Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
PRESUMED 2016 US PRESIDENTIAL candidate Hillary Clinton has attempted to quell growing criticism of her past email habits.
Clinton came under fire recently after it emerged she had used a personal email account for the duration of her four years as Secretary of State.
Since the revelation, the White House has said that using a personal email for government business may be illegal. Clinton may have breached the Federal Records Act, which calls for official correspondence to be retained.
In a statement, Clinton’s office admitted that she did not keep 31,830 of the 62,320 emails she sent and received while serving as Barack Obama’s Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.
In her first public comments since the controversy erupted last week, Clinton said she exclusively used a personal email account as a “matter of convenience,” and insisted the private server she used suffered no security breaches.
She also said “no classified material” was divulged in the emails, while promising she had turned over all work communications to the State Department.
Clinton said the deleted emails were of a personal nature, including information about her daughter Chelsea’s wedding plans, and “yoga routines”.
The former US First Lady said the Clinton family server on which all her emails were stored would not be turned over to the government or an independent commission.
Clinton said she had taken “unprecedented” steps to comply with the law requiring official records be kept.
She added that “looking back, it might have been smarter” to use two separate phones and email accounts.
I thought one device would be simpler, and obviously it hasn’t worked out that way.
Following a State Department request to her and previous secretaries of state, Clinton has turned over some 55,000 pages of emails.
Damaging to her campaign?
Political opponents have seized on the controversy, with Republican Senator Rand Paul, himself a potential 2016 presidential candidate, telling AFP the revelations would make a campaign “very difficult for her”.
I think the trust factor is going to be difficult for her, because if we didn’t trust her the first time, how are we going to trust her the second time?
As all of this rumbles on, it has emerged that Clinton’s husband, former US President Bill, doesn’t actually use email.
His spokesman Matt McKenna told the Wall Street Journal Bill has sent a grand total of two emails during his entire life, both as president.
His first email was a message to John Glenn, the former senator and astronaut – who was making a return trip to space in 1998.
The then president wrote: “Hillary and I had a great time at the launch … We are very proud of you and the entire crew, and a little jealous.”
His other email was to US troops serving in the Adriatic. Later, the laptop he used was sold for some $60,000.
Additional reporting: AFP
Apparently this guy had been watched 24/7 since 2016. They spent all this time, money and resources on a guy who wasn’t even a New Zealander and this still happens. Why wasn’t he just deported?
@Colleen: Because you can’t arrest people for crimes they are yet to commit.
@Niamh Hayes: you can if you can prove conspiracy
@Michael Burke: They obviously couldn’t prove conspiracy then.
@Colleen: he would face “torture and violence” if he was deported, his lawyers said
@Niamh Hayes: yes you can.. I saw it on a documentary called “minority report”
@Niamh Hayes: look up the difference between deported and arrested.
@Colleen: NZ has a varefullg-crafted superiority complex to consider.
@Niamh Hayes:
You’re right but he was arrested previously for planning an attack but it was ruled by a judge that planning an attack is not illegal. Maybe it should be.
@Paul O Connor: that’s outrageous if true. Planning mass murder isn’t a crime?
@Niamh Hayes: crazy law
If he was known to be a violent extremist since 2016 why wasn’t he deported.
@Philip Kedney: because they are too soft. Now they are paying the price.
@Philip Kedney: because of barbaric principles like “innocent until proven guilty”?
Its only a matter of time before something like this happens in Dublin, plenty of extremists here under investigation; Sure didn’t one of the attackers in England have an Irish ID card a few years back and a Dublin address
@David Lee: got married in Ireland ya. Was staying out in Santry for a bit too, you are correct. Ireland, albeit an enemy to the Islamic State, is less likely to be attacked due to our strategic benefit to IS. Our security is incredibly lax and we share an unmanned border with the UK who would be a much bigger target in their eyes. They use Ireland as a gateway and therefore would not like to draw attention or give cause for increased security and scrutiny to their activities in Ireland by launching an attack here. Of course that is a large co-ordinated attack. We would very much be at risk from the lone wolf nut-jobs alright who are inspired by IS twisted ideology.
in ireland he would have got a good slap on the hand and a strongly worded letter
Was wondering how far down the page we’d make it before the obligatory inane ‘comparison’ comment.
Terrible thing to happen. Please God, all the victims will make a full recovery.
Great to see we have so many security and anti-terrorism experts, all putting their skills to their best use writing comments on thejournal.ie.
So they lied when they originally said it was “random”? Or are they just that incompetent?
@Thomas Smyth: It’s sounding as if he was copying IS attacks but not in a cell of terrorists conspiring to plan an attack? It’s that odd difference again between a gang with a religious or political motive and a wanna be serial killer, I suppose.
Unclear at this point whether or not suspect was NZ citizen / if he was might help explain why he wasn’t deported.
What was a Sri Lankan doing in NZ for 10 years? Was he legally resident,with status? Why wasnt he deported for his known extremist views?
‘Under surveillance’ resulting what the authorities suspected would happen is laughable. Same with the London Bridge attack…..’under surveillance’ before the guy had even left prison.
Going after New Zealand no country is safe from terrorism.
@andrew: no country is safe from a lunatic. ‘Terrorism’ is a handy tag.
@Alan McArdle: Some countries are more susceptible than others particularly in the era were living in.
have your say