And she totally wants you to hear it from her! In a focus group, very legalistic sort of manner, posted to Facebook
I wanted you to hear this directly from me:
Yes, I should have used two email addresses, one for personal matters and one for my work at the State Department. Not doing so was a mistake. I’m sorry about it, and I take full responsibility.
But, that’s not the problem. The problem is that she used a private email address via an insecure, offsite, unaccountable server to conduct official business, which included sensitive, confidential, and secret material. It was a violation of policy and federal laws.
What’s also a mistake was using devices not approved by State Department IT.
It’s important for you to know a few key facts. My use of a personal email account was aboveboard and allowed under the State Department’s rules. Everyone I communicated with in government was aware of it. And nothing I ever sent or received was marked classified at the time.
Alas, that’s a falsehood, except in terms of her using a personal email account to send her personal email and non-sensitive/classified/confidential contacts. The “everyone: part is about throwing a blame-net out into the waters to snare others in her problems, and could be a veiled threat to, among others, Team Obama that she could drag them in if they don’t play ball with her.
As this process proceeds, I want to be as transparent as possible. That’s why I’ve provided all of my work emails to the government to be released to the public, and why I’ll be testifying in public in front of the Benghazi Committee later next month.
A goodly chunk of what we know has been pulled like stuck teeth via Freedom Of Information requests, usually followed by taking State to court, which, even then, finds State in non-compliance and/or slow walking the release.
Since she also deleted tens of thousands of emails, which she claims are “personal”, then attempted to wipe the server, how do we know she was transparent?
I know this is a complex story. I could have—and should have—done a better job answering questions earlier. I’m grateful for your support, and I’m not taking anything for granted.
“Complex”. In other words, she’s saying it’s too big for you peons to understand why she’s allowed to do all she did in contradiction to federal policy and law, which would have seen you, at a minimum, fired from your job, and mostly likely prosecuted.
This is an attempt by the US Republican party and corporate media to bring down the vile and arrogant Clinton, who otherwise would waltz to victory in 2016. Morning Joe’s new tagline is “All Email – All the Time! (Unless Trump Speaks)”.
Can a great Democracy survive talking only about emails, Caitlyn Jenner and Donald Trump, while few understand the Iran nuclear agreement, global warming, Obama’s troubling TPP and appreciate the impact of soaring mal-distribution of wealth and wages.
jeff,
I guess you support Richard Nixon, just as I did. After all, she is not much removed from his activity, and Nixon was a hell of a lot more popular and a much better statesman.
New campaign theme song.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BGLR25EJtfE
This email controversy started in the NY Times – hardly a mouthpiece for Republicans.
I suspect Obama/Jarrett is behind this.
They don’t trust Hillary to cement the Obama legacy and are working behind the scenes to destroy her.
I also doubt she would have waltzed to victory being that she really is a lousy candidate and seems incapable of answering any question in a straight forward manner.
Yes, Jeffery, good catch. It has nothing to do with Clinton’s incompetent handling of the emails, but it’s someone else’s fault.
The NY Times is part of the corporate media that hate Clinton and love turmoil. They are only accidently doing Republican bidding.
j, No, it’s her fault. But there’s nothing there. Come back when you can prove some damages.
So there goes the “Clinton did nothing wrong and there is no harm” defense as well as john’s defense of “the emails weren’t classified when Hillary received them.”