Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Hillary Clinton's Deleted Emails Were Individually Reviewed After All, Spokesman Says

Posted by on Mar. 15, 2015 at 7:08 PM
  • 67 Replies

Hillary Clinton's Deleted Emails Were Individually Reviewed After All, Spokesman Says

PHOTO: Hillary Clinton participates in a womens equality event March 9, 2015 in New York.

How exactly did Hillary Clinton's team decide which of her emails should be saved and which ones should be deleted?

Three days after Time Magazine initially reported on Team Clinton’s review process to determine which of her emails were work-related and which were personal, the former secretary of state's people are now saying the examination did include opening and reading each email.

They did not confirm or deny Time's reporting for three days, with no explanation for why it took so long to clarify their deletion process.

Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill has released a statement saying that “in wanting the public to understand how robust of a search was conducted, the fact sheet laid out several examples of the methods used by the reviewers to double and triple check they were capturing everything."

The “fact sheet” refers to a question-and-answer document given out after the news conference last week.

The statement continues: "It was not meant to be taken as a list of every approach performed to ensure thoroughness. Those subsequent steps were in addition to reading them all, not in lieu of reading them all. (No different than our explaining such terms were used but not listing every search term used.) We simply took for granted that reading every single email came across as the most important, fundamental and exhaustive step that was performed. The fact sheet should have been clearer every email was read, which we are doing now.”

The big headline from Clinton’s news conference Tuesday was that, although she claims to have turned over all work-related emails, she deleted the rest of her emails and it appears they are gone forever.

A Time magazine cover story about the email scandal released last week reported: "This review did not involve opening and reading each email. Instead, Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache -- 31,830 emails -- did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be 'private, personal records.'” Clinton's team is now saying this is not true.

Time didn't disclose how it determined that each email wasn't opened individually, but says it seemed to be consistent with a written explanation provided by Clinton's spokesman after the news conference this week. During the news conference, Clinton did not go into the details of how the review was conducted, but said it was “thorough” and that she went “above and beyond” what she was required to do in turning over many of her emails to the State Department.

"We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related emails and deliver them to the State Department," she said, adding that all other emails were personal and pertained to matters such as "yoga routines," "family vacations," and "planning Chelsea's wedding."

But later, after the news conference, Clinton’s team distributed a lengthy question-and-answer document that detailed the “multi-step” process. The process appeared to have included an extensive, nuanced search of Clinton’s inbox, but the document did not make clear how many of the emails were opened and read in the review.

Today, however, Clinton's team said that all the emails were opened and read.

According to that document from the earlier news conference, here is a summary of how Clinton’s attorneys, whom she tasked with the job, said they sorted through, but it specifically did not say each e mail was read. • First, a search was done of all emails Clinton received from a .gov or state.gov account during the period she was secretary of state -- from 2009 to 2013. • Then, with the remaining emails, a search was done for names of 100 State Department and other U.S. government officials who Clinton may have had correspondence with during her tenure. • Next, the emails were organized and reviewed by sender and recipient to “account for non-obvious or non-recognizable email addresses or misspellings or other idiosyncrasies.” • Lastly, of the emails still left over, a "number of terms" were searched, including “Benghazi” and “Libya.”

The results of the searching were that Clinton’s attorneys found 30,490 work-related emails and 31,830 emails that were deemed “private and personal.”

Clinton said on Tuesday she deleted all of the personal emails because she thought she “had no reason to save them.”

The revelation has only raised more questions among Clinton’s detractors about what was in those emails and why she used the private account in the first place.

On Sunday, ABC News’ Jon Karl reported House Speaker John Boehner is expected to announce this week a new investigation into Clinton's email practices as Secretary of State, according to top House Republicans.

Meanwhile, Clinton is hoping to move past her email issues as she prepares for a more-than-likely presidential campaign that she is expected to announce next month.

by on Mar. 15, 2015 at 7:08 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
billsfan1104
by on Mar. 15, 2015 at 7:12 PM
1 mom liked this
She deleted 31k emails herself? Hahahahhaha
sweet-a-kins
by Emerald Member on Mar. 15, 2015 at 7:18 PM

The media reaction to George W. Bush's email controversy

AP Fact Checks Clinton's Email Statements
AP
The Associated Press takes a look at how Hillary Rodham Clinton's statements about her exclusive use of private email instead of a government account while serving as secretary of state compare with the known facts.

Why is everyone picking on Hillary Clinton -- they didn’t mind when President George W. Bush’s White House also used private email, pundit Juan Williams asked on Fox News Sunday.

The show’s March 15, 2015, pundit panel debated the importance of the ongoing controversy regarding Clinton’s decision to exclusively use a private email account, rather than a .gov account, during her time as secretary of state. In doing so, experts say she was able to circumvent transparency and records preservation standards.

Williams turned to his fellow commentator, Republican strategist and former Bush adviser Karl Rove, arguing that the email scandal during the Bush administration didn’t garner the same level of media criticism. Thus, the attention on Clinton is unwarranted.

"When Karl was in trouble back in ‘07, (there was) no press coverage, just about zero press coverage of this issue," Williams said, noting that he found just oneWashington Post editorial criticizing the private email use.

"Juan, you are in a different reality, and I wish that I was there with you," Rove said.

We decided to look back and see what press coverage of the Bush administration email controversy looked like at the time and how it compares to coverage of Clinton.

The Bush email story

First, a quick refresher about what happened in the Bush administration. In March 2007, eyes were on then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales after the administration unexpectedly fired eight U.S. attorneys. Congress (recently taken over by Democrats) investigated the firings, alleging that the administration had dropped the prosecutors for political reasons.

Over the course of the investigation, it came out that some White House officials had conducted White House business over private email accounts set up on a server through the Republican National Committee. The White House later admitted that some internal White House emails conducted on the RNC server might have been lost.

Democrats in Congress accused the administration of purposefully circumventing recordkeeping processes, while the White House said staffers were supposed to use the RNC emails solely for political affairs, not official business. Comparing the Bush and Clinton email scandals is not exactly apples to apples, but there are some similarities.

We looked back at media coverage at the time, and Williams has a point that it didn’t cause the same level of hubbub as the Clinton email scandal. Though to say there was "zero press coverage" is an exaggeration -- even allowing for a bit of hyperbole.

Comparing the coverage

We did a search through Lexis-Nexis, a research service that tracks news articles and transcripts, between March and May 2007. We found more than 125 transcripts from the major cable networks and National Public Radio that include "Republican National Committee" and "email" within 10 words of each other.

The Lexis-Nexis search also yielded more than 200 related newspaper articles across the country within the same time frame.

Let’s compare that to coverage of the Clinton controversy.

Since the story broke March 3, 2015 -- two weeks ago -- we found 204 cable and public radio transcripts that include "Clinton" and "email." We also found 1,700 newspaper articles across the country.

That’s several times as many articles and transcripts about Clinton than there were about the Bush email controversy in a quarter of the time. It’s a rough measurement, but clearly there has been more media attention on Clinton’s use of private email than that of the White House staffers.

What about Williams’ reference to the singular Washington Post editorial criticizing the private email use among White House staffers? We found the one editorial, as well as a couple opinion columns. In comparison, the Washington Post has so far written two editorials regarding Clinton’s private email use.

Not the same

Williams’ argument is that Republicans are stoking the media fire of the Clinton email scandal because they’re worried about Clinton’s 2016 potential, compared to Republican candidates. There’s some nuances and contextual factors that might explain the difference in media coverage.

First of all, there’s the difference in who’s at the receiving end of the criticisms. In 2007, it was a group of higher-up White House staffers and advisers (notably Rove) who occasionally used private email accounts for official business. As far as we can tell, though, Bush himself was not suspected as being part of this group. Today, the target is a former secretary of state, who only used private email when conducting official government business.

What’s more is that Clinton is in all likelihood running for president in 2016, so she has a lot of media attention on her to begin with. At the time of their email controversy, the Bush administration was past their 2004 second-term election and the 2006 midterms.

Additionally, the White House email controversy was on the periphery of a much larger scandal -- the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys. We searched Lexis-Nexis for articles about Attorney General Gonzales in the same time frame that we used to explore coverage of the White House email controversy. The search came up with more than 6,000 combined newspaper articles and transcripts. (Compared to the more than 325 about the emails).

As one Washington Post article put it: "The controversy over the outside e-mail accounts is a byproduct of the ongoing showdown over the prosecutor firings."

Our ruling

Williams said there was "just about zero press coverage" of the 2007 Bush White House email controversy. We emailed Williams and did not hear back.

Saying there was "zero press coverage" is an exaggeration -- even allowing for a bit of hyperbole. We found hundreds of articles and television transcripts referencing the issue. Still, Williams has something of a point that compared to the extensive recent coverage of Clinton’s use of private email, media coverage of the 2007 Bush White House email controversy was thin.

Williams’ statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.

Quoting billsfan1104: She deleted 31k emails herself? Hahahahhaha


momtimesx4
by on Mar. 15, 2015 at 7:19 PM
3 moms liked this

FromAtoZ
by AllieCat on Mar. 15, 2015 at 7:21 PM
7 moms liked this

 I don't buy it.

Nor am I inclined to compare what she has done, or not done, to what he did or didn't do or anyone else for that matter.  That gets this country no where.

Yet another cluster is about to unfold in the form of the Presidential race.

Same old song and dance with the same old people. 

Blah

Mrs.KAZ
by Silver Member on Mar. 15, 2015 at 7:23 PM
She had Bill do it as punishment for his transgressions.

Quoting billsfan1104: She deleted 31k emails herself? Hahahahhaha
billsfan1104
by on Mar. 15, 2015 at 7:33 PM
1 mom liked this
Wahhhhhh deflection. Deflection. Deflection. But bushhhhhhhh did it tooooo

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

The media reaction to George W. Bush's email controversy

AP Fact Checks Clinton's Email Statements
AP
The Associated Press takes a look at how Hillary Rodham Clinton's statements about her exclusive use of private email instead of a government account while serving as secretary of state compare with the known facts.

Why is everyone picking on Hillary Clinton -- they didn’t mind when President George W. Bush’s White House also used private email, pundit Juan Williams asked on Fox News Sunday.

The show’s March 15, 2015, pundit panel debated the importance of the ongoing controversy regarding Clinton’s decision to exclusively use a private email account, rather than a .gov account, during her time as secretary of state. In doing so, experts say she was able to circumvent transparency and records preservation standards.

Williams turned to his fellow commentator, Republican strategist and former Bush adviser Karl Rove, arguing that the email scandal during the Bush administration didn’t garner the same level of media criticism. Thus, the attention on Clinton is unwarranted.

"When Karl was in trouble back in ‘07, (there was) no press coverage, just about zero press coverage of this issue," Williams said, noting that he found just oneWashington Post editorial criticizing the private email use.

"Juan, you are in a different reality, and I wish that I was there with you," Rove said.

We decided to look back and see what press coverage of the Bush administration email controversy looked like at the time and how it compares to coverage of Clinton.

The Bush email story

First, a quick refresher about what happened in the Bush administration. In March 2007, eyes were on then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales after the administration unexpectedly fired eight U.S. attorneys. Congress (recently taken over by Democrats) investigated the firings, alleging that the administration had dropped the prosecutors for political reasons.

Over the course of the investigation, it came out that some White House officials had conducted White House business over private email accounts set up on a server through the Republican National Committee. The White House later admitted that some internal White House emails conducted on the RNC server might have been lost.

Democrats in Congress accused the administration of purposefully circumventing recordkeeping processes, while the White House said staffers were supposed to use the RNC emails solely for political affairs, not official business. Comparing the Bush and Clinton email scandals is not exactly apples to apples, but there are some similarities.

We looked back at media coverage at the time, and Williams has a point that it didn’t cause the same level of hubbub as the Clinton email scandal. Though to say there was "zero press coverage" is an exaggeration -- even allowing for a bit of hyperbole.

Comparing the coverage

We did a search through Lexis-Nexis, a research service that tracks news articles and transcripts, between March and May 2007. We found more than 125 transcripts from the major cable networks and National Public Radio that include "Republican National Committee" and "email" within 10 words of each other.

The Lexis-Nexis search also yielded more than 200 related newspaper articles across the country within the same time frame.

Let’s compare that to coverage of the Clinton controversy.

Since the story broke March 3, 2015 -- two weeks ago -- we found 204 cable and public radio transcripts that include "Clinton" and "email." We also found 1,700 newspaper articles across the country.

That’s several times as many articles and transcripts about Clinton than there were about the Bush email controversy in a quarter of the time. It’s a rough measurement, but clearly there has been more media attention on Clinton’s use of private email than that of the White House staffers.

What about Williams’ reference to the singular Washington Post editorial criticizing the private email use among White House staffers? We found the one editorial, as well as a couple opinion columns. In comparison, the Washington Post has so far written two editorials regarding Clinton’s private email use.

Not the same

Williams’ argument is that Republicans are stoking the media fire of the Clinton email scandal because they’re worried about Clinton’s 2016 potential, compared to Republican candidates. There’s some nuances and contextual factors that might explain the difference in media coverage.

First of all, there’s the difference in who’s at the receiving end of the criticisms. In 2007, it was a group of higher-up White House staffers and advisers (notably Rove) who occasionally used private email accounts for official business. As far as we can tell, though, Bush himself was not suspected as being part of this group. Today, the target is a former secretary of state, who only used private email when conducting official government business.

What’s more is that Clinton is in all likelihood running for president in 2016, so she has a lot of media attention on her to begin with. At the time of their email controversy, the Bush administration was past their 2004 second-term election and the 2006 midterms.

Additionally, the White House email controversy was on the periphery of a much larger scandal -- the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys. We searched Lexis-Nexis for articles about Attorney General Gonzales in the same time frame that we used to explore coverage of the White House email controversy. The search came up with more than 6,000 combined newspaper articles and transcripts. (Compared to the more than 325 about the emails).

As one Washington Post article put it: "The controversy over the outside e-mail accounts is a byproduct of the ongoing showdown over the prosecutor firings."

Our ruling

Williams said there was "just about zero press coverage" of the 2007 Bush White House email controversy. We emailed Williams and did not hear back.

Saying there was "zero press coverage" is an exaggeration -- even allowing for a bit of hyperbole. We found hundreds of articles and television transcripts referencing the issue. Still, Williams has something of a point that compared to the extensive recent coverage of Clinton’s use of private email, media coverage of the 2007 Bush White House email controversy was thin.

Williams’ statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.

Quoting billsfan1104: She deleted 31k emails herself? Hahahahhaha

VooDooB
by Emerald Member on Mar. 15, 2015 at 7:39 PM
7 moms liked this

I love the smell of frenzied desperation from a sinking ship.

billsfan1104
by on Mar. 15, 2015 at 7:42 PM
They have no right to scream deflection to is. Hypocrites.

Quoting VooDooB:

I love the smell of frenzied desperation from a sinking ship.

pvtjokerus
by Ruby Member on Mar. 15, 2015 at 7:52 PM
2 moms liked this

R U Freaking jokin'?  BAHAHAHAHAHAHA:

"This review did not involve opening and reading each email. Instead, Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache -- 31,830 emails -- did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be 'private, personal records.'” Clinton's team is now saying this is not true.

broboxer
by Platinum Member on Mar. 15, 2015 at 8:10 PM
5 moms liked this
And we should believe Hillary's spokesperson because?
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)