include the results of your Lexis-Nexis search. Implication being you intentionally omitted anything that would refute your thesis. And they say spokespeople are evasive! Completely understandable given how very difficult and costly email is to send and you only have so many you can send a day. Not to mention the horrific consequences of a bounceback. Glad you didn’t take risk. Convenient. Ibid. (NOTE: How about you, me and lying liar source take a trip to the polygraph store. The three of
  • us strap in and we let the needle decide. Loser pays and issues a public apology. I don’t need to know their identity until they lose.) Cockamamie Theory: Is it your belief that I orchestrated this from private life months after leaving my job at State? If yes, is it your belief that my long reach would rig something as implausibly stupid as the reply you got? That’s just insulting. I mean, it put me in a worse light than if they had just ignored you. Non-USG Email Use: Talk about implausibly stupid replies, you would have to be the only reporter in America to claim that. If true though, very impressive. To Your Questions: Sometime after I left State, can’t recall the specific date. Probably from your reporting actually. Will surprise you to know that you & I are in complete agreement on this ludicrousness. You can ask me this over and over and I still can’t answer why. Again, I’m with you on this one. I sent email, I received email, lots of email – so you have to ask the FOIA people what the problem is. If you find out, let me know – because it’s as frustrating to me as you. And I’m suffering from it more than anyone. Simple. I didn’t need a personal address, I had one. I’m not their IT guy. But nobody else at State. Michael Calderone, cc’d, Tweeted what was my preferred practice. And as Erik Wemple wrote, he emailed me several times at State in 2012 and I replied from State every time. My personal email was the last place I wanted reporters intruding. No offense. I addressed this in my email to you. Biggest reason people used a personal account was because their work email was down, which happened maddeningly not infrequently. And often in those cases you’d be emailing another State person whose email worked so it would be retained. And then when yours came back up, you’d revert. Thank you, I’m really glad you asked, for two reasons: 1) My third biggest regret about that exchange — the first being having it at all, second being losing my cool — was not replying one last time to respond to that remark. I don’t know what he was referring to. And given his death I’m reluctant to guess. But I think he was referencing a rumor that stemmed from State’s FOX reporter being removed from the State beat because of a sexual harassment charge against him by a colleague, and said reporter tried to blame me. Which never made sense why he thought that would work. But I guess it kinda did if you’re asking me more than two years later. But the real reason I am thrilled you asked is because in one sentence you’ve revealed your lack of professionalism, low standards and sheer cruel intent. It’s the purest window into your
  • subjectivity, motivations and credibility you could possibly have invoked. Better than anything I’ve highlighted so far. So again, thank you. But I’ll sign off by reiterating our common ground: your FOIA request should be resolved in a manner far less ridiculous than it has been to date. If there’s such thing as an amicus brief for FOIA requests, count me in. Or better yet, I’ll jointly sign a new request for my email. Best, Philippe P.s. To your questions about Huma: I just don’t understand what the big deal is. What do you care if she had that one or gmail or Erols? Makes no difference to anything you’re asking. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/angry-email-philippe-reines-to-reporters-2015- 3#ixzz3TbisbAGN Hillary's emails are on a homebrew server registered to a pseudonym Whaddya do with an old bitch that keeps trying to learn new tricks?  JACK GILLUM and TED BRIDIS, Ass Press Mar. 4, 2015, 6:06 AM
  • Jim Watson/Reuters Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, at a news conference at the US Consulate in Vladivostok, Russia, in 2012. The computer server that transmitted and received Hillary Clinton's emails — on a private account she used exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state — traced back to an internet service registered to her family's home in Chappaqua, New York, according to internet records reviewed by The Associated Press. The highly unusual practice of a Cabinet-level official physically running her own email would have given Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, impressive control over limiting access to her message archives. It also would distinguish Clinton's secretive email practices as far more sophisticated than some politicians, including Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, who were caught conducting official business using free email services operated by Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc. Most internet users rely on professional outside companies, such as Google, or their own employers for the behind-the-scenes complexities of managing their email communications. Government employees generally use servers run by federal agencies where they work. In most cases, individuals who operate their own email servers are technical experts or users so concerned about issues of privacy and surveillance they take matters into their own hands. Clinton has not described her motivation for using a private email account — [email protected], which traced back to her own private email server registered under an apparent pseudonym — for official State Department business. Operating her own server would have afforded Clinton additional legal opportunities to block government or private subpoenas in criminal, administrative, or civil cases because her lawyers could object in court before being forced to turn over any emails. And since the Secret Service was guarding Clinton's home, an email server there would have been well protected from theft or a physical hacking.
  • But homebrew email servers are generally not as reliable, secure from hackers, or protected from fires or floods as those in commercial data centers. Those professional facilities provide monitoring for viruses or hacking attempts, regulated temperatures, off-site backups, generators in case of power outages, fire-suppression systems, and redundant communications lines. A spokesman for Clinton did not respond to requests seeking comment from the AP on Tuesday. Clinton ignored the issue during a speech Tuesday night at the 30th anniversary gala of EMILY's List, which works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights. It was unclear whom Clinton hired to set up or maintain her private email server, which the AP traced to a mysterious identity, Eric Hoteham. That name does not appear in public records databases, campaign contribution records, or internet background searches. Hoteham was listed as the customer at Clinton's $1.7 million home on Old House Lane in Chappaqua in records registering the internet address for her email server since August 2010. REUTERS/Ke vin LamarqueClinton before leaving Malta for Tripoli, Libya, in 2011. The Hoteham personality also is associated with a separate email server, presidentclinton.com, and a non-functioning website, wjcoffice.com, all linked to the same residential internet account as Mrs. Clinton's email server. The former president's full name is William Jefferson Clinton. In November 2012, without explanation, Clinton's private email account was reconfigured to use Google's servers as a backup in case her own personal email server failed, according to internet records. That is significant because Clinton publicly supported Google's accusations in June 2011 that China's government had tried to break into the Google mail accounts of senior US
  • government officials. It was one of the first instances of a major American corporation openly accusing a foreign government of hacking. Then, in July 2013, five months after Clinton resigned as secretary of state, her private email server was reconfigured again to use a Denver-based commercial email provider, MX Logic, which is now owned by McAfee Inc., a top internet security company. The New York Times reported Monday that Clinton exclusively used a personal email account it did not specify to conduct State Department business. The disclosure raised questions about whether she took actions to preserve copies of her old work-related emails, as required by the Federal Records Act. A Clinton spokesman, Nick Merrill, told the newspaper that Clinton complied with the letter and spirit of the law because her advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails to decide which ones to turn over to the State Department after the agency asked for them. In theory but not in practice, Clinton's official emails would be accessible to anyone who requested copies under the US Freedom of Information Act. Under the law, citizens and foreigners can compel the government to turn over copies of federal records for zero or little cost. Since Clinton effectively retained control over emails in her private account even after she resigned in 2013, the government would have to negotiate with Clinton to turn over messages it could not already retrieve from the inboxes of federal employees she emailed. The AP has waited more than a year under the open records law for the State Department to turn over some emails covering Clinton's tenure as the nation's top diplomat, though the agency has never suggested it didn't possess all her emails. Clinton's private email account surfaced publicly in March 2013 after a convicted Romanian hacker known as Guccifer published emails stolen from former White House adviser Sidney Blumenthal. The internet domain was registered around the time of her secretary of state nomination. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina), chairman of the special House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, said the committee learned last summer — when agency documents were turned over to the committee — that Clinton had used a private email account while secretary of state. More recently the committee learned that she used private email accounts exclusively and had more than one, Gowdy said. President Barack Obama signed a bill last year that banned the use of private email accounts by government officials unless they retain copies of messages in their official account or forward copies to their government accounts within 20 days. The bill did not become law until more than one year after Clinton left the State Department. ___
  • Associated Press writer Stephen Braun contributed to this report. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/using-a-private-email-account-allowed-hillary- clinton-to-limit-access-to-her-message-archives-2015-3#ixzz3TbptErpT
Please download to view
51
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Description
There's lots to dislike and distrust about this potential candidate for President. She keeps learning new tricks that just add to the list.
Text
  • Pillory Hillary Clinton Wants You to See Her E-Mails, Except Those She Didn't Hand Over by Mark DrajemIndira Lakshmanan 2:51 PM EST March 5, 2015
  • Flashback: Hillary Clinton Bashes Bush Officials for Secret Email Accounts (VIDEO) Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, March 5, 2015, 9:34 AM On June 20, 2007, Hillary Clinton complained about Bush officials shredding the US Constitution by having secret email accounts. Two years later, as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton set up a secret email account and secret servers in her basement for all of her official business. In this Oct. 18, 2011, file photo, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton checks her Blackberry from a desk inside a C-17 military plane upon her departure from Malta, in the Mediterranean Sea, bound for Tripoli, Libya. Photographer: Kevin Lamarque-Pool/AP Photo (Bloomberg) -- Hillary Clinton says she wants the public to see her e-mails. But there are some that voters may never see: the ones she didn’t give to the government.
  • Clinton used a private server and e-mail address while U.S. secretary of state, and the law doesn’t force her to release any of the e-mails that she hasn’t turned over to the State Department. Clinton, through spokesmen, said she turned over all e-mail about public business when she was the nation’s chief diplomat, and other messages may include notes to friends and personal contacts. Open-government advocates say that’s not the point: the public should have a complete record of official e-mail communications, but Clinton’s may forever have gaps. “There really is not a way to force an agency to turn those over, because they are not under the agency’s control,” Patrice McDermott, executive director of OpentheGovernment.org, a coalition that works to make more government records public, said. “They are not government records until they are turned over.” There are certain to be other communications from Clinton’s inner circle that will never be made public. Her top aides frequently used instant text messages to talk with each other, a form of communication that isn’t captured or archived by the State Department. Instant Messages It is not clear whether Clinton herself used her Blackberry’s instant message service, as her aides did. Clinton, who was secretary of state from 2009 until February 2013, used a private e-mail account that was routed through a server at her suburban New York home. She says she turned over 55,000 pages of documents from the trove to the State Department in response to a request by the agency to all former secretaries of state. The State Department asked for all government records that Clinton had, though left it up to her to cull through the data. Late Wednesday night Clinton tweeted that she wants them to be released. “I want the public to see my e-mail” she said on Twitter. “I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.” Sensitive Information There is a process for removing sensitive or personal information, such as names of people working with the State Department in foreign countries or private telephone and Social Security numbers, a State Department official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. The review process might take months, the official said.
  • The disclosures this week emerged as Clinton is preparing to announce a campaign for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president. Her activities at the State Department and her work with the Clinton Foundation, created by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, already are providing fodder for Republican critics who say she hasn’t been fully transparent about her activities. The use of a private e-mail by Clinton was uncovered after a congressional committee sought Clinton’s e-mails in its investigation of the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012. The attack killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. House Subpoena The House panel Wednesday issued a subpoena for any of Clinton’s private e- mails relevant to its probe, and asked Internet service providers to preserve whatever records they have of relevant electronic communications. A subpoena isn’t limited by the same public records limitations, and can encompass any public or private documents related to an investigation -- including those on her private server. While Clinton said that she turned over all the public records on her private e-mail, that’s not how it works when a government e-mail system is used and messages are automatically archived and subject to requests by the public, news media and others. Clinton has an obligation to provide any e-mails related to government business to the State Department; however, there’s no mechanism to review messages that Clinton or her private staff decide aren’t public documents, according to Steve Zansberg, an attorney specializing in Freedom of Information Act law. Government Control The issue came up in a separate lawsuit this week. A federal judge in Washington on Tuesday denied a petition from a free-market group to force the Obama administration to search the e-mails that White House science adviser John Holdren kept on a non-government server. Because the government didn’t possess those messages, it couldn’t be asked to produce them under Freedom of Information laws, a government attorney argued. “The law is clear, however, that agencies do not -- merely by way of the employer/employee relationship -- gain ‘control’ over their employees’ personal e- mail accounts,” U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled in the case brought by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “That is precisely why agencies admonish their employees to use their official accounts for government business.”
  • While the government can’t be asked to search a private e-mail provider, the employee has the responsibility to transfer e-mails about public business to the agency, Zansberg said. Clinton’s Staff The question advocates for open government are asking now is how the public will know if all the relevant e-mails have been sent to the State Department. Instead of a government employee reviewing the records, Clinton staff members did the work. “Her staff did the sorting, but what the law requires is for a government official to do the sorting,” said Tom Blanton, the head of the National Security Archive, a group that uses FOIA requests and lawsuits to uncover government actions. “There are other motivations going on here, and she should have been on notice.” Judicial Watch, a self-described conservative organization that promotes transparency in government, said it filed three new Freedom of Information requests with the State Department Thursday for Clinton’s e-mails. Previous requests it had made for information about Benghazi and other matters never turned up any e-mails from Clinton, which raised suspicions, said Tom Fitton, the group’s president. ‘Totally Inappropriate’ “The idea that Mrs. Clinton’s private lawyers can go in and decide what records are public records and what are not is totally inappropriate,” he said. The issue of government versus private e-mails was raised more than two years ago by the State Department inspector general. A watchdog report from August 2012, when Clinton was secretary, criticized the ambassador in Nairobi, Kenya, for using a non-government e-mail account. “It is the department’s general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized information system, which has the proper level of security controls,” the report said. “The use of unauthorized information systems increases the risk for data loss, phishing, and spoofing of e-mail accounts, as well as inadequate protections for personally identifiable information.” To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Drajem in Washington at [email protected]; Indira A.R. Lakshmanan in Washington at [email protected] To contact the editors responsible for this story: Jon Morgan at [email protected] Steve Geimann
  • Hillary Clinton Still Doesn't Get It Nice tweet, but she still seems trapped on the wrong side of the bridge to the 21st century. By Ron Fournier (Photo illustration by Sean McCabe) March 5, 2015 A cornered Clinton is a craven Clinton, which is why we should view Hillary Rodham Clinton's latest public relations trick with practiced skepticism. "I want the public to see my email," she tweeted Wednesday night. "I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible." If she wants us to see her email, why did she create a secret account stored on a dark server registered at her home?
  • (RELATED: More Security Fears Surround Clinton's "Homebrew" Email Server) If she wants us to see her email, why didn't she give State all of her email rather than a self-censored fraction of the correspondence? If she wants us to see her email, Clinton should turn over every word written on her dark account(s) for independent vetting. Let somebody the public trusts decide which emails are truly private and which ones belong to the public. Like everything else about the response to this controversy, Clinton's tweet is reminiscent of the 1990s, when her husband's White House overcame its wrongdoing by denying the truth, blaming Republicans, and demonizing and bullying the media. It's a shameless script, unbecoming of a historic figure who could be our next president – and jarringly inappropriate for these times. (RELATED: Meet the Non-Clinton Clinton Defense Team) In the 15 years since Bill Clinton left office, the internet has made almost everybody a researcher and a journalist—equipped to judge wrongdoing for themselves and insist upon accountability. We can now spot the lies ourselves, stand up to bullies, and remind our leaders that two wrongs don't make a right. The actions of Hillary Clinton and her team raise the question: Is she trapped on the wrong side of the bridge to the 21st century? This is part of a pattern of bad behavior. My former employer, The Associated Press said Wednesday that it was considering legal action over years of stonewalling its requests for government documents covering Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. The AP has sought her full schedules and calendars and for details on the State Department's decision to grant a special position to a longtime Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, among other documents, the New York Times, reported. The oldest AP request was made in March 2010. "We believe it's critically important that government officials and agencies be held accountable to the voters," said AP's general counsel, Karen Kaiser. "In this instance, we've exhausted our administrative remedies in pursuit of important documents and are considering legal action." This is the problem: If she wants us to see her emails, Clinton would show us her emails. If she wants to be transparent, she'd be transparent. If she wants to be a modern, forward-looking leader who earns the trust of a disillusioned public, she'd call off her attack dogs, stop spinning, and do the right thing. She would return the unseemly foreign donations to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Foundation.
  • She wouldn't call them "my email." She would know that the emails of a public official belongs to the public. They're ours. Cough 'em up. Clinton won't take questions at event honoring journalism  Colin Campbell Mar. 5, 2015, 12:39 PM Wi n McNamee/GettyFormer US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. See Also
  • Hillary Clinton says she asked the State Department to release her emails (except she has the server at her home)i Here's how Hillary Clinton's Republican 2016 rivals reacted to her email scandalii Read the angry emails Hillary Clinton's top aide sent to a bunch of reportersiii Hillary Clinton reportedly will not be taking any questions at an event honoring excellence in journalism. Organizers of the March 23 Toner Prize Celebration, which is named after the late New York Times reporter Robin Toner, told the Center for Public Integrity the event would be open to reporters. However, the keynote speaker, Clinton, does not plan to take their inquiries. Business Insider reached out to Clinton's office to confirm the report. A Clinton spokesman referred the question back to the event's organizers. Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for president in 2016, is embroiled in a controversy surrounding her exclusive use of personal email addresses while she served as secretary of state. According to The New York Times, this may have violated federal guidelines and could have left state secrets vulnerable on an
  • unsecure server. Both Clinton's email issue and her alleged avoidance of the press have fueled criticism she is insufficiently transparent. After days of relentless media coverage since Monday, Clinton addressed the emails in a tweet late Wednesday night. "I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible," she wrote. However, many questions remain, including why she decided to use a private email server in the first place. For now it doesn't appear Clinton has any intention of answering them. TMZ ambushed her at Reagan National Airport on Wednesday and pressed her on the email controversy. She smiled but didn't respond.
  • Hillary Clinton Banned Use of Private Email by State Department Employees … While She Conducted All Her Business By Private Email fullscreen Share article on Facebookshare Tweet articletweet Plus one article on Google Plus+1 Print Article Email article Adjust font size AA by Andrew C. McCarthy March 5, 2015 6:09 PM Fox News’s Catherine Herridge reports (via Fox’s Greta Van Susteren) that, in an internal 2011 State Department cable, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton directed employees not to use personal email accounts for official business due to security concerns. Nevertheless, throughout her tenure as Secretary, Mrs. Clinton used personal email accounts to conduct her State Department business – setting up her own personal servers in her New York home precisely to avoid the State Department system under which government electronic communications were maintained and disclosed pursuant to federal law. Ms. Herridge elaborates: Sent to Diplomatic and Consular Staff in June 2011, the unclassified cable, with Clinton’s electronic signature, makes clear to “avoid conducting official Department from your personal e-mail accounts” and employees should not “auto-forward Department email to personal email accounts which is prohibited by Department policy.” The Cable was addressed to all diplomatic and consular posts with the subject line “Securing Personal E-mail Accounts.” While the cable told employees to secure personal/home email accounts given increased targeting of government employees, it makes clear that these personal accounts should never be used for government business and cites the departure procedures which prohibit the practices. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414970/hillary-clinton- banned-use-private-email-state-department-employees-while-she
  • A Clinton candidacy is weakened by string of revelations By David Lightman McClatchy Washington BureauMarch 5, 2015 Updated 15 hours ago Sept. 12, 2012 - then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at the State Department in Washington. ALEX BRANDON — AP WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton is suddenly a weaker presidential candidate. While the former secretary of state remains a strong favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination, she’s now more vulnerable to a party challenger – and, perhaps more ominously, more likely to give an already- alienated electorate new reasons to drop out of the political process.
  • The furor over foreign money and secret emails may be prodding Clinton to engage politically faster than she’d planned. She issued her first personal statement near midnight Wednesday night on the newest problem, that she’d used a private email account to conduct State Department business. She’s been added to the list of speakers alongside her husband and daughter at a Saturday meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative. And she may be moving up the formal launch of her campaign. Clinton strove to defuse the latest controversy with a late-night tweet that tried, likely without success, to turn the tide of the email stories and make it appear she was the one demanding transparency. “I want the public to see my email,” she said, and added that she’d asked the State Department to release it. Clinton did turn over thousands of pages of emails to State, but she and her aides decided which one to give the officials. The department said early Thursday that it would review the emails, a process that could take several months. Give us a break, Republicans protested. “Hillary Clinton must think we’re all suckers,” said Michael Short, Republican Party spokesman. “The fact Hillary Clinton set up a ‘homebrewed’ email system in her house to skirt federal record-keeping regulations is a pretty good indicator of just how transparent she’s interested in being.” Here we go again. Nothing Can Bring Her Down! Hillary Clinton Addresses Email Scandal Inform
  • Big money that’s hard to account for? Forty percent of top donors over the past 10 years to the Clinton Foundation are based in foreign countries, McClatchy reported. Clinton was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, and she joined the foundation after leaving office. The flap is reminiscent of President Bill Clinton’s wooing big money by inviting well-heeled donors to attend fancy coffees or sleep over at the White House. Secret, private emails? Could be an echo of the early Clinton administration, when first lady Hillary Clinton, in charge of overhauling the nation’s health care system, would not at first release the names of hundreds of people on her task force. Transparency? “I think I’m the most transparent person in public life,” Clinton said in 2008. But would the public have learned of the email account if the Republican- led House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi incident hadn’t uncovered it? To voters, all this opens Clinton to more, sharper criticism about how she’d campaign and govern. Or who has her ear. The Clinton Foundation said it had acted properly in its fundraising. “Like other global charities, the Clinton Foundation receives support from individuals, organizations and governments from all over the world. Contributions are made because the foundation’s programs improve the lives of millions of people around the globe,” it said in a statement. “The Clinton Foundation has a record of transparency that goes above what is required of U.S. charities.” The political world saw the foundation’s operations through a different prism, however. “This has potential to have real legs. It feeds a sense of uneasiness about foreign money coming into this country,” said Wayne Lesperance, director of the Center for Civic Engagement at New England College in Henniker, N.H. Clinton retains some huge political advantages. “People already think they know her,” said veteran political author Richard Reeves. “People who don’t like her already will like her less, and those who like her won’t change their minds.” But she faces two threats. In the Democratic nomination race, the more she stumbles, the more a prominent candidate might decide to challenge her. In South Carolina, former state Democratic Chairman Dick Harpootlian was livid about Clinton’s controversies. “It boggles the mind,” he said. “She should be exemplifying a standard of ethics and transparency far beyond the minimum requirements of the law.”
  • Harpootlian, a Columbia, S.C., attorney, met recently with Vice President Joe Biden, who’s been visiting early primary and caucus states. “He didn’t say no” about a run, Harpootlian said. On the left, the party’s liberal wing has long seen Clinton as too cozy with official Washington and corporate interests. The foreign-money flap reinforces that view. So far, though, Clinton benefits from her stature and fundraising ability. Liberal favorite Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., doesn’t want to run. Sen. Bernard Sanders, a Vermont independent, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb might. None so far has shown much ability to move blocs of voters away from Clinton, and they refrained from talking about Clinton this week. “I have nothing much to say about it,” Sanders said of Clinton’s troubles. “He hasn’t commented and doesn’t plan to,” said Lis Smith, O’Malley’s spokeswoman. It’s all part of a narrative that seems to acquire new chapters all the time, and the newest flaps rob Clinton of any ability to become the juggernaut she wants to be. Email: [email protected]; Twitter: @lightmandavid. Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/03/05/258816/a-clinton-candidacy-is- weakened.html#storylink=cpy
  • House investigators: Hillary Clinton engaged in a 'scheme to conceal' her email  Hunter Walker Mar. 5, 2015, 12:23 PM The congressional committee dedicated to investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks on the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya believes that Hillary Clinton engaged in a "scheme to conceal" her email while she was secretary of state.
  • Jamal Ware, a spokesman for the committee which is chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina), issued a statement on Wednesday responding to a tweet Clinton sent the prior night. Clinton wrote that she wants "the public to see" her email and asked the State Department to release her messages. Ware dismissed this and said it "does not answer questions" about Clinton's email "scheme." Ware's response highlighted the fact that Clinton's aides reviewed her emails and decided which ones should be turned over to the State Department. "As Chairman Gowdy noted, former Secretary Clinton has left herself in the unique position of being the only one to determine what records the American people are entitled to," Ware said. "This has significant negative implications for transparency and government oversight, as well as for media and others who have a legitimate interest in understanding the Secretary's time in office." On Wednesday, the committee issued a subpoena in an effort to examine Clinton's email use. The subpoena came after a New York Times article was published on Monday that detailed how Clinton exclusively used a personal address rather than a governmental one during her time leading the State Department. According to the Times, Clinton's use of a private address for official business could have violated federal rules. Clinton's team has disputed this and argued her use of personal email went above and beyond regulatory requirements. The Benghazi committee has long sought to obtain Clinton's emails. Gowdy has said he will refrain from calling Clinton to testify before the committee until it is able to examine her email. Republicans have been critical of the State Department's handling of the Benghazi attacks, which left four Americans dead including US Ambassador Christopher Stevens. In recent months, Clinton's team turned over about 55,000 printed copies of her emails to the State Department in response to a request the department has described as part of an effort to update its record-keeping. Ware's statement suggested that the fact that Clinton's aides decided which emails to hand in raises questions about the "integrity" of the records, which necessitated the committee's subpoena. "The former Secretary's tweet does not answer questions about why this was not done when she left office, the integrity of the emails while she controlled them, the scheme to conceal them, or the failure to provide them in logical course," Ware said. "Chairman [Gowdy] has said the former secretary is welcome to and should release all of her emails, but legitimate investigations do not consider partial records. And that is the point of the subpoena issued yesterday by the Benghazi Committee."
  • As House panel issues subpoenas, questions mount over Clinton e-mails A House committee issued subpoenas for e-mails from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s personal account. (Yuri Gripas/Reuters) By Rosalind S. Helderman, Carol D. Leonnig and Anne Gearan March 5 A congressional committee issued subpoenas Wednesday seeking information about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s use of a private e-mail account for official business while she was secretary of state, setting up a potential legal clash with the presumptive Democratic front-runner for president. The move followed the revelation that Clinton had installed a private server at her New York home that allowed her, and not the State Department, to store her e- mail correspondence and later decide which ones to turn over as public records. The subpoenas, sent by the special House committee probing the fatal 2012 terrorist attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, reflected the angry response more broadly from Republican lawmakers and conservative watchdogs who said Clinton’s private e-mail system allowed her to evade scrutiny from investigations and legal proceedings. Late Wednesday, Clinton responded to the issue for the first time tweeting, “I want the public to see my e-mail. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.” The Fix: That tweet isn’t going to solve the problem. Not even close.] State Dept. defends Clinton e-mail account(2:02) In a tense exchange with reporters Wednesday, State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf denied anything inappropriate occurred after revelations that former secretary of state Hillary Clinton used a private e-mail account for work. (C-Span) Marie Harf, deputy state department spokeswoman, said the e-mails provided by Clinton will be reviewed for public release “using a normal process” that guides such releases. “We will undertake this review as quickly as possible,” she said.
  • “Given the sheer volume of the document set, this review will take some time to complete.” Meanwhile, government transparency advocates expressed concern over the level of control Clinton had asserted over her records. Security experts wondered if hackers could exploit weaknesses in the Clinton server to gain access to sensitive information. And, on the political front, some Democrats worried about whether the e-mail issue would damage Clinton’s strength as a presidential candidate. “There’s always another shoe to drop with Hillary,” said Dick Harpootlian, a former Democratic Party chairman in South Carolina who has said he hopes Vice President Biden runs. “Do we nominate her not knowing what’s in those e-mails?” [Democrats are looking around for a 2016 alternative — but they don’t see anyone] The subpoenas issued Wednesday seek all Clinton e-mails related to Libya during her time as secretary of state — an attempt to collect new e-mails sent from the clintonemail.com domain, the private account Clinton established when she took office in 2009. Also Wednesday, the president of Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, said the organization is considering filing legal petitions to reopen as many as nine cases in which the group unsuccessfully sought public records from the State Department. The cases were either dismissed, closed or settled after the administration claimed it found no records involving Clinton related to the group’s requests. Why Clinton’s private e-mail address is bad news(1:21) Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail address that she used while secretary of state reinforces everything people don’t like about her, argues The Post’s Chris Cillizza, and is very dangerous to her presidential ambitions. (The Washington Post) And other lawmakers who have tried to investigate Clinton’s tenure at State said they were outraged and felt misled, and were concerned many of the public records they had requested had not been provided because of the use of private e-mail. State Department officials have confirmed that Clinton exclusively used a personal account, instead of a government e-mail address, during her time in office.
  • Instead of using State Department servers to send and receive those e-mails, she used a server housed at her private home in Chappaqua, N.Y., a Clinton ally familiar with her e-mail practices confirmed Wednesday. The server’s existence was first reported by the Associated Press. The Clinton ally said the server and e-mail addresses were established after the conclusion of Clinton’s unsuccessful bid for president in 2008, as she was transitioning away from using an account held by her defunct campaign. [The Fix: Jon Stewart compares Clinton’s email strategy to Doritos] Neither State Department officials nor Clinton aides would provide information about which officials had signed off on the arrangement, whether a legal analysis was performed and whether any agency officials ever raised questions about Clinton’s e-mail system. Beyond her late night tweet, Clinton herself has not addressed the e-mail issue, and her spokesman has not expanded on a brief statement issued Monday, in which he said Clinton had complied with both the letter and spirit of the law. The spokesman, Nick Merrill, also said that other secretaries of state have used private e-mail accounts. State Department officials said Clinton turned over 55,000 pages of e-mail records last year after officials requested that former secretaries turn over public documents in their possession. But, agency officials said, the decision over which e-mails would be deemed public record fell to Clinton and her private advisers — not to government officials or archivists. State Department spokesman Harf told reporters Wednesday that she could not answer “when it was set up, and all that.” She referred questions about the system’s security to Clinton’s personal office. Harf said there was no indication that Clinton had used the account for classified information, but she acknowledged that she was relying on information conveyed by Clinton and her aides. [Clinton warned of hackers breaking into ‘personal e-mail accounts’ in her memoir] White House spokesman Josh Earnest also defended Clinton, saying he had seen no evidence to suggest Clinton’s team had failed to turn over everything in its possession. But Earnest also took pains to say that he was relying on the Clinton team for his information.
  • “I also want to just be crystal clear about the fact that this is a responsibility that they assumed,” he said. Federal regulations in place while Clinton was in office required that e-mails sent on non-government accounts be preserved in the “appropriate agency record- keeping system.” Harf said the regulation contained no “time requirement” to turn over records, meaning Clinton’s response — more than a year after she left office — complied. But government transparency advocates said the use of a private e-mail account and a private server meant that for years, Clinton’s e-mails were off-limits to public records requests filed with the State Department. The long delay in turning records over to the State Department also places enormous power in the hands of her closest aides to decide which of her e-mails should be made public and which should be shielded from view. “There’s no legitimate way to claim that there wasn’t a requirement, certainly to keep with the spirit of the law, to make real-time copies available to the agency,” said David Sobel, senior counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. In Congress, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said new subpoenas were a good step because lawmakers do not have confidence Clinton has turned over all of her relevant e- mails to the State Department. Agency officials have said they have submitted 300 of Clinton’s e-mails to the committee investigating the Benghazi attack. “The prime reason to set up an account like this is to skirt the law, avoid disclosure,” Chaffetz said. “The question isn’t the number of e-mails she has turned over, it’s the percentage. I want to know who decided what we could see.” Likewise, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said he is concerned that the State Department did not turn over all e-mails by Clinton aide Huma Abedin that he requested in 2013 as part of an effort to see whether Abedin was simultaneously working for the government and an outside consulting firm. Abedin, like Clinton, sometimes used a private clintonemail.com account. “The trend of using private e-mail for public business is detrimental to good government,” Grassley said. “The public’s business ought to be public with few exceptions.” A number of Democrats insisted Wednesday that the e-mail issue would fade quickly in voter’s minds.
  • “As somebody who desperately wants her to run and wants her to win, on a scale of 1 to 10 this is a negative 12,” said Paul Begala, a longtime Clinton family friend and Democratic strategist. No real voter, Begala said, is going to base a decision on whether “she had a non-archival-compliant e-mail server.” Alice Crites, Tom Hamburger, Steven Rich, Philip Rucker and Katie Zezima contributed to this report. Rosalind Helderman is a political enterprise and investigations reporter for the Washington Post. Carol Leonnig covers federal agencies with a focus on government accountability. Anne Gearan is a national politics correspondent for The Washington Post.
  • Hillary Clinton's private emails are getting subpoenaed  Hunter Walker Mar. 4, 2015, 3:46 PM AP/Marcio Jose SanchezHillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton might need to call her lawyer. A House of Representatives committee dedicated to investigating the 2012 terrorist attack on the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya issued subpoenas on Wednesday in an effort to examine Clinton's use of a private email address when she was secretary of state.
  • In a statement on the subpoenas, Jamal Ware, a spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said letters were also sent to companies involved with Clinton's email account. "The Select Committee on Benghazi today issued subpoenas for all communications of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton related to Libya and to the State Department for other individuals who have information pertinent to the investigation," Ware said. "The Committee also has issued preservation letters to internet firms informing them of their legal obligation to protect all relevant documents." The Washington Post was first to report on the committee's plans to issue the subpoenas. Clinton's emails have been the focus of a growing controversy since Monday when a New York Times report suggested her exclusive use of a personal email address while she was at the State Department may have violated federal regulations. The issue has cast a shadow on Clinton, who is widely expected to be preparing a 2016 presidential bid. Her team has insisted Clinton complied with the rules and took care to loop in government addresses whenever she conducted official business on the private account. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina), the chairman of the Benghazi committee, has previously sought to obtain Clinton's emails related to the attacks. Clinton's handling of the Benghazi attacks have long been criticized by Republicans. Democrats have claimed Clinton agreed to testify before the committee last year, but Gowdy said he would wait to obtain the emails before calling her. The Post reported "one person familiar with deliberations" said the committee discovered Clinton was using the private address last summer. Gowdy's office did not respond to multiple requests from Business Insider on Wednesday asking about potential subpoenas. After the Times story was published, Gowdy told reporters that Clinton "used personal email in lieu of government email" and that she "had more than one private email account." Because of this, Gowdy said the State Department "cannot certify that have produced all of former Secretary Clinton’s emails." "They do not have all of former Secretary Clinton’s emails nor do they control access to them," Gowdy said. Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, said Gowdy was wrong about the former secretary using multiple private email addresses. In a statement sent to Business Insider on Wednesday, Merrill suggested Gowdy may have gotten a mistaken impression due to a technicality.
  • However, afterwards, Ware issued a statement repeating Gowdy's claim that Clinton had more than one private address. "The Select Committee on Benghazi is in possession of records with two separate and distinct email addresses used by former Secretary Clinton and dated during the time she was Secretary of State," Ware said. Ware added the committee could not definitively say why it uncovered multiple addresses without obtaining information from Clinton's email server. "Without access to the relevant electronic information and stored data on the server—which was reportedly registered to her home—there is no way the Committee, or anyone else, can fully explain why the Committee uncovered two email addresses," Ware said. Ware's statement on the pair of email addresses outlined the committee's rationale for issuing the subpoenas. "As Chairman Gowdy has noted, this is why former Secretary Clinton’s exclusive use of personal emails to conduct official U.S. government business is so problematic and raises significant issues for transparency," Ware said. "The American people have a right to a full accounting of all the former Secretary’s emails, and the Committee is committed to working to uncover all the facts." This post was updated at 6:23 p.m. with Ware's statement announcing the subpoena issuance. i Hillary Clinton says she asked the State Department to release her emails  Bryan Logan Mar. 4, 2015, 11:49 PM
  • Re utersFormer U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton speaks at the U.S. Agency for International Development at "Cookstoves Future" summit in New York, November 21, 2014. Hillary Clinton has responded on Twitter to the widespread criticism she received this week for using a personal email account to conduct state business. That comes after three days of political rebuke Clinton received for using a personal email address while she served as Secretary of State under the Obama administration. The story has only added to the numerous criticisms Clinton has faced for her alleged lack of transparency. It didn't take long for Clinton's potential 2016 challengers to comment on the story Monday night. Jeb Bush (R-Fl.) weighed in on Twitter and posted a link to the site where emails from his time as Florida governor can be downloaded. Now, after much talk about the how and why of the matter – including a heated email exchange Wednesday between one of Clinton's top aides and some journalists – Hillary has finally spoken up:
  • The New York Times first reported Clinton's email practices Monday evening. There have also been questions about whether Clinton broke federal FOIA regulations for shunning a government-issued email address and whether she placed herself or the State Department at risk in the process. For its part, the Clinton camp has told Business Insider "Clinton was careful to use the address in a manner that went above and beyond regulatory requirements and ensured her communications were preserved." It's unclear when, or how many of Clinton's emails the State Department will release. ii Here's how Hillary Clinton's Republican 2016 rivals reacted to her email scandal  Leslie Larson Mar. 4, 2015, 5:13 PM
  • Re utersFormer U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The likely Republican presidential contenders have been more than willing to pile onto Hillary Clinton's email controversy. In the wake of Monday's New York Times report that Clinton exclusively used a personal email account as secretary of state, former Gov. Jeb Bush (R), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina all weighed in. On Fox News and on Twitter, these White House hopefuls criticized Clinton. Many accused her of intentionally circumventing federal regulations to avoid disclosing her communications. And at least one potential Clinton foe said Clinton put vital state secrets at risk by using an unsecured email server. The potential Democratic contenders have apparently been far less eager to weigh in. Business Insider rounded up the Republicans' reactions below: Jeb Bush
  • Bush was the first among the field of presumed GOP candidates to pounce on Clinton after news broke of the email scandal late Monday. Bush's tweet was a reference to his newly-launched website where he released thousands of his emails from his two terms as Florida's governor. The website only includes messages that relate to official state business — such as emails to state officials, constituents, and reporters. It does not contain emails about campaign activity or communication with Bush's family and friends. "Gov. Bush does not have a plan to release his personal e-mails not related to state business, like where he was planning to have dinner or when his tee times were," Bush spokeswoman Kristy Campbell told the Washington Post on Tuesday. Marco Rubio Rubio told Fox News on Tuesday that Clinton's use of a personal email server jeopardized state secrets and "clearly violated" federal rules for archiving official communication. "Using a private server outside the government system is extremely vulnerable to hackers and all sorts of foreign countries that can hack in and get secrets. The secretary of state potentially transacting national business on an unsecured server or a private server and that leaves our secrets and not only just that, but our strategies, exposed to the Chinese and the Russians and other intelligence agencies," Rubio told Fox anchor Megyn Kelly. "The State Department has a rule because the diplomatic discourse and so forth is part of the archives of the United States," he added. "So that rule was clearly violated." Rand Paul Paul told Fox News on Wednesday that Clinton will have to explain herself after "directly flouting the law." He also said authorities may have to look into another issue, Clinton's family foundation's acceptance of foreign contributions while she was at the State Department. "Not only is it the emails and directly flouting the law, I think there's going to be a constitutional question of whether or not she was receiving foreign gifts while in office," he said. "The constitution explicitly says that as a senator or as a secretary of state you’re not allowed to receive gifts from foreign countries. They've been receiving millions of dollars in their foundation. Now, they're going to say, 'That's not us, me directly.' But do they profit any way from their foundation, does it pay for their travel, does it pay for any of their expenses? She's got a lot of questions she’s going to have to answer." Rick Perry Also on Fox News, Perry argued Clinton's email scandal is just the latest in a pattern of stonewalling by the former Secretary of State.
  • "When you think of the dollars that she took, there's an ethical issue with the foreign dollars for the foundation. There's a pattern here and I think that's what got most of the people really concerned," he said Tuesday. Perry further predicted that populist Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) and other liberal critics will begin to question Clinton on the matter. "There's a pattern here of non-transparency I guess is the real concern for most people. It's an ethical problem that she’s gonna have to address. It continues to be building here. I’m thinking that Sen. Warren is probably gonna jump on this, along with some other folks and continue to cause real questions about is Hillary gonna be the right candidate or not from the standpoint of transparency and openness with the American people." As far as his own email usage in state government, Perry said he "followed all the statutes in the state of Texas as relative to our email acquisitions." Carly Fiorina Fiorina, who has never held public office, similarly questioned Clinton's actions in a Fox News interview Wednesday. Fiorina connected the private email account to Clinton's other "disturbing" controversies, including her foundation's foreign contributions. "How many ways can we count that she’s been hypocritical?" Fiorina asked. "Not only does Hillary Clinton obviously believe that people should do as she says not as she does, not only does she obviously believe that the rules don't apply to her, but it's yet another example of something that clearly looks like a problem, clearly looks like a conflict just as the Clinton Foundation taking donations from foreign governments while she's secretary of state. Honestly, I think it’s a pattern she doesn’t think the rules apply to her and that’s very disturbing." iii iii Read the angry emails Hillary Clinton's top aide sent to a bunch of reporters  Colin Campbell and Hunter Walker Mar. 4, 2015, 1:57 PM
  • AP /Carolyn KasterHillary Clinton. See Also Condoleezza Rice 'rarely used email' as secretary of state
  • Governor Mitt Romney used personal email like Secretary of State Clinton Hillary's emails are on a homebrew server registered to a pseudonym (see below) A key member of Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton's team sent several angry emails to a group of journalists on Tuesday night. The messages criticized a source for being a "lying liar" and what the aide described as a reporter's "cockamamie theory." The heated exchange was the latest chapter in the growing controversy over Clinton's use of a private email address for official business when she was secretary of state from 2009 until 2013. It began after Gawker writer J.K. Trotter published a story indicating two of Clinton's top aides used "secret email accounts" while they worked for her at the State Department. CJ Ciaramella, a reporter for Vice and the Washington Free Beacon, subsequently emailed Philippe Reines, a veteran Clinton communications aide, asking about the Gawker story. In his response, Reines CC'd multiple media critics and Trotter. Among other things, Reines' email criticized Trotter's "creepy" reporting methods and accused him of relying on a source who lied about Clinton. Update (March 5, 2014 11:18 a.m.): An internal email Gawker editor-in-chief Max Read sent to Trotter and his executive editor for investigations, John Cook, was published on the site's story about this chain. We included it here to ensure our version of the email chain is complete. Trotter's piece said an unnamed source who "has worked with Clinton in the past" alleged both Reines and another top Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, used private email addresses on the domain
  • clintonemail.com when they worked under Clinton at the State Department. The accusation came on the heels of a New York Times report published Monday that suggested Clinton's use of a private clintonemail.com address to conduct official State Department business may have violated federal regulations and prevented the government from preserving her communications. Clinton's team has insisted her use of the private email complied with the rules and did not interfere with recordkeeping. In his email to Trotter and Ciaramella, Reines vehemently denied he ever used personal email without including his government address. Chi p Somodevilla/GettyThen-Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton, center, with her press secretary, Philippe Reines, left, in 2009. Reines provided Business Insider with a copy of the exchange on Wednesday. In addition to Trotter and Ciaramella, Reines included Washington Post media reporter Erik Wemple and CNN's senior media correspondent Brian Stelter. Reines explained his rationale for bringing Wemple and Stelter in the conversation at the beginning of his message.
  • "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," Reines wrote. Reines proceeded to offer a point-by-point rebuttal of Trotter's article. In the story, Trotter wrote that Lexis Nexis records indicated Abedin had a clintonemail.com address. He also noted he wrote to the address listed in Nexis and the message did not bounce back. Reines dismissed this as "creepy" and questioned whether Trotter attempted to use similar techniques to check if he also had a clintonemail.com address. "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?" Reines wrote, adding, "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?" Reines went on to question whether Trotter's unnamed source had been able to provide email exchanges proving Clinton's aides used the private addresses. "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?" Reines asked in the email, which was first reported by The Washington Post. On Wednesday, Trotter sent a response to Reines, which he posted on Gawker. In it, he addressed each of the criticisms and defended his work. Trotter's initial story said the source's claim that Reines and Abedin used private email addresses might explain "the State Department’s puzzling response to several FOIA requests filed by Gawker in the past two years." The first of those requests was sent by Gawker in September 2012. Trotter said the request sought correspondence between Reines and a "variety of reporters" in the wake of a memorable, expletive-filled exchange Reines had with the late BuzzFeed reporter Michael Hastings in 2012. "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 (Gawker is currently appealing the rejection)," Trotter wrote. Trotter also claimed a 2011 FOIA request from Gawker to the State Department asking for copies of Abedin's correspondence was also denied. In his email, Reines suggested the idea private email addresses would prevent the State Department from responding to FOIA requests for his communications with the media was a wild "conspiracy."
  • "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?" Reines asked. "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?" Last March, Business Insider filed our own FOIA request asking the State Department for records of Reines' communications with several news organizations from the start of 2012 until after Clinton left her position as secretary of state in February 2013. A response sent to Business Insider by the State Department on March 21, 2014 indicated they would "being processing" the request and that they do have records of Reines' emails with the media. "Unusual circumstances (including the number and location of Department components involved in responding to your request, the volume of requested records, etc.) may arise that would require additional time to process your request," the State Department response said. The State Department, which has been criticized for failing to respond to records requests related to Clinton in a timely manner, rejected Business Insider's request for expedited processing and has not returned any records of Reines' communications. Ciaramella responded to Reines and began with a greeting for the many reporters CC'd on the exchange. "Hi Philippe, And hello JK and Erik and Brian and Nick. It's wonderful that we can all be here, together," he wrote. Ciaramella went on to note that, if Reines' claim he "didn't use private email" is correct, then the State Department was "either lying through its teeth or wildly incompetent" in its response to Gawker's FOIA request.
  • RE UTERS/Kevin LamarqueThen-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Business Insider reached out to the State Department on Wednesday to ask about its response to Gawker. State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki did not immediately respond. Ciaramella concluded by pointing out that BuzzFeed Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith tweeted a claimed that Reines used a private Gmail account for his exchange with Hastings. This would seem to be solid evidence Reines was indeed using private email for State Department business. Reines responded with another email where he looped in Smith. "Let me welcome Ben to our little party, because, well, he’s flat out wrong," Reines wrote. "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." Smith answered with an apology for the tweet, which he said was incorrect.
  • "Hey guys: this is my fault. I misremembered. I'm sorry for sewing confusion," Smith wrote. "I have corresponded with Philippe on his gmail, but this was not that." Read the entire email exchange Reines sent to Business Insider below. It was lightly edited for consistent formatting and to remove all personal contact information. Email 1: From: CJ Ciaramella 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 Email 2: From: Philippe Reines To: CJ Ciaramella, J.K. Trotter, Erik 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 [email protected] 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 3: From: CJ Ciaramella To: Philippe Reines, CJ Ciaramella, J.K. Trotter, Erik 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 Email 4:
  • From: Philippe Reines To: Ben Smith, Josh Gerstein, CJ Ciaramella, J.K. Trotter, Erik 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 Email 5: From: Max Read Date: Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:16 AM Subject: Re: Re: Email To: Keenan Trotter Cc: John Cook This seems fun! I’m feeling left out! Email 6: From: Ben Smith To: CJ Ciaramella, Philippe Reines, CJ Ciaramella, J.K. Trotter, Erik 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 Update (6:40 p.m.): Here are more emails in the thread that Reines forwarded to Business Insider: Email 7: From: J.K. Trotter To: Ben Smith, CJ Ciaramella, Philippe Reines, CJ Ciaramella, J.K. Trotter, Erik Wemple, Brian Stelter, Nick Merrill, Huma Abedin Date: Wednesday, March 4, 1:26 p.m. Subject: Re: Email Hi Philippe, thanks for the email. Here are the answers you requested. 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? Yes. I looked for but could not find a ClintonEmail.com listed under your name on Lexis-Nexis. That is why I asked your spokesperson, Nick Merrill, about whether you actually possessed a ClintonEmail.com address. He said you did not, and I included his statement in the same article to which you refer. 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? No, because I didn¹t find a ClintonEmail.com under your name and because your boss's email address, [email protected], was deliberately obscure. I decided to hold off on trying to email easily guessable usernames (e.g., [email protected]) until we had heard back from Merrill. Only after Merrill denied that you had a ClintonEmail.com address did I discover that Huma Abedin had a ClintonEmail.com address. For reasons that remain unclear, however, Merrill only addressed questions concerning you; he repeatedly refused to address questions about Abedin the one Clinton staffer whose possession of a ClintonEmail.com account has been publicly confirmed. 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? Neither I nor my source contended that they worked at a federal agency with you. They only claimed to be aware of the fact that Clinton's closest aides used private email accounts to conduct official government business, based on their experience working with Clinton. I worked to confirm that the source was correct, and reported Merrill's claim that you did not have a ClintonEmail.com address. Again, I included all of this in the very article to which you refer. 4) Better yet, in the off chance they don¹t 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? No, I didn't file a FOIA request for emails between you and the source. Doing so would have put the source's name on the public record, and as you know, the State Department often takes years to respond to even the most simple requests. It is unlikely that such a request would have been fulfilled by deadline. 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? My theory is that, if the State Department has been repeatedly unable to locate records of known email exchanges for a reason other than institutional incompetence‹then the reason might have to do with the the deliberate flouting of record-keeping regulations by State Department staffers. Nobody has provided an alternative explanation. 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. You¹d be equally surprised to know thatwhen 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. This is not, in fact, an answer. You were employed by the State Department when Gawker filed a FOIA request for correspondence between you and Michael Hastings. You were also employed by the State Department when your agency denied that request. And yet you refuse to clarify why the State Department could not locate a record of your exchange with Hastings. 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? No. Now that I've addressed your questions, would you mind answering these? 1. Were you made aware of Gawker's FOIA request for correspondence between you and 34 media outlets, which was submitted and later denied, on the grounds that no record of the correspondence was found‹when you were a State Department employee? If not, when did you become aware of the request? 2. Why have several FOIA requests for known email exchanges been rejected, because no records of them were found, when Clinton was secretary of state? 3. Why were you not given a ClintonEmail.com address, but Huma Abedin was? 4. How many people have ClintonEmail.com addresses, and what are their names? 5. You wrote that you received emails from reporters to your personal email while you were at State. Did you take steps to ensure those records were preserved under the rules set by the National Archives and Records Administration and the Freedom of Information Act?
  • 6. Did you conduct any other State Department business on an email account other than your @state.gov one? If so, did you take similar steps to preserve those emails as well? 7. In your September 2012 exchange with Michael Hastings, he wrote in a message to you: I now understand what women say about you, too! Any new complaints against you lately? What was he referring to? I also have a few questions for your colleague Huma Abedin (whom I've CC'd on this email): 1. Why were you given a ClintonEmail.com email address? 2. What do you use this email address for? 3. Did you use this email address for official State Department business? 4. Why do two of your colleagues, Nick Merrill and Philippe Reines, refuse to answer any questions about your possession of a ClintonEmail.com account? Thanks again, Keenan Email 8: From: Philippe Reines To: J.K. Trotter, Ben Smith, CJ Ciaramella, CJ Ciaramella, J.K. Trotter, Erik Wemple, Brian Stelter, Nick Merrill, Michael Calderone, Dylan Byer Date: Wednesday, March 4, 5:42 p.m. Subject: Re: Email Keenan, I didn’t ask why you didn’t include Nick’s statement. I asked you why you didn't include the results of your Lexis-Nexis search. Implication being you intentionally omitted anything that would refute your thesis. And they say spokespeople are evasive! Completely understandable given how very difficult and costly email is to send and you only have so many you can send a day. Not to mention the horrific consequences of a bounceback. Glad you didn’t take risk. Convenient. Ibid. (NOTE: How about you, me and lying liar source take a trip to the polygraph store. The three of
  • us strap in and we let the needle decide. Loser pays and issues a public apology. I don’t need to know their identity until they lose.) Cockamamie Theory: Is it your belief that I orchestrated this from private life months after leaving my job at State? If yes, is it your belief that my long reach would rig something as implausibly stupid as the reply you got? That’s just insulting. I mean, it put me in a worse light than if they had just ignored you. Non-USG Email Use: Talk about implausibly stupid replies, you would have to be the only reporter in America to claim that. If true though, very impressive. To Your Questions: Sometime after I left State, can’t recall the specific date. Probably from your reporting actually. Will surprise you to know that you & I are in complete agreement on this ludicrousness. You can ask me this over and over and I still can’t answer why. Again, I’m with you on this one. I sent email, I received email, lots of email – so you have to ask the FOIA people what the problem is. If you find out, let me know – because it’s as frustrating to me as you. And I’m suffering from it more than anyone. Simple. I didn’t need a personal address, I had one. I’m not their IT guy. But nobody else at State. Michael Calderone, cc’d, Tweeted what was my preferred practice. And as Erik Wemple wrote, he emailed me several times at State in 2012 and I replied from State every time. My personal email was the last place I wanted reporters intruding. No offense. I addressed this in my email to you. Biggest reason people used a personal account was because their work email was down, which happened maddeningly not infrequently. And often in those cases you’d be emailing another State person whose email worked so it would be retained. And then when yours came back up, you’d revert. Thank you, I’m really glad you asked, for two reasons: 1) My third biggest regret about that exchange — the first being having it at all, second being losing my cool — was not replying one last time to respond to that remark. I don’t know what he was referring to. And given his death I’m reluctant to guess. But I think he was referencing a rumor that stemmed from State’s FOX reporter being removed from the State beat because of a sexual harassment charge against him by a colleague, and said reporter tried to blame me. Which never made sense why he thought that would work. But I guess it kinda did if you’re asking me more than two years later. But the real reason I am thrilled you asked is because in one sentence you’ve revealed your lack of professionalism, low standards and sheer cruel intent. It’s the purest window into your
  • subjectivity, motivations and credibility you could possibly have invoked. Better than anything I’ve highlighted so far. So again, thank you. But I’ll sign off by reiterating our common ground: your FOIA request should be resolved in a manner far less ridiculous than it has been to date. If there’s such thing as an amicus brief for FOIA requests, count me in. Or better yet, I’ll jointly sign a new request for my email. Best, Philippe P.s. To your questions about Huma: I just don’t understand what the big deal is. What do you care if she had that one or gmail or Erols? Makes no difference to anything you’re asking. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/angry-email-philippe-reines-to-reporters-2015- 3#ixzz3TbisbAGN Hillary's emails are on a homebrew server registered to a pseudonym Whaddya do with an old bitch that keeps trying to learn new tricks?  JACK GILLUM and TED BRIDIS, Ass Press Mar. 4, 2015, 6:06 AM
  • Jim Watson/Reuters Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, at a news conference at the US Consulate in Vladivostok, Russia, in 2012. The computer server that transmitted and received Hillary Clinton's emails — on a private account she used exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state — traced back to an internet service registered to her family's home in Chappaqua, New York, according to internet records reviewed by The Associated Press. The highly unusual practice of a Cabinet-level official physically running her own email would have given Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, impressive control over limiting access to her message archives. It also would distinguish Clinton's secretive email practices as far more sophisticated than some politicians, including Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, who were caught conducting official business using free email services operated by Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc. Most internet users rely on professional outside companies, such as Google, or their own employers for the behind-the-scenes complexities of managing their email communications. Government employees generally use servers run by federal agencies where they work. In most cases, individuals who operate their own email servers are technical experts or users so concerned about issues of privacy and surveillance they take matters into their own hands. Clinton has not described her motivation for using a private email account — [email protected], which traced back to her own private email server registered under an apparent pseudonym — for official State Department business. Operating her own server would have afforded Clinton additional legal opportunities to block government or private subpoenas in criminal, administrative, or civil cases because her lawyers could object in court before being forced to turn over any emails. And since the Secret Service was guarding Clinton's home, an email server there would have been well protected from theft or a physical hacking.
  • But homebrew email servers are generally not as reliable, secure from hackers, or protected from fires or floods as those in commercial data centers. Those professional facilities provide monitoring for viruses or hacking attempts, regulated temperatures, off-site backups, generators in case of power outages, fire-suppression systems, and redundant communications lines. A spokesman for Clinton did not respond to requests seeking comment from the AP on Tuesday. Clinton ignored the issue during a speech Tuesday night at the 30th anniversary gala of EMILY's List, which works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights. It was unclear whom Clinton hired to set up or maintain her private email server, which the AP traced to a mysterious identity, Eric Hoteham. That name does not appear in public records databases, campaign contribution records, or internet background searches. Hoteham was listed as the customer at Clinton's $1.7 million home on Old House Lane in Chappaqua in records registering the internet address for her email server since August 2010. REUTERS/Ke vin LamarqueClinton before leaving Malta for Tripoli, Libya, in 2011. The Hoteham personality also is associated with a separate email server, presidentclinton.com, and a non-functioning website, wjcoffice.com, all linked to the same residential internet account as Mrs. Clinton's email server. The former president's full name is William Jefferson Clinton. In November 2012, without explanation, Clinton's private email account was reconfigured to use Google's servers as a backup in case her own personal email server failed, according to internet records. That is significant because Clinton publicly supported Google's accusations in June 2011 that China's government had tried to break into the Google mail accounts of senior US
  • government officials. It was one of the first instances of a major American corporation openly accusing a foreign government of hacking. Then, in July 2013, five months after Clinton resigned as secretary of state, her private email server was reconfigured again to use a Denver-based commercial email provider, MX Logic, which is now owned by McAfee Inc., a top internet security company. The New York Times reported Monday that Clinton exclusively used a personal email account it did not specify to conduct State Department business. The disclosure raised questions about whether she took actions to preserve copies of her old work-related emails, as required by the Federal Records Act. A Clinton spokesman, Nick Merrill, told the newspaper that Clinton complied with the letter and spirit of the law because her advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails to decide which ones to turn over to the State Department after the agency asked for them. In theory but not in practice, Clinton's official emails would be accessible to anyone who requested copies under the US Freedom of Information Act. Under the law, citizens and foreigners can compel the government to turn over copies of federal records for zero or little cost. Since Clinton effectively retained control over emails in her private account even after she resigned in 2013, the government would have to negotiate with Clinton to turn over messages it could not already retrieve from the inboxes of federal employees she emailed. The AP has waited more than a year under the open records law for the State Department to turn over some emails covering Clinton's tenure as the nation's top diplomat, though the agency has never suggested it didn't possess all her emails. Clinton's private email account surfaced publicly in March 2013 after a convicted Romanian hacker known as Guccifer published emails stolen from former White House adviser Sidney Blumenthal. The internet domain was registered around the time of her secretary of state nomination. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina), chairman of the special House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, said the committee learned last summer — when agency documents were turned over to the committee — that Clinton had used a private email account while secretary of state. More recently the committee learned that she used private email accounts exclusively and had more than one, Gowdy said. President Barack Obama signed a bill last year that banned the use of private email accounts by government officials unless they retain copies of messages in their official account or forward copies to their government accounts within 20 days. The bill did not become law until more than one year after Clinton left the State Department. ___
  • Associated Press writer Stephen Braun contributed to this report. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/using-a-private-email-account-allowed-hillary- clinton-to-limit-access-to-her-message-archives-2015-3#ixzz3TbptErpT
Comments
Top