How the Story of Hillary Clinton’s Emails Has Changed

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jul 7, 2004
4,281
2,748
1,743
#1
How the Story of Hillary
Clinton’s Emails Has Changed

By ERIC LIPTON and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT OCT. 21, 2015

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s explanations about her use of a personal email account as secretary of state have evolved over time. She is expected to be questioned about her statements by a House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.


  1. Why did Mrs. Clinton use only a personal email account, and did State Department rules allow it?
    INITIAL STATEMENT

    March 10, 2015“When I got to work as secretary of state, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two,” Mrs. Clinton said in March. “Looking back, it would’ve been better if I’d simply used a second email account and carried a second phone.” Mrs. Clinton said that since a vast majority of her work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, they would be archived by the government.

    LATER COMMENTS

    July 2015Media reports say that Mrs. Clinton used multiple devices – a BlackBerry and an iPad. She mostly relied on her BlackBerry for email, but she sometimes used her iPad to access email. After her aides were asked by the media about the iPad, they revised her statement. — Clinton campaign statement

    October 2015At this month’s Democratic presidential debate, Mrs. Clinton said, “What I did was allowed by the State Department, but it wasn’t the best choice.”

    Analysis

    At the time Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state, in January 2009, the State Department’s written policy was that email generally be conducted on an “authorized” computer with adequate security measures. But because of perennial problems with the state.gov email system, many State Department employees found they had to use their private email accounts to get work done in a timely manner, especially while traveling. Critics of Mrs. Clinton have said that she did not follow the department’s rules and regulations governing email. The Clinton campaign disputes that contention.

  2. Does Mrs. Clinton regret using a personal email account as secretary of state?
    INITIAL STATEMENT

    March 10, 2015“Again, looking back, it would’ve been better for me to use two separate phones and two email accounts. I thought using one device would be simpler, and obviously, it hasn’t worked out that way.”

    LATER COMMENTS

    Sept. 5, 2015In a September interview, Mrs. Clinton sought to frame the issue as a simple misunderstanding. “At the end of the day, I am sorry that this has been confusing to people and has raised a lot of questions. But there are answers to all these questions.” — MSNBC interview with Andrea Mitchell

    Sept. 7, 2015In response to a question from The Associated Press about why she would not fully apologize, Mrs. Clinton said: “What I did was allowed. It was allowed by the State Department. The State Department has confirmed that.” — Associated Press article

    Sept. 8, 2015In an interview just days later, Mrs. Clinton apologized: “That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility. And I’m trying to be as transparent as I possibly can.” — ABC interview with David Muir

    Analysis

    As scrutiny of Mrs. Clinton’s email account has increased, and her early statements failed to dispel public concern, she has become more apologetic about her decision to use only the private email account. Participants in a focus group conducted by the Clinton campaign responded positively when shown a video of Mrs. Clinton striking a more conciliatory tone about the issue.

  3. Did classified emails end up on her personal server?
    INITIAL STATEMENT

    March 10, 2015“There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements.” — Hillary Rodham Clinton

    LATER COMMENTS

    July 2015The F.B.I. had determined that Mrs. Clinton had received “Secret” information in her account, the second highest classification of government intelligence. In response to that disclosure, her campaign said that sensitive national security information was sometimes upgraded to classified at a later date if the State Department or another agency believed its inadvertent release “could potentially harm national security or diplomatic relations.” The campaign insisted that none of the materials were classified at the time she received them. — Clinton campaign statement

    September 2015According to multiple media reports over the summer, an inspector general’s review found that some contents of emails that Mrs. Clinton received were classified at the time she received them, though not marked as such. In the Sept. 7 interview with The A.P., she emphasized that the material she received did not carry classification labels but did not directly take issue with the inspector general’s finding. “I did not send or receive any information marked classified. I take the responsibilities of handling classified materials very seriously and did so,” Mrs. Clinton said. — Associated Press article

    Analysis

    Mrs. Clinton has adjusted her statements as outside reviews by the F.B.I. and the inspector general undercut her initial comments that her emails had contained nothing classified. The controversy, in part, reflects the widespread uncertainty inside the government over what is classified and what is not. So far there is no public evidence that any classified information leaked from her email account or put national security at risk. But the discovery of sensitive contents in Mrs. Clinton’s emails has fueled criticism of her initial decision to use a private account for government business.

  4. Did Mrs. Clinton turn over all her work-related emails to the State Department?
    INITIAL STATEMENT

    March 10, 2015“We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related emails and delivered them to the State Department,” she said. “I have absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the State Department.” — statement by Mrs. Clinton at United Nations news conference

    LATER COMMENTS

    June 25, 2015It was disclosed in June that there were 15 emails between Mrs. Clinton and her longtime adviser Sidney Blumenthal, mainly dealing with events in Libya, that Mrs. Clinton did not provide to the State Department. In response to that development, a Clinton campaign official said, “We do not have a record of other correspondence between her and Mr. Blumenthal beyond that which was turned over to the State Department.” The official added, “We do not recognize many of those materials and cannot speak to their origin.” — The New York Times

    Aug. 8, 2015Mrs. Clinton said in a sworn statement in August, filed in federal court, that she directed that all her emails in her custody that “potentially were federal records” be turned over to the government and that “on information and belief, this has been done.” — Mrs. Clinton’s sworn statement

    Sept. 27, 2015“From my perspective, we have a very thorough review process that we conducted. And my attorneys supervised it, they went through everything. And what we had available at the time was turned over,” Mrs. Clinton said in September on NBC. — “Meet the Press” interview with Mrs. Clinton

    Analysis

    The campaign has not said what happened to these emails. But its failure to turn them over to the State Department has raised questions about whether Mrs. Clinton gave the department all the messages pertaining to her work as the nation’s top diplomat.

  5. When did she start using the personal account she had as secretary of state?
    INITIAL STATEMENT

    March 10, 2015“Before March 18, 2009, Secretary Clinton continued using the email account she had used during her Senate service. Given her practice from the beginning of emailing Department officials on their state.gov accounts, her work-related emails during these initial weeks would have been captured and preserved in the Department’s record-keeping system.” — Document released by Mrs. Clinton’s office

    LATER COMMENT

    Sept. 27, 2015In September, after the Defense Department discovered a chain of emails from January 2009, between Mrs. Clinton’s email account and one for David H. Petraeus, who was then the head of the United States Central Command, Mrs. Clinton revised her statement. “There was about a month where I didn’t have everything already on the server and we went back, tried to, you know, recover what we could recover. ” — “Meet the Press” interview on NBC

    Analysis

    Mrs. Clinton’s campaign inaccurately stated after the email account was revealed that she had started using it in March 2009.

  6. Why did Mrs. Clinton provide her emails to the State Department?
    INITIAL STATEMENT

    March 10, 2015 Mrs. Clinton’s office said in March that the State Department formally requested that Mrs. Clinton and four former secretaries turn over work-related emails sent or received by their personal accounts to help the department comply with the Federal Records Act. — Document released by Mrs. Clinton’s office

    LATER COMMENT

    Sept. 20, 2015“When we were asked to help the State Department make sure they had everything from other secretaries of state, not just me, I’m the one who said, O.K., great, I will go through them again. And we provided all of them.” — “Face the Nation” interview on CBS

    Analysis

    Mrs. Clinton’s aides suggested in March that she turned over her emails as a result of a routine record-keeping effort by the State Department. In fact, the effort to gather her emails took place as part of the department’s response to the congressional investigation into the attacks in Benghazi, according to the State Department. Department officials said they asked for emails from her predecessors after discussions with Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers about getting her emails. The timing has led some critics to suggest that the requests to former secretaries of state were an effort to provide cover for her.
 

Slugger926

Federal Marshal
Oct 19, 2004
11,665
1,653
1,743
#3
Do we really want someone running the country that can't even handle running two phones? I know most people in my organization have one for work and one for personal calls and email.
 
May 8, 2009
4,595
2,806
1,743
Germantown, TN
#5
Sorry Hillary.......Are you bored? Head getting heavy? You don't look like someone who's been called in front of an investigative hearing surrounding the 8 hour long sacking of a US facility resulting in the death of 4 Americans.

You deserve no public office. You deserve an 8 x 8 cell.

 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,399
17,124
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#6
I have a business and personal email and I can use both of them on the same device without any trouble whatsoever. I don't buy the line that it was done out of convenience. It was a calculated move so that she would be in control of that information and could make it go away if needed when she ran for President. And it worked, nothing will ever come from these investigations becuase anything bad no longer exists (and as I said in another thread, I'm not so sure the Reps aren't guilty of something right along with Sec Clinton anyway). To be honest, I'm actually starting to wish the Reps would just let it go. Even if there was something to find, most of the media wouldn't report it anyway and none of the libs would believe it if they did. Nothing to see here, move along.
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
9,543
6,380
1,743
Piedmont, OK
#9
I have a business and personal email and I can use both of them on the same device without any trouble whatsoever. I don't buy the line that it was done out of convenience. It was a calculated move so that she would be in control of that information and could make it go away if needed when she ran for President. And it worked, nothing will ever come from these investigations becuase anything bad no longer exists (and as I said in another thread, I'm not so sure the Reps aren't guilty of something right along with Sec Clinton anyway). To be honest, I'm actually starting to wish the Reps would just let it go. Even if there was something to find, most of the media wouldn't report it anyway and none of the libs would believe it if they did. Nothing to see here, move along.
Seriously, what kind of mobile device is she using that can't sync to multiple email accounts??
 
May 8, 2009
4,595
2,806
1,743
Germantown, TN
#10
Sept 16, 2012

Susan Rice:
"First of all, let’s be clear about what transpired this week. In Cairo, in Benghazi, in many other parts of the region, was a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated, that the U.S. government had nothing to do with, which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting. We have also been very clear that there is no excuse for violence, we have condemned it in the strongest possible terms."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ts-direct-result-heinous-video-eliana-johnson

A Sept. 12, 2012, cable from the Defense Intelligence Agency reveals that the Obama administration was informed within one day of the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, that it was not the result of a spontaneous protest, the conservative government watchdog group Judicial Watch reported Thursday.

The cable was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Judicial Watch.

“The attack was an organized operation with specific information that the US Ambassador was present,” the DIA cable said.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-attack-was-an-organized-terrorist-operation/

And within two months, the criminal enterprise was reinstated.
 

Pokey

Territorial Marshal
Sep 13, 2013
6,322
1,257
743
Left field
#11
In my opinion, the Republican party needs to move on to something more productive. The vast majority of information passed from persons within the State Department was via cables not e-mail. The ambassador to Russia explained it pretty well. Where was the smoking gun? Hell, they couldn't even get her to lose her temper. How about governing for a change? Oops! Can't even elect a House Speaker. Admit you flubbed up and move on.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
17,260
1,898
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
#15
Once again she has proven to be a very good liar.
No. Really the Republicans have lied or have been gullible enough to fall hook, line and sinker for lies:

--Democrats on the House Select Committee on Benghazi have released a damning 124-page report that finds no evidence of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton, but a mountain of proof that the Republican-led investigation is a partisan sham.

According to the Democrat Staff Report on the Select Committee:

In stark contrast to these baseless political attacks, the 54 individuals who have now been interviewed by the Select Committee have identified:

– no evidence that Secretary Clinton ordered the military to stand down on the night of the attacks;

– no evidence that Secretary Clinton personally approved or ordered a reduction of security in Benghazi prior to the attacks;

– no evidence that Secretary Clinton pressed the United States into supporting the United Nations campaign in Libya under false pretenses;

– no evidence that Secretary Clinton or her aides oversaw an operation at the State Department to destroy or scrub embarrassing documents;

– And no evidence that Secretary Clinton or any other U.S. official directed or authorized the U.S. Mission in Benghazi to transfer weapons from Libya to another country.

The evidence obtained by the Select Committee also corroborates previous testimony to Congress indicating that Secretary Clinton was deeply engaged during and after the attacks and took action to ensure the safety and security of U.S. personnel, even as intelligence assessments of the attacks changed more than once during this period.
The report exposed the political intentions of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. For example, the Republican-led committee has not held a single hearing with a member of the Department of Defense on Benghazi and has conducted nearly ten times as many interviews with State Department employees as they have with Department of Defense employees (27-4).


The investigation into the investigators also found that Chairman Gowdy’s (R-SC) claim that the Select Committee is not focused on Hillary Clinton to be completely false, “The Select Committee has been engaged in an aggressive press campaign focused almost entirely on Secretary Clinton, issuing 27 press releases related to Secretary Clinton since March, but only 5 on all other topics combined. Chairman Gowdy has referenced Secretary Clinton more than 50 times in nationally televised interviews since March.”

One of the witness interviews debunked the Republican claim that Clinton issued a stand down order.

The former spokesperson for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs testified:

Q: It has been alleged that Secretary of State Clinton intentionally blocked military action on the night of the attacks. One Congressman has speculated that, quote, “Secretary Clinton told Leon Panetta to stand down,” end quote, and this resulted in the Defense Department not sending more assets to help in Benghazi. Do you have any evidence that Secretary of State Clinton ordered Secretary of Defense Panetta to stand down on the night of the attacks?

A: No.

Q: Do you have any evidence that Secretary of State Clinton issued any kind of order to Secretary of Defense Panetta on the night of the attacks?

A: No.

The report reveals that Clinton did nothing wrong and that the House Select Committee on Benghazi is nothing more than a partisan stunt that is designed to destroy the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination.

The evidence is laid out over the course of 124 brutal pages. Republicans have lied to the American people about the purposes and intentions of this committee. House Republicans have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on an investigation that is finding nothing new.

The only evidence of wrongdoing found is on the Republican side of the aisle. The investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails under the pretense of Benghazi is an illegal use of taxpayer funds for partisan political purposes.

Benghazi has backfired and now Republicans are paying the price for their brazen abuses of power.

FROM: http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10...l-report-clears-hillary-clinton-benghazi.html
 
Feb 11, 2007
4,738
2,062
1,743
Oklahoma City
#16
Townie...this is not just a contest Republicans vs. Democrats. Its bigger than that. Its about American's having confidence about what their leaders tell them when something bad happens. If we can not trust our leaders to tell us the truth as they best know them it we can not make make good decisions about hard problems. What this investigation showed us is that we have a core of national leaders who seek to tell us only what will benefit their immediate political purpose. America's most revered leaders always have told us the truth.
 

Pokey

Territorial Marshal
Sep 13, 2013
6,322
1,257
743
Left field
#17
Townie...this is not just a contest Republicans vs. Democrats. Its bigger than that. Its about American's having confidence about what their leaders tell them when something bad happens. If we can not trust our leaders to tell us the truth as they best know them it we can not make make good decisions about hard problems. What this investigation showed us is that we have a core of national leaders who seek to tell us only what will benefit their immediate political purpose. America's most revered leaders always have told us the truth.
Sadly, far too many in this country do not check the sources of the information they consume and frequently believe lies to be the truth because they hear them repeated so often from their favorite news sources portrayed as though they are fact, or truth. Did we get the truth from Reagan about Iran/Contra? Pretty revered! or does party matter more?
 
May 8, 2009
4,595
2,806
1,743
Germantown, TN
#19
Judicial Watch: Defense, State Department Documents Reveal Obama Administration Knew that al Qaeda Terrorists Had Planned Benghazi Attack 10 Days in Advance

MAY 18, 2015

Administration knew three months before the November 2012 presidential election of ISIS plans to establish a caliphate in Iraq

Administration knew of arms being shipped from Benghazi to Syria


(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained more than 100 pages of previously classified “Secret” documents from the Department of Defense (DOD)and the Department of State revealing that DOD almost immediately reported that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was committed by the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked “Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman” (BCOAR), and had been planned at least 10 days in advance. Rahman is known as the Blind Sheikh, and is serving life in prison for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other terrorist acts. The new documents also provide the first official confirmation that shows the U.S. government was aware of arms shipments from Benghazi to Syria. The documents also include an August 2012 analysis warning of the rise of ISIS and the predicted failure of the Obama policy of regime change in Syria.

The documents were released in response to a court order in accordance with a May 15, 2014, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against both the DOD and State Department seeking communications between the two agencies and congressional leaders “on matters related to the activities of any agency or department of the U.S. government at the Special Mission Compound and/or classified annex in Benghazi.”

Spelling and punctuation is duplicated in this release without corrections.

A Defense Department document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), dated September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, details that the attack on the compound had been carefully planned by the BOCAR terrorist group “to kill as many Americans as possible.” The document was sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council. The heavily redacted Defense Department “information report” says that the attack on the Benghazi facility “was planned and executed by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR).” The group subscribes to “AQ ideologies:”

The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for U.S. killing of Aboyahiye ((ALALIBY)) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 atacks on the World Trade Center buildings.

“A violent radical,” the DIA report says, is “the leader of BCOAR is Abdul Baset ((AZUZ)), AZUZ was sent by ((ZAWARI)) to set up Al Qaeda (AQ) bases in Libya.” The group’s headquarters was set up with the approval of a “member of the Muslim brother hood movement…where they have large caches of weapons. Some of these caches are disguised by feeding troughs for livestock. They have SA-7 and SA-23/4 MANPADS…they train almost every day focusing on religious lessons and scriptures including three lessons a day of jihadist ideology.”

The Defense Department reported the group maintained written documents, in “a small rectangular room, approximately 12 meters by 6 meters…that contain information on all of the AQ activity in Libya.”

(Azuz is again blamed for the Benghazi attack in an October 2012 DIA document.)

The DOD documents also contain the first official documentation that the Obama administration knew that weapons were being shipped from the Port of Benghazi to rebel troops in Syria. An October 2012 report confirms:

Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s, and 125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.

During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the ((Qaddafi)) regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to the small amount of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo.

The DIA document further details:

The weapons shipped from Syria during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200 ea – 125mm and 200ea – 155 mm.]

The heavily redacted document does not disclose who was shipping the weapons.

Another DIA report, written in August 2012 (the same time period the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist Muslim groups: “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.” The growing sectarian direction of the war was predicted to have dire consequences for Iraq, which included the “grave danger” of the rise of ISIS:

The deterioration of the situation has dire consequences on the Iraqi situation and are as follows:

This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI [al Qaeda Iraq] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters. ISI could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.

Some of the “dire consequences” are blacked out but the DIA presciently warned one such consequence would be the “renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.”

From a separate lawsuit, the State Department produced a document created the morning after the Benghazi attack by Hillary Clinton’s offices, and the Operations Center in the Office of the Executive Secretariat that was sent widely through the agency, including to Joseph McManus (then-Hillary Clinton’s executive assistant). At 6:00 am, a few hours after the attack, the top office of the State Department sent a “spot report” on the “Attack on U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” that makes no mention of videos or demonstrations:

Four COM personnel were killed and three were wounded in an attack by dozens of fighters on the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi beginning approximately 1550 Eastern Time….

The State Department has yet to turn over any documents from the secret email accounts of Hillary Clinton and other top State Department officials.

“These documents are jaw-dropping. No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them. If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president. And why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda? These documents also point to connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists,” stated Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president. “These documents show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”
 
Feb 11, 2007
4,738
2,062
1,743
Oklahoma City
#20
Sadly, far too many in this country do not check the sources of the information they consume and frequently believe lies to be the truth because they hear them repeated so often from their favorite news sources portrayed as though they are fact, or truth. Did we get the truth from Reagan about Iran/Contra? Pretty revered! or does party matter more?
In recent years I have come to understand that people believe what they choose to listen to. Most "news" sources have a slant based on what the source believes and wants you to believe. Bias is extremely difficult to avoid even when we try our best to avoid it. None of us are as rational as we think we are.