Clinton says no email apology: 'What I did was allowed'

webfact · September 7, 2015

Clinton says no email apology: 'What I did was allowed'
By CATHERINE LUCEY

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday she does not need to apologize for using a private email account and server while at the State Department because "what I did was allowed."

In an interview with The Associated Press during a Labor Day campaign swing through Iowa, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination also said the lingering questions about her email practices while serving as President Barack Obama's first secretary of state have not damaged her campaign.

"Not at all. It's a distraction, certainly," Clinton said. "But it hasn't in any way affected the plan for our campaign, the efforts we're making to organize here in Iowa and elsewhere in the country. And I still feel very confident about the organization and the message that my campaign is putting out."

Yet even in calling the inquiry into how she used email as the nation's top diplomat a distraction, Clinton played down how it has affected her personally as a candidate.

"As the person who has been at the center of it, not very much," Clinton said. "I have worked really hard this summer, sticking to my game plan about how I wanted to sort of reintroduce myself to the American people."

As she has often said in recent weeks, Clinton told AP it would have been a "better choice" for her to use separate email accounts for her personal and public business. "I've also tried to not only take responsibility, because it was my decision, but to be as transparent as possible," Clinton said.

Part of that effort, Clinton said, is answering any questions about her email "in as many different settings as I can." She noted she has sought for nearly a year to testify before Congress about the issue, and that she is now slated to do so in October.

The one-on-one interview with AP was the second for Clinton in the past four days. On Friday, she did not apologize for using a private email system when asked directly by NBC, "Are you sorry?" Asked Monday by the AP why she won't directly apologize, Clinton said: "What I did was allowed. It was allowed by the State Department. The State Department has confirmed that.

"I did not send or receive any information marked classified," Clinton said. "I take the responsibilities of handling classified materials very seriously and did so."

Clinton's efforts to address the email issue comes as her chief rival for the Democratic nomination, independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, exits the summer surging in still-quite-early public opinion polls and drawing massive crowds to his rallies and events.

Asked for an example of how she differs with Sanders on policy, Clinton demurred. "I'm going to keep laying out what I would do as president, what I stand for. ... I'm very much looking forward to the debates that we're going to have and we'll have plenty of time to draw those contrasts."

Asked when she might start, Clinton said: "I don't have any timing. I'm talking about what I would do as president: where I stand, what I believe."

Late Monday, Clinton picked up the endorsement of Iowa Rep. Dave Loebsack, adding to a growing collection that includes the nod Saturday from New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. Loebsack told a rally in Hampton, Ill., there was "nobody more qualified" to be president.

Last year, Clinton turned over roughly 55,000 pages of emails to the State Department that she sent and received using a home-brew email server set up at her home in suburban New York while serving as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

Clinton has said she set up her own system instead of using a State Department account for the convenience of using a single hand-held email device.

The State Department is currently reviewing and publicly releasing those emails, some showing that Clinton received messages that were later determined to contain classified information, including some that contained material regarding the production and dissemination of U.S. intelligence.

"There is always a debate among different agencies about what something should be retroactively (marked classified)," Clinton told the AP on Monday. "But at the time, there were none. So I'm going to keep answering the questions and providing the facts so that people can understand better what happened."

Last month, Clinton gave the server to the FBI, along with a thumb drive kept by her attorney that contained copies of the emails.

"It is not a criminal investigation, it is a security review," Clinton said. "People are asked to provide any copies of any of these materials that are the subject of the debate. So, I immediately said, 'turn over everything.'"

Clinton added, "I don't know anything technical about servers. But I am informed it doesn't have anything on it. But for safekeeping, turn it over as part of the security review."

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-09-08

Ulysses G. · September 8, 2015

She's LYING.

Poll: Majority think Hillary Clinton lied about emails

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/poll-majority-think-hillary-clinton-knowingly-lied-about-emails-121382#ixzz3l6mn3CxB

Hillary lies again. Diverting sensitive emails to the foundation server violated the law

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/29/andrew-napolitano-hillary-clinton-lies-about-email/?page=all

Yes, Clinton lied about her emails

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/yes-clinton-lied-about-her-emails/article/2567368

h90 · September 8, 2015

Not even some small company allows to use your private email for customer contacts.....

quandow · September 8, 2015

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/us/fbi-tracking-path-of-email-to-hillary-clinton-at-state-department.html

Edited September 8, 2015 by quandow

Pinot · September 8, 2015

Republicans want her dragged and quartered. If it wasn't the email server it would be something else.

No one outside the wingnutoshere cares about this shit. 17 unelectable candidates desperately hoping an email server can turn the tide. Make that a tsunmai. Benghazi!!!

chuckd · September 8, 2015

Hmmmm.

To paraphrase an infamous quote.

"My personal account has already been hacked by the Russians and the Chinese. What difference, at this point, does it make?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Review Says Classified Information Was in Hillary Clinton’s Email

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT

SEPT. 7, 2015

WASHINGTON — A special intelligence review of two emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton received as secretary of state on her personal account — including one about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program — has endorsed a finding by the inspector general for the intelligence agencies that the emails contained highly classified information when Mrs. Clinton received them, senior intelligence officials said.

Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign and the State Department disputed the inspector general’s finding last month and questioned whether the emails had been overclassified by an arbitrary process. But the special review — by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency — concluded that the emails were “Top Secret,” the highest classification of government intelligence, when they were sent to Mrs. Clinton in 2009 and 2011.

On Monday, the Clinton campaign disagreed with the conclusion of the intelligence review and noted that agencies within the government often have different views of what should be considered classified.

Article continues here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/second-review-says-classified-information-was-in-hillary-clintons-email.html?src=twr

Ulysses G. · September 8, 2015

Other than the Washington Post and New York Times. The usual dishonest liberal spin is not going to pass muster this time.

THREE PINOCCHIOS from Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/09/hillary-clintons-claim-that-everything-i-did-on-emails-was-permitted/

The Washington Post’s Fact Checker: Hillary Clinton Lied about State Department Emails

https://www.americarisingpac.org/the-washington-posts-fact-checker-hillary-clinton-lied-about-state-department-emails/

Hillary’s unspinnable problem

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/08/16/hillarys-unspinnable-problem/

oxo1947 · September 8, 2015

I think if we get Hillary Clinton as president------we can all be assured of peace in the middle east.

because nothing calms an enraged Arab country down like a powerful woman ordering it around.........................

Scott · September 8, 2015

A post with an aberrant spelling of a politician's name has been removed. Please use the correct names for politicians.

h90 · September 8, 2015

yes than it would be another lie from here....She is lying and she is stupid.

But yes the Republicans aren't better. There is no good choice....

MZurf · September 8, 2015

The teabaggers know full well that HRC will anihilate whatever sorry excuse of a candidate the GOP finally settles on. They're getting desperate, and it shows.

Edited September 8, 2015 by MZurf

maidee · September 8, 2015

using small lies as a candidate, good for the future, when she will be using more & bigger lies if she ever gets elected

Baerboxer · September 8, 2015

Yes, nobody should care if a potential POTUS is a liar, who tells more lies when asked about a lie.

Her husband did it, when in office, and got away with it. Why shouldn't she?

Sad the moral decline in both politicians and the electorate who now tolerate lies and try to dismiss them as unimportant. Of course she wouldn't lie about anything really important now, would she?

Berkshire · September 8, 2015

HRC is being "swift boated" by the GOP and you've gotta admit, it's sticking. That's what they're good it, slinging dirt and getting it to stick. One thing the GOP is not very good at is governing. Too bad Obama can't run for a third term. The country would be much better off with Biden, but if it's got to be Sanders or HRC....I'm not sure.

chuckd · September 8, 2015

" Too bad Obama can't run for a third term."

You might want to rethink that statement.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Poll: Nobody wants an Obama third term, not even blacks, Dems, 'Obama supporters'

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-nobody-wants-an-obama-third-term-not-even-blacks-dems-obama-supporters/article/2571439?utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Washington%20Secrets&utm_source=Washington%20Examiner:%20Washington%20Secrets%20-%2009/07/15&utm_medium=email

Berkshire · September 8, 2015

That poll is clearly about not wanting to change the constitution. Rather wily of you, citing that right-wing rag and its misleading headline.

chuckd · September 8, 2015

Find something that refutes it. Your attacking the messenger is so inane.

Publicus · September 8, 2015

The North Korea satellite missile memo for instance turned out to have been sent to Mrs. Clinton by a state department employee who used a "non-classified computer."

The issue in every instance is not Hillary Clinton, it is the classifications and the associated protocols and procedures of DepState and the intelligence agencies, and it is for them to settle among themselves.

The issues do not belong in the realm of partisan party politics.

ggt · September 8, 2015

No apology? No surprise...this is standard MO (mode of operation) for liberal Dems...

Case in point...Harry Reid, Dem from Arizona used his position as Senate Leader to go before the American people and lie about Mitt Romney...saying he had not paid income taxes in 10 years...when ask about it after Romney lost...his reply..."It worked didn't it"...arrogance becomes liberal Dem politicians and appointees...

What Clinton did do...is likely an obstruction of justice...destroying evidence...however...lacking the evidence...she will not likely be charged and once again manage to barely allude jail time...

This woman would be the US President?

Please!

spidermike007 · September 9, 2015

Would that have been the first time any Clinton has issued an apology for crossing the line?

stevenl · September 9, 2015

Isn't that the way it is supposed to be when there is no evidence? Shouldn't people go free when there is no proof of a crime?

Pinot · September 9, 2015

chucd writes above: "Find something that refutes it. Your attacking the messenger is so inane."

Wait...the messenger is a right-wing POS? Nobody is talking about Obama and a third term, but just the thought of it keeps the wingnutoshere up at night. Scary stuff I know.

You put a right-wing link to back up your crazy misdirected statement. When called on it, you say "find something that refutes it."

Wow! You got everyone there. Not only is your post illogical, it's irrefutable! You win.

Ulysses G. · September 9, 2015

You can't refute it, so you resort to insults and name calling. Typical.

chuckd · September 9, 2015

You can't find anything to refute it either?

So far I have offered input from the Washington Times, The Washington Post, The Washington Examiner and the New York Times on this thread.

Do you find all of them offensive or is this simply another of your knee jerk reactions to something you know very little about?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit in: I decided to put you out of your misery. Check out these sites and see if they meet your dizzying standards.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2015/obama_says_he_could_win_again_true_or_false

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/250715-poll-obama-wouldnt-win-third-term

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/president-obama-id-win-third-term-new-rasmussen-poll-says-otherwise#.ogxybn:PU3m

http://national.suntimes.com/national-world-news/7/72/1614996/poll-obama-wouldnt-win-third-term

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nobody is talking about Obama and a third term,"

The third Obama term was another poster's idea. My post was in response to him.

Please either learn to spell my name or hit the correct keys on your keypad. Thanks for your attention to detail.

Edited September 9, 2015 by chuckd

ggt · September 9, 2015

Shouldn't people go free when there is no proof of a crime?

Go free when lacking conclusive evidence...Yes! Becoming President while exhibiting a criminal mind...No!

Sign In

Clinton says no email apology: 'What I did was allowed'

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...