Wednesday, Lt. Gen. John Castellaw released the following statement in response to Trump’s comment that he could ‘sit down and teach a couple things’ to former Army War College dean and retired Army Colonel, Jeff McCausland:
“Donald Trump’s disrespect for our military knows no bounds. This week, as brave American troops embarked on a crucial mission supporting anti-ISIS forces in Iraq, Trump was already declaring defeat. He called our leaders stupid for not following his uninformed advice. And now he’s personally insulting a military expert and retired Army Colonel who served for 30 years for knocking his ‘plan.’”
“A complex operation to take a major city – with hundreds of thousands of civilians, untold traps and IEDs, and the possibility of street-to-street fighting – requires careful planning and methodical execution, not a fly-by-night bum’s rush.”
“But sadly, none of this is surprising coming from Donald Trump. Over the course of this campaign, he has claimed to know more about military operations than our generals do. He has mocked U.S. prisoners of war. He has insulted Gold Star families. He has joked about how he always wanted a Purple Heart. He has never apologized for any of it. He calls our military a ‘disaster’ and then turns around and asks the country to make him our Commander-in-Chief. It’s a disgrace, and we can never let him assume that sacred role.”
Lt. Gen. John Castellaw, USMC (ret) led Marines around the world for 36 years while flying more than two dozen different types of aircraft. Castellaw served with the UN during the Siege of Sarajevo, commanded the American force in the multi-national security and stability operation in East Timor, and as the chief of staff for the U.S. Central Command at the height of the war in Iraq.
Hillary Clinton’s Strong, Steady Approach to Global Challenges vs. Trump’s Dangerously Unserious Approach
The fifth topic on deck for this evening’s debate will address global challenges. Hillary Clinton’s steady leadership has made America stronger and safer on the world stage. As First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State, she has worked tirelessly to keep Americans safe and stay true to our values. Conversely, Donald Trump’s dangerous national security proposals, lack of understanding of geopolitical realities, and reckless foreign policy rhetoric have been apparent throughout the campaign.
Hillary Clinton has laid out a comprehensive plan to defeat ISIS and keep Americans safe at home. She understands that it’s not enough just to take out specific groups or leaders – we must have a comprehensive strategy to win the long game against the global terrorist network and its ideology. Former military leaders and top national security officials agree: Hillary is the right choice.
Protect our homeland, including by surging our intelligence to ensure law enforcement has the information they need to detect and disrupt plots.
Work with Silicon Valley to shut down terrorist propaganda and disrupt their recruitment efforts online.
Keep guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists.
Work with our allies to dismantle the global network that supplies money, arms, propaganda and fighters to the terrorists.
Choke off the networks that facilitate their growth and expansion.
Focus on eliminating the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Take out ISIS’s strongholds in the Middle East by intensifying the coalition air campaign, supporting our partners on the ground, and pursuing diplomacy to end Syria’s civil war and close Iraq’s sectarian divide, because those conflicts are keeping ISIS alive.
Stand with our allies, rather than abandoning them.
Despite Trump’s claims that he has a “secret” plan to defeat ISIS, he has no real plan at all. And his rhetoric is dangerously playing into terrorists’ hands.
Today, Hillary Clinton released the following statement on the official appointment of António Guterres as the next United Nations Secretary-General:
“I would like to extend my warmest congratulations to António Guterres on his appointment as the next Secretary-General of the United Nations. Throughout his career, Mr. Guterres has proven himself to be an advocate for human rights and a champion for the most vulnerable. As UN High Commissioner for Refugees, he provided help and hope to millions of men, women and children who have been forced to flee from their homes. And he is a consensus-builder who can bring people together to advance common interests and address common challenges. I was heartened that Mr. Guterres indicated that gender equality will be a top priority when filling senior positions. I strongly support efforts that increase diversity in UN leadership. And if I’m elected President of the United States, I look forward to working with Mr. Guterres and all of our partners to help shape a more peaceful and prosperous future for every global citizen.”
Donald Trump is eager to talk about the last 30 years and Hillary Clinton, too, is eager to discuss her three decades of experience and public service. Clinton has dedicated her life to serving others, while Trump has spent decades trying to get ahead at the expense of others. Today, Hillary for America is launcha new website offering a side-by-side comparison of what they were each doing at various times in their lives. Their records show that there’s only one candidate in this race who truly puts the American people first: Hillary Clinton.
In the 1970s and 80s:
Clinton’s first job out of law school was with the Children’s Defense Fund, and one of her first tasks was going door to door to figure out why so many children were missing school. The evidence she helped gather was presented to Congress to build the case for the passage of the law that ensures all children with disabilities have access quality education. Later, while a law professor at the University of Arkansas, Clinton founded a legal aid clinic to help low-income children and families in need of legal representation. And as First Lady of Arkansas, she chaired the state’s Education Standards Committee, working to improve the quality of schools and give every child a chance to succeed.
Trump was President of his dad’s real estate company and the family business when it was sued by the Justice Department for refusing to rent apartments to African Americans in New York City and Virginia. The lawsuit unearthed a disturbing pattern among employees of Trump’s real estate company, who appeared to systematically deny applications to aspiring black renters. Trump borrowed at least $14 million from his father for his real estate empire.
After 9/11, Clinton immediately got to work fighting for first responders and emergency workers. She introduced a bill to speed up the payment of benefits to families of public safety officers who died in the line of duty on 9/11 and it became law a few days later. In 2006, she introduced the Heroes at Home Act to aid veterans with post-traumatic stress or traumatic brain injuries.
In the Senate, Clinton also worked on improving access to health care and making it more affordable. She fought for Medicare to be able to negotiate for fair drug prices, supported getting generic drugs to market faster, and consistently backed safe prescription drug importation from other countries. She co-authored and worked to pass the Pediatric Research Equity Act, which forced drug companies to conduct pediatric tests on products prescribed for kids. “She also worked on economic issues for New York State, co-founding the bipartisan Senate manufacturing caucus and fighting for New York’s strong manufacturing base and steel industry.
At the same time, Trumptook $150,000 from a program designed to help small businesses in the aftermath of 9/11 and spent years lying about both his personal attachment to 9/11 and his commitment to helping New York recover. Trump also spent his time cheating more than 5,000 students at his scam Trump University and running a sham charitable foundation that spent money on non-charitable expenses like a portrait of himself and personal legal fees, and failed to properly register to raise money in the State of New York. It was reported that Trump repeatedly demeaned a crew member working on The Apprentice and used misogynistic language about female contestants.
In the 2010s:
Clinton served as Secretary of State. She built the toughest sanctions regime in history on Iran, twisting arms in China, Russia, and dozens of other countries, to force Iran to the negotiating table. And when pressure started working, she sent her closest aides to explore a diplomatic opening that led to a deal cutting off Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon. She personally negotiated an end to Hamas rockets raining down on Israel in 2012 and worked to build stronger defense programs for Israel, including upgrading the Iron Dome rocket defense system. She worked to ensure ratification of the New START treaty, which will make the world safer by reducing the number of deployed U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear weapons. She fought to make women’s rights a priority in international relations, stood up against sex trafficking of women and children, and led the fight for a UN Security Council resolution to combat sexual violence against women and children around the world that passed unanimously. She advised President Obama on the decision to bring Osama bin Laden to justice — and on May 1, 2011, she was in the Situation Room as the operation unfolded.
The same night as Clinton advised President Obama on the Osama bin Laden raid, Trump was busy appearing on an episode of The Celebrity Apprentice. Trump has spent this decade peddling shameful lies about President Obama’s nationality as the leader of the birther movement; making a deal with Gaddafi to set up a tent on Trump’s property; filing for bankruptcy at Trump Plaza; fighting fraud suits over Trump University; and doling out illegal campaign donations from his sham charitable foundation.
On Friday, Hillary Clinton released the following statement in response to North Korea’s nuclear test.
“North Korea’s decision to conduct another nuclear test is outrageous and unacceptable. I strongly condemn this reckless action, which – coupled with its recent series of missile launches – makes clear Pyongyang’s determination to develop a deliverable nuclear weapon. This constitutes a direct threat to the United States, and we cannot and will never accept this.
I support President Obama’s call to both strengthen the sanctions passed earlier this year with the United Nations and to impose additional sanctions. At the same time, we must strengthen defense cooperation with our allies in the region; South Korea and Japan are critical to our missile defense system, which will protect us against a North Korean missile. China plays a critical role, too, and must meaningfully increase pressure on North Korea – and we must make sure they do.
This is another reminder that America must elect a President who can confront the threats we face with steadiness and strength. We need a Commander-in-Chief committed to a bipartisan foreign policy, who can bring together top experts with deep experience to solve the toughest challenges. And we need a President committed to reducing – not increasing – the number of nuclear weapons and nuclear states in the world. More countries with nuclear weapons in Northeast Asia would increase the chances of the unthinkable happening. We cannot take that risk.”
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton listens to a question at town hall meeting at White Mountain Community College, Thursday, Oct. 29, 2015, in Berlin, N.H. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty)
Today, Hillary Clinton released a statement following the release of American prisoners being held by Iran and the implementation of the nuclear agreement with Iran. Clinton came out in support of the agreement with Iran but urged caution. In her statement, she continues to air on the side of caution and promises that, if elected president, she will continue to work with UN to ensure Iran does not develop nuclear weapons. The full text of her statement is below:
I am greatly relieved by the safe return of American prisoners from Iran. Their families and our country have waited and prayed for this day to come.
I also welcome the full implementation of the nuclear agreement, an important achievement of diplomacy backed by pressure. Implementation marks an important step forward in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Iran has dismantled centrifuges, disabled a reactor, and shipped out almost all of its enriched uranium. These are important steps that make the United States, our allies, and the entire world safer. I congratulate President Obama and his team, and I’m proud of the role I played to get this process started.
But we shouldn’t thank Iran for the prisoners or for following through on its obligations. These prisoners were held unjustly by a regime that continues to threaten the peace and security of the Middle East. Another American, Bob Levinson, still isn’t home with his family. The treatment of our Navy sailors earlier this week was offensive, including the release of a demeaning and provocative video. Iran is still violating UN Security Council resolutions with its ballistic missile program, which should be met with new sanctions designations and firm resolve.
So we can’t take our eye off the ball. As President, my approach will be to distrust and verify. I will vigorously enforce the nuclear deal as part of a comprehensive strategy that confronts all of Iran’s negative actions in the region and stand side-by-side with our ally Israel and our Arab partners.
Democratic presidential candidate, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks to the Democratic National Committee 22nd Annual Women’s Leadership Forum National Issues Conference in Washington, Friday, Oct. 23, 2015. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
On Saturday, it was announced that the more than 180 nations that gathered at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris has reached an agreement. The details of the agreement are continuing to develop, but Hillary Clinton released the following statement of support applauding the United States for taking a leadership role at the conference and calling for the US to continue to work towards building a clean energy economy.
I applaud President Obama, Secretary Kerry and our negotiating team for helping deliver a new, ambitious international climate agreement in Paris. This is an historic step forward in meeting one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century – the global crisis of climate change.
The Paris agreement is a testament to America’s ability to lead the world in building a clean energy future where no one is left out or left behind. And it was made possible in part by every person, business owner, and community in the United States and around the world that stepped up to prove we don’t have to choose between growing our economy and protecting our kids’ heath and future – we can do both.
But we will only succeed if we redouble our efforts going forward to drive innovation, increase investment, and reap the benefits of the good-paying jobs that will come from transitioning to a clean energy economy. The next decade of action is critical – because if we do not press forward with driving clean energy growth and cutting carbon pollution across the economy, we will not be able to avoid catastrophic consequences.
We cannot afford to be slowed by the climate skeptics or deterred by the defeatists who doubt America’s ability to meet this challenge. That’s why as President, I will make combating climate change a top priority from day one, and secure America’s future as the clean energy superpower of the 21st century.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks during the Iowa Democratic Party’s Jefferson-Jackson fundraising dinner, Saturday, Oct. 24, 2015, in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
In an op-ed published in Time, Hillary Clinton voiced her support for the United Nations Conference on Climate Change which began today in Paris. Clinton called climate change a threat to the United States because it affects our economy and health. She criticized those who have denied climate change is occurring and the affect humans have had on it. The full text of Clinton’s op-ed is below.
Climate change threatens every corner of our country, every sector of our economy and the health and future of every child. We are already seeing its impacts and we know the poorest and most vulnerable people in the United States and around the world will suffer most of all.
Despite the seriousness of the threat, the world has not always rallied to respond. For years, international negotiations were stymied by deep divisions between developed and developing nations, and by resistance on the part of the Chinese and others to taking responsibility for curbing carbon pollution. While President Obama has made strong progress cutting pollution and deploying more clean energy in the United States, he faces a Republican Party that alternates between denial of the reality of climate change, defeatism about our ability to do anything about it, and outright obstruction of the tools and programs we need to solve the problem.
But President Obama remains committed to making the United States the global leader in the fight against climate change—and so do I. In Paris this week, world leaders have the best chance in years to forge a new, durable, ambitious international climate agreement. I believe they must be guided by three principles. First, all countries must take responsibility for combating this global crisis, and put forward commitments to curb their own greenhouse gas emissions. Second, the agreement should galvanize financial assistance for, and spur private investment in, developing countries to help them adapt and achieve sustainable economic growth.
And finally, it must be an agreement that can be strengthened over time. Countries should agree to come together regularly to raise their collective ambition. In the years ahead, technology will improve and become even cheaper; more companies and investors will put skin in the game; and city and state leaders will take actions that outstrip the ambitions of their capitals. Solving the climate challenge for the long term will take more than the solutions we have in 2015—it will require the new tools we build together.
In Copenhagen in 2009, President Obama and I had to burst into a secret meeting of leaders from China, India, Brazil, and South Africa to break a deadlock and deliver the first international climate agreement in which all major economies, not just the developed world, pledged to take action.
We’ve come so far since then. Over the past year, 164 countries accounting for 90 percent of global emissions have announced national targets and measures to reduce pollution that they are ready to codify in Paris, recognizing that cutting emissions and investing in clean energy isn’t just good for the planet—it’s good economic sense. The United States and China led the way with ambitious goals to cut carbon pollution and deploy more clean energy, and have already begun taking action to achieve them.
Still, getting the job done in Paris will require skillful diplomacy and robust American leadership — I know that from personal experience. As Secretary of State, I put combating climate change on the agenda for my first trip to Beijing and kept it there over the next four years. I appointed the first high-level special envoy for climate change and led an international effort to launch the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to reduce so-called “super pollutants” that make up just a fraction of emissions, but drive a disproportionate share of warming.
As President, I will protect and build on the progress President Obama has made at home. I will set ambitious goals—to see 500 million solar panels installed within four years and enough renewable electricity to power every home in America within 10 years. I’ll also pursue a new North American Climate Compact, because the United States, Canada and Mexico should work together to build a clean energy future for our continent.
And the Republican deniers, defeatists and obstructionists should know—their cynical efforts will fail. Not only are they on the wrong side of science and of history, they are increasingly on the wrong side of their own voters, as a majority of Republicans accept the science of climate change, and support solutions like clean energy.
We must reject the false choice between combating climate change and fostering strong economic growth. If any country can prove that, it’s the United States. Under President Obama, we’re leading the world in the fight against climate change. I won’t let anyone to take us backward, deny our economy the benefits of harnessing a clean energy future, or force our children to endure the catastrophe that would result from unchecked climate change.
Once again, the world looks to Paris—this time in hope. Global challenges demand global solutions. The fight against climate change will be long. It will take the efforts of every country, every industry, and every community. It will take the leadership of every President. But at last—in Paris—the framework of a lasting solution is within reach. We must seize this moment.
On September 5, 1995, Hillary Rodham Clinton gave one of her most powerful speeches as First Lady. She was a featured speaker at the UN’s Fourth Women’s Conference in Beijing, China. During the speech, Clinton famously said “let it be that human rights are human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights.” Clinton has continued to fight for women’s rights as Senator, Secretary of State, and now a candidate for President of the United States.
Hillary Rodham Clinton held a press conference this afternoon after addressing the United Nations. In the press conference, she spoke publicly about her use of private email accounts as Secretary of State and then answered questions from reporters. Rather than quoting what Clinton said during this press conference, watch the video above, or read the full transcript of the press conference below.
TRANSCRIPT:
CLINTON: Good afternoon.
I want to thank the United Nations for hosting today’s events and putting the challenge of gender equality front and center on the international agenda. I’m especially pleased to have so many leaders here from the private sector standing shoulder to shoulder with advocates who have worked tirelessly for equality for decades.
Twenty years ago, this was a lonelier struggle. Today, we mark the progress that has been made in the two decades since the international community gathered in Beijing and declared with one voice that human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights.
And because of advances in health, education, and legal protections, we can say that there has never been a better time in history to be born female. Yet as the comprehensive new report, published by the Clinton Foundation and the Gates Foundation this week makes clear, despite all this progress, when it comes to the full participation of women and girls, we’re just not there yet.
As I said today, this remains the great unfinished business of the 21st century. And my passion for this fight burns as brightly today as it did 20 years ago.
I want to comment on a matter in the news today regarding Iran. The president and his team are in the midst of intense negotiations. Their goal is a diplomatic solution that would close off Iran’s pathways to a nuclear bomb and give us unprecedented access and insight into Iran’s nuclear program.
Now, reasonable people can disagree about what exactly it will take to accomplish this objective, and we all must judge any final agreement on its merits.
But the recent letter from Republican senators was out of step with the best traditions of American leadership. And one has to ask, what was the purpose of this letter?
There appear to be two logical answers. Either these senators were trying to be helpful to the Iranians or harmful to the commander- in-chief in the midst of high-stakes international diplomacy. Either answer does discredit to the letters’ signatories.
Now, I would be pleased to talk more about this important matter, but I know there have been questions about my email, so I want to address that directly, and then I will take a few questions from you.
There are four things I want the public to know.
First, 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.
Looking back, it would’ve been better if I’d simply used a second email account and carried a second phone, but at the time, this didn’t seem like an issue.
Second, the vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department.
Third, after I left office, the State Department asked former secretaries of state for our assistance in providing copies of work- related emails from our personal accounts. I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related, which totalled roughly 55,000 printed pages, even though I knew that the State Department already had the vast majority of them. We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work- related emails and deliver them to the State Department. At the end, I chose not to keep my private personal emails — emails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.
No one wants their personal emails made public, and I think most people understand that and respect that privacy.
Fourth, I took the unprecedented step of asking that the State Department make all my work-related emails public for everyone to see.
I am very proud of the work that I and my colleagues and our public servants at the department did during my four years as secretary of state, and I look forward to people being able to see that for themselves.
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.
Now I’m happy to take a few questions.
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, can you…
CLINTON: Just a minute. Nick (ph) is calling on people.
QUESTION: Sorry.
Madam Secretary, Kahraman Haliscelik with Turkish Television. On behalf of the U.N. Correspondence Association, thank you very much for your remarks, and it’s wonderful to see you here again.
Madam Secretary, why did you opt out not using two devices at the time? Obviously, if this didn’t come out, you wouldn’t — probably wouldn’t become an issue.
QUESTION: And my — my second follow-up question is, if you were a man today, would all this fuss being made be made?
Thank you.
CLINTON: Well, I will — I will leave that to others to answer.
But as I — as I said, I saw it as a matter of convenience, and it was allowed. Others had done it. According to the State Department, which recently said Secretary Kerry was the first secretary of state to rely primarily on a state.gov e-mail account.
And when I got there, I wanted to just use one device for both personal and work e-mails, instead of two. It was allowed. And as I said, it was for convenience. And it was my practice to communicate with State Department and other government officials on their .gov accounts so those e-mails would be automatically saved in the State Department system to meet recordkeeping requirements, and that, indeed, is what happened.
And I heard just a little while ago the State Department announced they would begin to post some of my e-mails, which I’m very glad to hear, because I want it all out there.
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, can you…
CLINTON: Andrea? Andrea, thank you, Andrea.
QUESTION: Can you explain how you decided which of the personal e-mails to get rid of, how you got rid of them and when? And how you’ll respond to questions about you being the arbiter of what you release?
And, secondly, could you answer the questions that have been raised about foreign contributions from Middle Eastern countries, like Saudi Arabia, that abuse women or permit violence against women to the family foundation and whether that disturbs you as you are rightly celebrating 20 years of leadership on this issue?
CLINTON: Well, those are two very different questions. Let me see if I can take them in order. And I’ll give you some of the background.
In going through the e-mails, there were over 60,000 in total, sent and received. About half were work-related and went to the State Department and about half were personal that were not in any way related to my work. I had no reason to save them, but that was my decision because the federal guidelines are clear and the State Department request was clear.
For any government employee, it is that government employee’s responsibility to determine what’s personal and what’s work-related. I am very confident of the process that we conducted and the e-mails that were produced.
And I feel like once the American public begins to see the e- mails, they will have an unprecedented insight into a high government official’s daily communications, which I think will be quite interesting.
With respect to the foundation, I am very proud of the work the foundation does. I’m very proud of the hundreds of thousands of people who support the work of the foundation and the results that have been achieved for people here at home and around the world.
And I think that we are very clear about where we stand, certainly where I stand, on all of these issues. There can’t be any mistake about my passion concerning women’s rights here at home and around the world.
So I think that people who want to support the foundation know full well what it is we stand for and what we’re working on.
CLINTON: Hi, right here.
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: She’s sort of squashed, so we’ve got to…
QUESTION: Hi, Secretary.
CLINTON: Hi.
QUESTION: I was wondering if you think that you made a mistake either in exclusively using your private e-mail or in response to the controversy around it. And, if so, what have you learned from that?
CLINTON: Well, I have to tell you that, as I said in my remarks, looking back, it would have been probably, you know, smarter to have used two devices. But I have absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the State Department.
And I have to add, even if I had had two devices, which is obviously permitted — many people do that — you would still have to put the responsibility where it belongs, which is on the official. So I did it for convenience and I now, looking back, think that it might have been smarter to have those two devices from the very beginning.
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: Yes? QUESTION: Did you or any of your aides delete any government- related e-mails from your personal account? And what lengths are you willing to go to to prove that you didn’t?
Some people, including supporters of yours, have suggested having an independent arbiter look at your server, for instance.
CLINTON: We did not. In fact, my direction to conduct the thorough investigation was to err on the side of providing anything that could be possibly viewed as work related.
That doesn’t mean they will be by the State Department once the State Department goes through them, but out of an abundance of caution and care, you know, we wanted to send that message unequivocally.
That is the responsibility of the individual and I have fulfilled that responsibility, and I have no doubt that we have done exactly what we should have done. When the search was conducted, we were asking that any email be identified and preserved that could potentially be federal records, and that’s exactly what we did.
And we went, as I said, beyond that. And the process produced over 30,000 you know, work emails, and I think that we have more than met the requests from the State Department. The server contains personal communications from my husband and me, and I believe I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will remain private and I think that the State Department will be able, over time, to release all of the records that were provided.
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, can you…
CLINTON: Right there.
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, two quick follow ups. You mentioned the server. That’s one of the distinctions here.
This wasn’t Gmail or Yahoo or something. This was a server that you owned. Is that appropriate? Is it — was there any precedent for it? Did you clear it with any State Department security officials? And do they have — did they have full access to it when you were secretary?
And then separately, will any of this have any bearing or effect on your timing or decision about whether or not you run for president? Thank you.
CLINTON: Well, the system we used was set up for President Clinton’s office. And it had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.
So, I think that the — the use of that server, which started with my husband, certainly proved to be effective and secure. Now, with respect to any sort of future — future issues, look, I trust the American people to make their decisions about political and public matters. And I feel that I’ve taken unprecedented steps to provide these work-related emails. They’re going to be in the public domain. And I think that Americans will find that you know, interesting, and I look forward to having a discussion about that.
QUESTION: Madam Secretary?
CLINTON: Hi.
QUESTION: How could the public be assured that when you deleted emails that were personal in nature, that you didn’t also delete emails that were professional, but possibly unflattering?
And what do you think about this Republican idea of having an independent third party come in an examine your emails?
CLINTON: Well first of all, you have to ask that question to every single federal employee, because the way the system works, the federal employee, the individual, whether they have one device, two devices, three devices, how many addresses, they make the decision.
So, even if you have a work-related device with a work-related .gov account, you choose what goes on that. That is the way our system works. And so we trust and count on the judgment of thousands, maybe millions of people to make those decisions.
And I feel that I did that and even more, that I went above and beyond what I was requested to do. And again, those will be out in the public domain, and people will be able to judge for themselves.
QUESTION: Okay, Madam.
Madam Secretary?
Madam Secretary, excuse me.
Madam Secretary, State Department rules at the time you were secretary were perfectly clear that if a State Department employee was going to be using private email, that employee needed to turn those emails over to the State Department to be preserved on government computers.
Why did you not do that? Why did you not go along with State Department rules until nearly two years after you left office?
QUESTION: And also, the president of the United States said that he was unaware that you had this unusual email arrangement. The White House counsel’s office says that you never approved this arrangement through them.
Why did you not do that? Why did you — why have you apparently caught the White House by surprise?
And then just one last political question, if I — I might. Does all of this make — affect your decision in any way on whether or not to run for president?
CLINTON: Well, let me try to unpack your multiple questions.
First, the laws and regulations in effect when I was secretary of state allowed me to use my email for work. That is undisputed.
Secondly, under the Federal Records Act, records are defined as reported information, regardless of its form or characteristics, and in meeting the record keeping obligations, it was my practice to email government officials on their state or other .gov accounts so that the emails were immediately captured and preserved.
Now, there are different rules governing the White House than there are governing the rest of the executive branch, and in order to address the requirements I was under, I did exactly what I have said. I emailed two people, and I not only knew, I expected that then to be captured in the State Department or any other government agency that I was emailing to at a .gov account.
What happened in — sorry, I guess late summer, early — early fall, is that the State Department sent a letter to former secretaries of state, not just to me, asking for some assistance in providing any work-related emails that might be on the personal email.
And what I did was to direct, you know, my counsel to conduct a thorough investigation and to err on the side of providing anything that could be connected to work. They did that, and that was my obligation. I fully fulfilled it, and then I took the unprecedented step of saying, “Go ahead and release them, and let people see them.”
QUESTION: Why did you wait two months? Why — why did you wait two months to turn those emails over? The rules say you have to turn them over…
(CROSSTALK) CLINTON: I don’t think — I’d be happy to have somebody talk to you about the rules. I fully complied with every rule that I was governed by.
QUESTION: Were you ever — were you ever specifically briefed on the security implications of using — using your own email server and using your personal address to email with the president?
CLINTON: I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.
So I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
CLINTON: Because they were personal and private about matters that I believed were within the scope of my personal privacy and that particularly of other people. They have nothing to do with work, but I didn’t see any reason to keep them.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: At the end of the process.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: … who was forced to resign two years ago because of his personal use of emails?
By the way, David Shuster from Al Jazeera America.
CLINTON: Yeah. Right…
QUESTION: What about Ambassador Scott (inaudible) being forced to resign?
CLINTON: David, I think you should go online and read the entire I.G. report. That is not an accurate representation of what happened.
Hillary Clinton Speeches 