Hillary Clinton On Emails: 'I'm Sorry It Has Been Confusing To People'

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

When asked if she wanted to apologize to the American people for the email server snafu embroiling her campaign for President, Hillary Clinton said simply she regretted it had been “confusing.”

“At the end of the day, I’m sorry that this has been confusing to people and raised a lot of questions,” Clinton said during an exclusive interview Friday on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports. She also admitted that setting up a private server “wasn’t the best choice.”

"You know, I was not thinking a lot when I got in. There was so much work to be done, we had so many problems around the world. I didn’t really stop and think, ‘what kind of email system will there be?’" Clinton told Mitchell. When the conversation turned to GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, Clinton noted the former reality TV star is “going after so many people, from basketball players” to political opponents, a reference to Trump’s sophomoric response to an op-ed by former NBA player Kareem Abdul-Jabbar earlier this week.

Clinton went on to juxtapose her manner of speaking with Trump’s, saying while she conducts herself as is appropriate for someone seeking the nation’s highest office, the Republican billionaire is “the candidate of being against. He’s great at innuendo and conspiracy theories and really defaming people,” she said of Trump’s brash manner. “Loose talks, threats, insults...They have consequences.”

###

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-msnbc-trump-emails

[jeff47]

1. Uh....the quick and easy route is gmail or similar.

Setting up your own server takes a lot more time and planning.

[dsc]

18. she already had the server

she had been using it for quite some time. Also the security of gmail was likely not considered up to snuff.

[KeepItReal]

41. Gmail security for messages is no less secure than her private server

And unless she explicitly set up encryption between each and every party she emailed, no emails sent or received outside her server domain were that secure.

Without end to end established encryption, any Government emails that went to Hillary_.com private server would be no different than if they went to [e-mail]

[karynnj]

43. Are you certain of that?

The story at one point was that it was added to Bill Clinton's server. Then we heard that it was a new server set up by her campaign's IT person. Are you saying it was a server that belonged to the campaign.

I wonder if all these questions were to be asked of the man refusing to cooperate. If they really want to get out exactly what they did, they need to explain in detail what they did. If she did that - while continuing to say it was wrong AND speaking of rules that she would put in place from day one in all departments of a Clinton government, she could put this to rest.

I watched the interview - HRC was great speaking on her long ago speech in China or on Iran, but on issues like this, she just came across as not wanting to be there. I agree that the campaign will and must be on issues, character and integrity are key as well.

[dsc]

98. either way it existed prior to her service as Secretary of State

What I read implied that it was orginaly being used by the Clinton foundation, was given to her for the campaign, and then used for her account while she was Secretary of State. That seems the opposite of setting up a server for this purpose alone but maybe I am missing something.

[karynnj]

99. That makes sense and may explain keeping the campaign IT guy

Still, it seems that making the decision to operate the top of the State Department - HRC and her top aides on a private machine was not just the impact of not thinking of the ramifications, but rather a very determinate process. (ie it is not what just happens if you do nothing.)

The closest comparison for me - is having worked at Bell Labs - EVERYONE was automatically on the departments server with an email derived from their name. It meant never having to look up an email address or question who anyone on the system was.

One thing I hated in this interview was HRC essentially faulting the State Department for taking so long. In fact, she COULD have given the State DepArtment the emails at the point she left about 2 years earlier. Instead, she waited until the State Department realized they did not have all her email -- then negotiated with them (I suspect including as a cover asking all former Secretaries of State for email.) This really really bothers me - given the FOIA that started before she left which should have included her email.

Looked at cynically, she used her position to make it hard for Obama or Kerry to comply with legal requests -- and knew they would be loath to call her out on it. Frankly, she set things up so they either had to demand the emails or be guilty of covering up for her.

[Snerd]

107. FISMA

There's this 'thing' -- I think it's called a law -- the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) of 2002. The law requires that they use absolutely secure. If her private server had been FISMA-compliant, I'm sure she would have said so by now. If the information being exchanged through the server would 100%-encrypted and secure, there'd be no problem.

[dsc]

121. you are conflating two things

the state department's usual email (as in not classified) is none of those things and thus isn't supposed to have classified information on it. Her state department email would not have had those features either.

[liberal N proud]

33. If you think they are having problems with a personal server imagine what GMail would be

Talk about security risk.

[TwilightGardener]

66. I think his point is that Gmail or whatever commercial provider is what you'd do

if you didn't want to think very much about email. Also, if you didn't want to put any thought into it, you could just primarily use the address and system your employer provided for you--say, a .gov address thru the State Dept. I mean, really, that's set it and forget it. Home servers--you have to hire a guy named Bryan or Eric or somebody and pay him a paycheck to be your private geek squad. Of course if you're tired of paying him out of your own pocket, you can always just hook him up with a position at the State Dept as a civil servant, paid for by us taxpayers for four years, to help keep your secrets secret, right?

[hexola]

71. That gets confusing fast - as you can check other accounts with Gmail

You don't have to use there server - per se - you can check/send from any server with Gmail

[TwilightGardener]

2. She totally wasn't thinking about email systems, which is why she had a server set up

to handle all her email a day before she started her new job, instead of accepting the .gov address and device and IT administration that would have been provided for her. AND she got her email server set-up guy a newly-invented position at the State Dept. so that State IT guys didn't deal with it, just him. Yes, she obviously put ZERO thought into her email situation. Once again, America, in case you need a reminder: she thinks you're brain dead. And she might be right.

[arcane1]

8. Pretty much it, right there.

[delrem]

11. It really is a question of trust.

How can anyone possibly trust someone who says things like that? Who expects to be believed by enough voters to scrape by for a win?
I'm appalled by it - by how it's become the norm.

Of course that kind of politics has to be expected with people like Andrea Mitchell filling the top spots in the MSM. And I doubt Maddow or Hayes will say boo about it, either. There aren't many insider/embedded jobs like that going around.

[azmom]

30. +1

[Metric System]

52. It's Howdy Gowdy Time!

[apnu]

104. Uh... she had the server set up in 2008 for her Presidential campaign

She didn't take the SoS job until 2009 when President Obama was sworn in.

So the server was not set up "a day before she started her new job" more like months before Obama even had the idea of offering her the SoS job.

There's plenty to criticize HRC on in this matter and others. But the time of when the server was set up is not one of them.

[TwilightGardener]

105. Read about Bryan Pagliano--WaPo and other sources say he set up her server in 2009, and

then joined the State Dept. several months later (after she was confirmed). I assume 2009 is...what, Jan. Feb? When were her confirmation hearings? Probably soon after the inauguration.

[TipTok]

111. +1

I can't think of a candidate who so overtly displays their belief in the stupidity of the average American...

[Hekate]

131. "A" candidate? How about 17 GOP candidates?

[thereismore]

3. It's a little like the typical non-apology "I am sorry if something I did offended you."

instead of "I am sorry I offended you."

[Divernan]

6. The "I'm sorry you're too stupid to understand this." variant of non-apology.

[MissDeeds]

19. It's so condescending

"Sorry it's been confusing to people" is like saying "sorry your poor little simple minds can't understand." Great way to instill confidence and win the hearts and minds, Hillary. Not working.

[peacebird]

100. ^^this^^

[OKNancy]

4. Ugly Truth: The Hillary Email Issue Is About Making a Powerful Woman Bow Down and Apologize

http://www.hillarymen.com/latest/the-hillary-email-issue-is-about-making-a-powerful-woman-bow-down

[Purveyor]

5. Oh spare me, pluzzzeee!

[JoePhilly]

10. Its more like Whitewater ... investigating a land deal they discover a BJ 6 years later.

The investigation of her email was about Benghazi. because the RW believes she had Chris Stevens killed intentionally, and clearly that would be in her emails.

Wait, its not? Well then, I guess we need to come up with something else.

Was any information lost? Nope. Crap, need to keep looking.

Are their emails that show she was bribed?? Damn, nothing!!!

...
...
...
...

And meanwhile, some on the left will help carry water for the RW soldiers.

[Purveyor]

16. Nice spin but nobody but Clinton really know if any information was lost/hacked. Was she bribed?

That is what the FBI is investigating and that result is still out.

No, there is much spin but the final results are still pending. Best to get them out now than in the summer of 2016, doubt you think?

[JoePhilly]

20. So she has to prove it didn't happen ... that how it works??

There is no there there.

And when nothing is found ... the investigations will simply transform and move on.

Bengahzi investigation, becomes email investigation, becomes ... well ... whatever thing they think of next.

And some on DU will wait breathlessly for the chance to support their efforts.

[Purveyor]

29. When I hear the "there is no there there" I can only be reminded of the "it depends on what

the definition of is, is".

I'm not playing the Lanny Davis/James Carville games of the days past but feel free to do so. That is all she has to attempt
to dig herself out of this hole she has dug for herself.

This I do know. Should she get the nomination, we will have a federal gov't that will be controlled lock, stock and barrel by the GOP.

[JoePhilly]

35. What I enjoy most about your repsponse ...

... is that you think the investigation of Bill getting a BJ was actually important.

After all, that is where the question about the meaning of "is" originates. No?

An endless investigation of a land deal, morphs multiple times, and ends up uncovering ... GASP ... a BJ.

The only thing "there" was a BJ.

And here you are, using that as if it really mattered. Speaks volumes.

[Purveyor]

42. It is more of a testament of character of the whole Clinton cabal. I could tick off a whole litany

issues that will be brought into play should she get nominated and to ignore them is folly.

She is unelectable. Period.

[JoePhilly]

44. So you are using something Bill said, to attack Hillary's character.

I love the "Clinton cabal" reference ... very mysterious.

[Darb]

63. Wouldn't wager on that.

I do know this, the teabaggers and haters on the right would love for her to fail to get the nomination and are doing their level best to beat her. As are many here.

She can and will win.

[Darb]

62. You nailed it JoePhilly

some here will soon be making fun of her "cankles", just like the misogynists on the right. Hard to tell the difference sometimes.

[Hekate]

132. Very hard to tell. I was waiting for the Foster murder charge to resurface; instead right here ....

...I read an all-caps murder charge about the ambassador.

[yeoman6987]

73. Well had he fessed up and not lied under oath. History would have been different.

[JoePhilly]

79. How exactly would history have been different?

You think the GOP would have stopped their investigations if he said, "Yea, I fucked her!!"??

Dream on.

[Laser102]

96. Exactly! How was she to know this would be an issue?

Seriously. Hindsight is twenty-twenty and if all of us (including here on DU) had that ability we would NEVER make a mistake. This is pure hogwash. John Kerry defended her saying people are going nuts stamping classified on everything including a paper sitting on a window sill since 2008! Ridiculous! Simply a ploy to force her out of the race and everyone should really be ashamed of themselves. At least those who have regrets about anything in their lives.

[JoePhilly]

97. Yup ... the reality is that the RW will scream no matter what she does ...

... so there is no way to avoid that aspect ... but sadly ... some on the left will help the RW carry enough water into battle.

In many cases, its the same folks who have attacked Obama ... and been wrong, over and over and over.

But, as usual, they are the bestest liberals, and they sit in judgement.

They need no evidence.

Their hair bursts into flames so frequently, its impossible to take them seriously. When I respond to them, I'm never trying to get them to change their minds.

I'm writing for the folks who just come here and read that nonsense.

[nichomachus]

77. Of course she was hacked

The minute foreign governments knew she had a home-brew server, they were in there in days. I'm sure Mossad, the KGB, Iran has just about everything they want -- including the discarded menu choices from Chelsea's wedding.

When it comes to computer security, there are only two types of organizations -- those that have been hacked and those who don't know they've been hacked.

These hackers, especially state-sponsored ones, know how to get in and out without leaving a trace. You don't find out about it until it becomes public.

[JoePhilly]

80. Really ... no trace huh ... bzzzzz wrong.

Here ... just for you ...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/state-department-hack-worst-ever/

See ... if you want to claim she was hacked ... and have everyone get all upset about it ... you need .... EVIDENCE that it actually happened.

The fact the you are "sure Mossad, the KGB, Iran has just about everything they want" ... is meaningless.

[DURHAM D]

81. LOL - those pesky facts sure

can blowup and argument.

[JoePhilly]

82. These guys are unicorn hunters.

[JoePhilly]

123. I do not have to prove she was not hacked.

If you want to claim she was hacked, provide evidence, or admit that you've got nothing.

And, what I demonstrated (rather easily) is that the argument "you can't tell if you were hacked" ... is nonsense.

So ... do you have any evidence that her server was hacked ... yes or no?

[Kingofalldems]

125. Do you have evidence sir?

[Hekate]

133. Home brew server? Are you a techie? I have a standing offer from a Data Base Administrator ...

...to install a private server in my home the next time I get too concerned about my private info being gobbled up by entities I don't want having it. We're already fairly secure here at home, but he could encrypt it until it would make someone's head spin if they tried to get in. The only reason I didn't say yes is that I don't do my banking or other business online, and I'm not the SoS.

I think Hillary had a competent IT guy, and that her private system was buttoned up way tighter than .gov.

[BillH2]

22. From the same site:

Last edited Fri Sep 4, 2015, 03:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Words like “contrite,” “apologize,” and “sorry” imply submission.

http://www.hillarymen.com/latest/the-hillary-email-issue-is-about-making-a-powerful-woman-bow-down

I was not aware that saying "I'm sorry" had this implication.

[jalan48]

17. LOL-OK Nancy.

[snooper2]

21. ROFLMAO really? She is playing the dumb card now LOL

Oh, and is sorry to the little people because she made it "confusing" LOL. Yo Hillary, why don't you just use the fucking email address the government provided you? Ulterior motive maybe?

[still_one]

23. That is part of it, and the sexism that is rampant in the country. There are two standards, one for

men, and one for women, and women are always held to a higher standard.

Just look at how women have been and are treated in the work environment, or if they are sexually assaulted.

Of course in this case a lot of it is about the republican strategy of making stuff up

First they accused her of "killing ambassador Stevens", which some thought appropriate to agree with, and start a thread on DU.
Then we had a Benghazi investigation, which has been going on for months with nothing found.
Now the Benghazi investigation has evolved into an "email scandal"

These is a republican smear campaign that is being paid for by tax payer dollars, and the MSM giving the smear as free advertising for the republicans.

[magical thyme]

27. riiiight. couldn't possibly be about having top secret satellite data found in her unsecured email

because, gosh darn it, Hillary is an important person and didn't have time to consider in her transition from NY Senator to Secretary of State, that our many, many enemies might be interested in hacking into her unsecure system.

Besides, the CIA was just showing what a fossilized bureaucracy it is when it didn't immediately approve her (name-redacted) aide's repeated requests that they be enabled to send top secret data from their PDAs.

[tularetom]

39. I don't know about anybody else but I don't care if this "powerful woman" bows down or apologizes

I just want her to stop doing dumb stuff and being so secretive about it. Or better yet, just drop the pretense, go to work for Goldman Sachs, get even richer and leave the rest of us alone.

Fake ass "I'm sorry if anyone was offended" politician apologies are so much bullshit anyway.

[karynnj]

47. If it would have been John Kerry - I would be writing exactly the same things I am writing now

with one major exception - I would be personally angry that he was not person I thought he was. This has NOTHING to do with her being a woman, powerful or otherwise. She herself at least admits that she made mistakes. At this point, she is STILL not telling the full truth on this.

Worse is her answer to the question about Huma A.'s unusual arrangement to simultaneously work for the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and a Clinton aligned private company. It is ridiculous to say that she was not involved in that arrangement given she was her right hand person and it was her foundation!

[riversedge]

72. I cringed

when I heard Andrea ask that disgusting question.--I thought to myself--yup-this will feed the RW and DU pundits. I went to work for awhile and just checked in now--and here it is. Hillary haters lapping up the ice cream.

[Hekate]

129. Watched it with hubby. Two things: he is now firmly in HRC's camp, & Andrea is a hack. nt

[fbc]

7. I agree with her... to a point.

On one hand, the Secretary of State has more important things to worry about than technical infrastructure.

On the other hand, it's become apparent that the state department has a department wide issue with employees sending classified emails via non-encrypted servers with no oversight. Who is supposed to implement changes if not the head of the state department? I do think it is important to note that this problem existed before Hillary Clinton and it has persisted after her, so she is no more responsible than Condoleeza Rice or John Kerry.

[karynnj]

54. John Kerry has the State Department IG working to investigate their practices and

to evaluate them and to insure that they are adequate. From some responses to State Department briefings, they had already made major changes.

In addition, Kerry opted to exclusively use a State.gov email from day one. Also consider that one of the things worked out after he broke his leg, was that secure lines were routed to his room in the Boston hospital so that he could securely continue his work as he received medical treatment and rehab. So, at least at the Secretary level, there is a huge difference.

I understand you are defending Clinton, put - in fact - there was a huge difference here -- and it involves transparency.

[MBS]

148. + 1

This squares with my understanding, too. From what I've heard/read, he seems to have gone out of his way to make a clean break, correspondence and communications-wise, between his old Senate life and his new life at State, to minimize/eliminate any possible conflict of interest- and also to run his State email protocols completely by the book, using his .gov email exclusively for any State email correspondence, for the sake of transparency, integrity, security, and comprehensive archiving. And, as you said, he took all those actions on day one of his service at State, and has continued , by all reports, to operate in this way.

[closeupready]

9. Hasn't been confusing. Maybe to you, but you didn't trust the government.

We get that. You put national security at risk by putting high security documents on a server which would have been highly vulnerable to interception by foreign actors.

She just can't help lying and obfuscating, over and over and over. Last time, it was about arriving at Bosnia's airport "under sniper fire". Now, she tells us cattle known as Americans that we are confused about this email fiasco, and just don't understand.

[JoePhilly]

13. And what information was lost to these scary foreign actors??

Did Snowden get his hands on her emails?

Manning?

Anonymous?

A great deal of hand wringing about information that was not actually compromised.

[tjl148]

24. And just how do you know it was not compromised? nt

[JoePhilly]

31. Prove that unicorns don't exist.

See how that works?

If you want to claim her email was compromised, then the onus is on YOU to bring forward evidence that it was in fact compromised.

So ... do you have any? No? Didn't think so.

But tell me ... has the State Department's email ever been compromised?

Here's a hint.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/three-months-later-state-department-hasnt-rooted-out-hackers-1424391453

[BillH2]

51. Are you saying that a negative can't be proved?

Then why do you believe this one? I don't need a rigorous proof, just a reason.

[JoePhilly]

56. I hear lots of folks ...

... claiming that Hillary probably lost sensitive info ... and yet, they have ZERO evidence to support that claim.

Here's what we do know.

The State Department's email was actually hacked. There is evidence of this fact. There is no evidence that any of the email from Hillary's server was hacked, leaked, or otherwise lost.

Now ... why are some here more upset about the latter, and not at all concerned about the former??

I think we both know the answer to that question.

[BillH2]

60. I think Til was concerned about the *possibility* that the machine was hacked.

And you can't rule out that possibility, given the relatively insecure server that was used, the transfer of the data to a small Denver firm without special security, etc. Was her server less secure than a government server? I'm inclined to think so. Of course dot.gov accounts get hacked. But at least the government makes some effort to secure the transmission of classified information. Hillary apparently didn't, and I think that's the problem some people have about this issue. To be a custodian of secret documents means you have to make an effort to secure them.

Sorry to go on so long, but do you see what I mean?

[Big_Mike]

85. Proof that something was lost is not needed. This is classified government information.

I held very high clearances with special access while I was on active duty. Had I done any of the things that have already been PROVEN to be in her email, I would be trying to get a plea deal with only 3 - 5 years incarceration rather than the 10 or so most of these events warrant. One very large point here: my last name is not Clinton.

There does not have to be any ill intent in this case. Whether or not it is accidental matters not one bit. If you have it and allow it out of classified channels, the provisions of 18 USC 798(a) apply:

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Given the fact that she has already had Top Secret code word access information found on her server, now the only question remaining is do we have one law for all citizens or, to paraphrase George Orwell, are some citizens more equal than others? I personally wrote reports that had to go to the Director, National Security Agency; Director, Central Intelligence Agency, and hosts of other intelligence personages when some trooper failed to properly shred documents or another case where a trooper had an envelope containing classified material blew out his car window. The first guy got 3 years and the second guy was booted from the service.

Let us watch and wait to see whether she is busted or not. It will be up to AG Lynch. Frankly, I'm not holding my breath as I believe that the fix is in.

[JoePhilly]

91. Read (a) in your post.

Read it slowly.

Then read it again.

Then ... prove it.

[still_one]

34. Gee, guilt by assumption. How do you know Obama isn't an American Citizen. Some people say........

[still_one]

28. Snowdenand Manning dealt with CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. Hillary's email DID NOT

Last edited Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:41 PM - Edit history (2)

[JoePhilly]

37. You might want to go back and re-read things.

The "email scandal" is nonsense.

Its another endless RW investigation. With some on the left helping them carry the water.

[still_one]

55. you are right, didn't read it carefully, sorry and thanks. I took out the snark remarks I added at

Last edited Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:43 PM - Edit history (1)

the end also. Thanks again

[closeupready]

32. Right because we let the nuclear football lie around just wherever.

If nobody steals it, then what harm has been done?

[JoePhilly]

36. You do know that the State Department's email was hacked, right?

It was ACTUALLY hacked.

Meanwhile, you are whining about Hillary's email, which was NOT hacked.

Pretty funny.

[closeupready]

38. You do know you are making excuses for a scofflaw, right?

When you take the oath of office, it means you will not put national security at risk.

But I guess that's just a big joke to you, as long as Hillary is the offender.

[JoePhilly]

53. The jokes are the accusations some of you are making.

You have no evidence that any information was compromised.

None.

If you had some ... you'd link to it.

I do not need to prove something did not happen.

You are claiming something terrible happened, but you have no evidence to back it up.

You called Hillary an "offender", yet you have no evidence whatsoever.

That's the joke.

[TwilightGardener]

40. How exactly do you know her email wasn't hacked?

Foreign governments would have been stupid NOT to hack it, especially when Guccifer made known that he'd hacked Sid Blumenthal's account (which had Hillary's email address in it). Foreign governments would also be stupid to reveal what they hacked, or how. We don't advertise to the world that we spy and hack and bug phones, do we? That's why the Snowden affair was so damaging to our efforts.

[JoePhilly]

50. If you have any evidence, provide it.

That's how it works.

I have seen no evidence that her email was compromised.

Now, if you had any ... you'd be linking to it.

But you have none.

Just empty allegations.

[TwilightGardener]

64. You have to see evidence of hacking, or else you assume it DIDN'T occur?

That seems awful naive. Hacking is spying. We spy, and so does everyone else. I would go ahead and assume that our officials' communications are under constant attempts at surveillance and interception. Secure systems, proper IT administration and adherence to communication protocol aren't foolproof, but make it harder to penetrate. If someone is able to hack a government IT system that's properly secured, it stands to reason that someone's private system (that was apparently administered by a guy who is going to plead the fifth and is afraid to talk to the FBI) has also been at least exposed to similar attempts. That's just logical.

[JoePhilly]

88. NO ... I simply do not conclude that it DID happen. See how that works.

You and some of the others ASSUME it must have happen, and so you need no evidence to toss around accusations that have no support.

I have seen no evidence that it DID happen. And so, I see no reason for me to light my hair on fire as many of you have done. Now, if you find some actual evidence, bring it forward.

I like facts ... not assumptions.

[BillH2]

114. Isn't there something in between?

There's the fact that it might have happened. And that's really the political problem for Hillary right now. She seems to have risked US security for less than compelling reasons.

[former9thward]

48. How do you know it wasn't hacked?

The Russians or Chinese do not announce "Hey, we just hacked your emails, ".

[JoePhilly]

49. If you have evidence to back up your claims ... provide it.

That's how it works.

I have seen no evidence that her system was compromised.

If you had any, you'd be linking to it.

[former9thward]

57. The Russians and Chinese do not notify me when they have hacked someone.

Why is the guy who set up the server taking the Firth amendment? Of course folks there is nothing to see here, move on....

[JoePhilly]

59. I guess the Russisns only tell the WSJ ....

... when they hack our infrastructure ...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/three-months-later-state-department-hasnt-rooted-out-hackers-1424391453

See ... evidence of an actual hack.

[former9thward]

61. The Fifth, the Fifth...

Why? Why?

[JoePhilly]

93. Because the GOP would happily destroy him if they could.

What else you got?

[former9thward]

95. LOL

How could he be destroyed by telling the truth? He is afraid of being destroyed by the FBI. I don't blame him...

[Kingofalldems]

116. Aww, not this shit again.

Benghazi!!

[former9thward]

128. Who took the Fifth with Benghazi?

Did the FBI investigate Benghazi?

[Kingofalldems]

130. Same effing thing.

Just like Whitewater, just like Benghazi.

[Hekate]

134. Because this is the 21st century McCarthy-led HUAC. Are you now or have you ever been a commie?

Those GOP assholes can destroy him -- and for what?

And you choose to believe THEM?

[former9thward]

142. He is worried about the FBI destroying him.

They are the ones investigating this. I am glad you brought up HUAC because yes the two are comparable -- but not in a way you would like. In the 1950s there was a specific law which would imprison you if you were a member of a communist organization. So it made perfect legal sense to take the Fifth when that question was answered. You only take the Fifth when answering the question will give evidence that you have broken the law. Here it makes no sense whatsoever to take the Fifth unless a law has been broken.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

117. If you maintain that running a server from home makes good security sense...

...you have less than no idea of what you're talking about.

[JoePhilly]

120. Except I did not do that ... sparky.

What I KNOW is that you have no evidence for your claims.

Your argument is much like the RW accusations about the IRS, or the Ebola outbreak.

In both of those "scandals", just like in the case of these emails .... nothing actually happened ... but that does not prevent some from losing their collective shit over it.

DU's Combustible Hair Club lives on.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

143. I made precisely one claim. You've said nothing to counter it.

The next time you wish to accuse me of something, it might be a good idea for you to have some small idea of what you're talking about.

[DURHAM D]

83. Manning downloaded over a quarter of a million

State Department cables and gave them to wikileaks. State Department cables have to go through the DOD... you know that really safe and secure communication system. Have you heard much about that lately?

[JoePhilly]

84. That actual breech of security was AWESOME!!!!!

Honestly ... if Manning or Snowden had hacked into Hillary's server and released all of it, the same folks attacking Hillary now, would have been thrilled!!!

The loved those leaks ... and are PISSED they can't find a single actual leak from Hillary's server.

Its driving them nuts!!

[DURHAM D]

86. I call them the Pretzel Posters. nt

[JoePhilly]

87. How I picture them ...

[Hekate]

136. ~~~~~

That picture is so scary I don't even have words for it.

[Skwmom]

90. We don't know but in all likelihood one or more foreign govts did.

Which raises the whole issue of future blackmail.

[JoePhilly]

92. "We don't know" .... "... in all likelihood ... "

Thanks for playing the new game "I got nothing."

[Skwmom]

12. They've tried to make it confusing.

When she says I never sent or received emails with anything marked classified, she doesn't tell people that the only way that information can be marked classified is on a SECURED system and the system she used was UNSECURED. However, could she send and receive emails that contained classified information? Yes. We are repeatedly told how brilliant she is yet we are to believe she didn't realize some of the classified information was TOP SECRET (or there was a risk this could occur with the use of an unsecured system).

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/private-clinton-emails-included-two-top-secret-messages-investigators-n408186

Do I think that someone has all of the emails, even the ones on the server she deleted. Yes. Because the governments UNSECURED systems have been repeatedly hacked - as Snowden pointed out.


http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/252663-snowden-clintons-email-server-a-problem

"“This is a problem because anyone who has the clearances that the secretary of State has, or the director of any top level agency has, knows how classified information should be handled,” he said, according to excerpts of an Al Jazeera interview airing Friday.

[JoePhilly]

14. If Snowden leaked Hillary's emails ... many here complaining ...

... would be cheering him.

Ironically, he didn't get her emails.

No leaks of any kind.

Weird.

[still_one]

25. Snowden released CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. Hillary did not! Which part of that sentence don't you

understand?

[Skwmom]

109. They were NOT MARKED classified, but classified info (including TOP SECRET) were in the emails.

That is why Hillary used the work MARKED. What she didn't say was silly me, I was using an unsecured server so classified information couldn't possibly be marked (though it should have been).

[jalan48]

15. Oh that Hillary! Doesn't she say the darndest things?

[MBS]

26. video is here

It's in 4 parts (plus additional commentary)

It starts here: msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-tells-nbc-sorry-confusion-over-emails

[BeyondGeography]

45. Sounds like the question caught her flat-footed

She said this response to a ridiculous, "do you owe the American people an apology?" query from Mrs. Greenspan. She would have been better off saying something non-responsive like the American people were not harmed in any way by her choice of email system. Instead, she said something that sounds kind of shitty, tbh.

Maybe she's out of practice and needs to get out more.

[BillH2]

113. Yes.

But she couldn't say that the American people were "not harmed in any way," because she doesn't know that. No one knows that, as yet. We don't know what the many enemies of the US may or may not have gotten by hacking into her server.

[Hekate]

135. Nothing in that interview caught her flat-footed. She had every fact and response at her fingertips.

I would hate to be an opposing lawyer with her in the courtroom. But then, I appreciate brains, composure, and measured responses.

Andrea Mitchell was not always a partisan hack, but she is now. Hillary Clinton surely knew exactly what she was getting into when she said yeas to this interview.

When HRC goes before the "Benghazi" Committee, it will be public -- at her insistence, mind you. And she will not be caught flat-footed by any questions from those partisan hacks, either.

Where do we stand on gefilte fish?

[Sunlei]

46. “Loose talks, threats, insults...They have consequences" Mrs. Clinton is right.

Bush 'Admins" and their followers made our country a target, Republican leader, Trumps loose mouth adds to the list.

[BillH2]

112. Yes, and loose lips sink ships, or so they used to say in WWII.

[6chars]

58. Look, I don't really understand any of the technical issues here

and I really don't know have much insight on national security. But I have a very strong opinion on this whole topic.

[restorefreedom]

65. another condescending non apology

gee what a shock.

[msongs]

67. no apology needed if what she did was legal and standard practice across a wide spectrum of

officeholders and political parties. then again she is a woman who is expected to be subserviant, or as the pope might say, in need of forgiveness

[joshcryer]

68. And Clinton does the exact wrong approach.

Geez.

[asiliveandbreathe]

69. Will someone please tell me when HRC's computer

was compromised?? - What security was breached? When material is NOW being classified - what the hell is that??? - Mrs. Clinton was the Secretary of State and she took the office very seriously - trying to build bridges in foreign affairs....do I agree with all that she advocates..of course not - TPP and Keystone are two very important issues that need to be extinguished....

When you are in a position of such importance you MUST rely on other people to do the right thing...I am waiting for the information her computer was breached and classified information was compromised.....seems to me - the folk's she relied on - did a GREAT JOB - we won't know of course..maybe troy or trey whatever the hell his name is..I can't stand to look at him - let alone listen to his soooouthernnn drawl ya-ll, makes something up -

Screw all this shit...I know I have had enough...the replubliklan candidates - every one of them are the "candidate of being against"

You know dumpster is going to come out of the pen like a bull after Hillary - go for it - I'm ready for him and so is Hillary.....

IMHO we as Democrats must hold the WH - I just hope we make the right choice...

[JoePhilly]

94. They can't ...it didn't happen.

[tjl]

115. You ask for proof it was hacked...

where is your proof it wasn't hacked? Just because it hasn't been revealed yet doesn't mean it hasn't happened. What I'm looking for from you is PROOF that you are absolutely correct that no foreign country hacked into her email. PROOF is not saying "it didn't happen."
But the real point is when dealing with classified documents you don't have to prove the enemy got them, you just have to prove you didn't secure them properly. Which she didn't. I was in the military (S-2) and if I had stored classified documents in an unlocked drawer overnight I would have been in deep trouble. Makes no difference they were in the drawer the next day. (Didn't have computers back then so the drawer analogy).
The hacking issue is troublesome, but for me what is much more troublesome is her careless attitude toward classified documents.

[Hekate]

137. Hackers boast. Hackers leave trails. Hackers get outed. Oh yeah, they tell on themselves.

Prove otherwise.

[tjl]

147. So you have no proof either...

Just your hope it wasn't compromised. But hope doesn't work with classified info. If unsecured (like hers was) it is assumed to be compromised. You know why? Because many time you don't know if they have it until it is to late.
And your assuming (not proving) it wasn't hacked is very dangerous.

[Hekate]

149. And you're assuming there was bad faith.

Impasse.

[hexola]

70. She just made it a whole lot worse...why not double down - and explain herself?

I think she understands the situation far more than she is letting on.

Why not just say - "hey - I didn't trust the .gov servers or the IT guys...so I wanted my own server."

I think she could make a good, technological case for having a private server.

Problem is - it doesn't sound like this server was as secure as it could have been. (missing citation here sorry)

Her current excuse would be good - if she had used the .gov setup - it got hacked - and she was explaining why she DIDN'T have a private server.

If you opt for a private server - clearly - you DID think about it!

[Skwmom]

89. .gov is an UNSECURED system. Only people with a security clearance can use a SECURED system.

Classified information should only be electronically sent on a SECURED system. The system used by the SOS should have been secured.

[truthisfreedom]

74. Oh come on Hillary, "I'm sorry you're oh so easily confused..."

So belittling.

[Mike Nelson]

75. Here's what's not confusing...

Republicans are afraid of Madame President and will have her investigated for the duration.

[Hekate]

138. Give the man a prize. That is it in a nutshell. nt

[Geronimoe]

76. Severgate V2.0

I think we'll get a lot more versions and explanations before this is over. This is like WindowsMe a real flop.

She didn't think.

She thought enough to hire her campaign IT guy and create a new position at State Depart for him and have him handle this. Why didn't she let the State Depart's IT do this? Let them figure out what can and can't be done.

[Hekate]

139. Government IT is not up to date. Contracts are constrained by the bidding process ....

....and parts of the Big Job (whatever it might be) are broken up and distributed among agencies. It's why the ACA website started out so badly.

When I worked in my County we had a saying: Low bid strikes again.

[nichomachus]

78. We're confused, but she's the one who claims she doesn't know how these things work

Oh, poor little me. I'm so confused about all these computery things.

She was asked again if she tried to wipe the whole server, to which Clinton said, “I have no idea, that’s why we turned it over –.” Asked again, she answered, “What, like with a cloth or something?” She further maintained that she doesn’t know how the server “works digitally at all.”

Sounds like she's confused -- can't tell the truth from a lie.

[HappyPlace]

101. So she is not sorry

Pride goeth...

[Joe Turner]

102. Nothing confusing about it at all

HRC didn't want to follow well established laws on State Dept communications because she wanted her privacy and did what she usually does when she doesn't like a law...ignore it.

[Hekate]

140. How many times does the NY Times have to say they were wrong? NO laws were broken by HRC.

[Thinkingabout]

103. Kerry says he is concerned about his emails security on a .gov system, there have been breaches on

.gov so the thought of security on .gov does not provide security either. I dont know how secure the private server may have been. When hackers probably target .gov more than private servers so the possibility of .gov being secure is another myth.

The ones who should apologize is the accusers who does not have needed evidence,All talk and no proof.

[hexola]

108. Security through obscurity?

An old tactic...but I would appreciate a rationale along these lines...more than this "Im a ditz" explanation...

[karynnj]

119. "security through obscurity" is an interesting - and maybe accurate way to phrase it

The state.gov system, like the private server, were NEVER considered to be secure according to all articles. This would mean that people would be well advised to do exactly what Kerry said that he does.

This goes beyond not putting classified information out there - which is a security breach, but considering the impact of how things are said could create trouble IF it were made public. This is closer to one guideline I heard long ago - never put anything in email that would have a huge problem with if it appeared with the company's name attached on the front page of the NYT.

This does greatly restrict how official email is used, but at a place like the State Department, I would assume that a huge proportion of things discussed in the building are things that they don't want public until the official position is defined and signed off on by the SoS and maybe even the President on important issues.

As to secure communications paths, consider that they were considered so needed that one of the things worked out after Kerry's accident was to get secure lines that he could use at the Boston hospital, where he both had medical treatment and rehab. Kerry's person doctor flew to Europe and traveled back with him. I would guess that it was Kerry's desire, that the State Department agreed with, to continue work as he was treated, that led to him returning home and staying for as long as he did in the hospital while using the secure communications set up for him.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

144. Security through obscurity sounds good, but that's not what happened here.

Otherwise, the consultant would have spent the extra ten dollars for private domain registration. That didn't happen, and it left a real big porch light on for anyone who cared to see. This is one of the marks of an amateur setup.

[karynnj]

118. That is NOT what Kerry said

The state.gov system is not a classified system. What Kerry said is that when writing email, he considers that they could be compromised. This means he goes beyond not including classified information, to considering how something could look if exposed.

He gave no examples - but I suspect that it means that he would not blow off steam about any of his counterparts or others he meets with. (ie as badly as Netanyahu treated him, I doubt we will be entertained with any long, raw rant pointing out the PM's bad side if there were ever a FOIA on Kerry's email.) Note that in the Mitchell interview, HRC mentions that even had she used state.gov, there could be the same discussion over classified info being on unclassified systems.

However, this issue mixes two problems:

1) The private server was used to keep at least some email that should have been in the State Department exempt from the FOIA they should have been subject to. HRC speaks of writing government people on THEIR .gov accounts. However, that leaves all NON Governmental people, writing to her in her official position and any foreign leaders, ministers etc NOT captured.

In the interview, HRC positions her returning the emails almost as if it were a favor. However, the early NYT story is more believable - that when the SD realized they did not have all her email, they negotiated with her to get it back over a few months. I suspect that she was the one who led them to make the request to all former SoS (as a cover) and that the Clinton team chose to give them everything on paper, that then had to be carefully scanned back in - even as her lawyer retained those emails on a thumb drive. Gee, couldn't they have just copied the stuff to TWO thumb drives? Yet, in the interview, Clinton blames the SD for being slow! (could she be so certain that nothing on anything was known below her people's levels, that she doesn't see that this could really anger the 12 people working full time for most of a year on processing her stuff?)

You might question why am I suggesting that the Clinton team had the upper hand in the negotiation involved. The reason lies with who the Clintons are and their past and future positions in the government. I have absolutely no inside information, but I can imagine the likely dynamics as the State Department's chief of staff under Kerry (his long time aide David Wade) learned they did not have all Clinton's email. Obviously, the first step would be to ask for what they didn't have and point out they should have had it. (Even the most generous interpretation of using personal email required getting copies to the State Department.) However, what leverage did they have? The only thing they could threaten is making it public, which would have been a political nightmare for the Obama administration. Yet, given the FOIA requests, if they didn't push things, they could be included in covering up -- when there was no reason to coverup - except on how Clinton set up the email. This is the mess that the Clinton tornado left for the Obama administration.

2) The problem with classified information (not classified documents) being on a non secure system. Here, what Kerry and others are saying is that there is some subjectivity on how something is classified - with a real bias towards classifying something higher than it should be. Consider that someone could be in trouble for under classifying something, but not for over classifying and its easy to see anything even near a borderline goes into the higher category.

[LibAsHell]

106. The question itself was f'ing ABSURD

"Apologize to the American people"???? For what??

[7962]

110. But she STILL wont say she's sorry, period. "I'm sorry I screwed up" Simple.

But she wont. She never will. She will let someone else take the fall. As always

[CanadaexPat]

127. 'You people are just too dim to understand...

Now go eat some cake and leave me alone.'

[Karma13612]

141. One teeny tiny leetle bitty question:

Why did she need to invent the wheel when she became the SoS?

Does the government not supply the necessary network and IT personnel and support and everything else that goes into this position?

Now, I know that it's just TV, but the show last year about the SoS (Played by Tea Leoni) portrayed an office in DC with a whole fleet of staffers and everything you would need to be the SoS.

For me, in my simplistic view (Oh Hillary, I'm soooooo confused!!!), something does not compute.

Being the SoS is not like starting a campaign on a shoestring budget with having to hire staff and renting an office, and creating a logo, etc. It isn't a start up company that grows from your garage to the house to a separate building etc.

Nope, don't buy it in the least.

But, because I am open minded, I welcome the clarification!!

Why did she need to invent the wheel. Hubbie says it's because she had to take over from a Republican administration and the previous SoS's did not use email or something.

Have at it! and thank you!

[TwilightGardener]

145. She said it was for "convenience"--only having to have one device on her to handle

all her communications, personal and professional. So she gets her own IT employee on her payroll instead. Humans who require money and paperwork and tax withholding (and who have to be let into her house sometimes, past Secret Service?) are much easier to deal with than two phones, right?

[Karma13612]

146. it's not like she didn't have umpteen people who could hold one of the two phones

she needed at any given moment.

Yea, I am seriously fed up with all the controversy that she and hubbie generate and in which they wallow.

Completely fed up.
They bring some of it on themselves.