TIME Election 2016

Associated Press Sues State Department Over Clinton Records

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks during a news conference at the United Nations in New York, March 10, 2015.
Lucas Jackson—Reuters Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks during a news conference at the United Nations in New York, March 10, 2015.

The legal action comes after repeated requests filed under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act have gone unfulfilled

(WASHINGTON) — The Associated Press filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the State Department to force the release of email correspondence and government documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

The legal action comes after repeated requests filed under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act have gone unfulfilled. They include one request AP made five years ago and others pending since the summer of 2013.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, comes a day after Clinton broke her silence about her use of a private email account while secretary of state. The FOIA requests and lawsuit seek materials related to her public and private calendars, correspondence involving longtime aides likely to play key roles in her expected campaign for president, and Clinton-related emails about the Osama bin Laden raid and National Security Agency surveillance practices.

“After careful deliberation and exhausting our other options, The Associated Press is taking the necessary legal steps to gain access to these important documents, which will shed light on actions by the State Department and former Secretary Clinton, a presumptive 2016 presidential candidate, during some of the most significant issues of our time,” said Karen Kaiser, AP’s general counsel.

“The press is a proxy for the people, and AP will continue its pursuit of vital information that’s in the public interest through this action and future open records requests,” she said.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach declined to comment. He had previously cited the department’s heavy annual load of FOIA requests — 19,000 last year — in saying that the department “does its best to meet its FOIA responsibilities.” He said the department takes requests “first in, first out,” but noted that timing depends on “the complexity of the request.”

Michael Oreskes, a senior managing editor at AP, said the news agency was planning to file additional requests under FOIA following the disclosure last week that Clinton used a private email account run on a server on her property outside New York while working at the State Department.

Clinton on Tuesday said she sent and received about 60,000 emails from her personal email address in her four years as President Barack Obama’s secretary of state. She said roughly half were work-related, which she turned over to the State Department, while deleting tens of thousands more that were personal in nature.

The department says it will take several months to review the material Clinton turned over last year. Once the review is complete, the department said, the emails will be posted online.

The AP had sought Clinton-related correspondence before her use of a personal email account was publicly known, although Wednesday’s court filing alleges that the State Department is responsible for including emails from that account in any public records request.

“State’s failure to ensure that Secretary Clinton’s governmental emails were retained and preserved by the agency, and its failure timely to seek out and search those emails in response to AP’s requests, indicate at the very least that State has not engaged in the diligent, good-faith search that FOIA requires,” says AP’s legal filing.

Specifically, AP is seeking copies of Clinton’s full schedules and calendars from her four years as secretary of state; documents related to her department’s decision to grant a special position to longtime aide Huma Abedin; related correspondence from longtime advisers Philippe Reines and Cheryl Mills, who, like Abedin, are likely to play central roles in a Clinton presidential campaign; documents related to Clinton’s and the agency’s roles in the Osama bin Laden raid and National Security Agency surveillance practices; and documents related to her role overseeing a major Defense Department contractor.

The AP made most of its requests in the summer of 2013, although one was filed in March 2010. AP is also seeking attorney’s fees related to the lawsuit.

Other organizations have also sued the State Department recently after lengthy delays responding to public record requests.

In December, the conservative political advocacy group Citizens United sued the State Department for failing to disclose flight records showing who accompanied Clinton on overseas trips. Last week, the National Security Archive, an organization that gathers declassified government records, filed a lawsuit after waiting more than seven years for the State Department to release of details of former secretary of state Henry Kissinger’s telephone conversations.

Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, predicted the State Department would speed up its review facing legal action, particularly given that Clinton has said that her email correspondence doesn’t include classified material.

“When the government is under a court deadline, or really wants to review, they can whip through thousands of pages in a matter of weeks, which they should do here,” Blanton said.

The State Department generally takes about 450 days to turn over records it considers to be part of complex requests under the Freedom of Information Act. That is seven times longer than the Justice Department and CIA, and 30 times longer than the Treasury Department.

An inspector general’s report in 2012 criticized the State Department’s practices as “inefficient and ineffective,” citing a heavy workload, small staff and interagency problems.

TIME 2016 Election

The Problem With Hillary Clinton’s Email Record Search

A top lawyer says the procedure Clinton used to identify work-related documents on her email server did not meet best practices

A top expert on federal record-keeping policy criticized the method Hillary Clinton’s lawyers used to determine which emails to forward to the State Department for archiving.

Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker, Biddle and Reath and former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration, said that Clinton’s team should have manually reviewed every email she sent on a personal email account to find which ones pertained to government business.

Instead, as Clinton revealed Tuesday, her attorneys searched the trove of emails for certain email addresses and subjects. Baron argued that raises the possibility that they missed some emails that should have been saved for the public record.

“There is an outstanding question, and it is a legitimate question, about whether she has now handed over all records pertaining to government business,” Baron says. “For example, in the case of an email that is mostly personal in nature but also contains a sentence or paragraph related to government business, then that email is a government record appropriate for preservation at the State Department, and should not continue to be withheld.”

MORE How to Email Like Hillary Clinton

On December 5, Clinton’s office submitted printed copies of 30,490 work-related emails to the State Department in response to an October records request issued to four former Secretaries of State. The correspondence, which amounted to some 55,000 printed pages, represented less than half of the 62,320 emails sent and received from Clinton’s private email account during her tenure in Foggy Bottom from March 2009 to February 2013. Clinton said during a press conference at the United Nations Wednesday afternoon that the remainder of the emails were personal in nature and thus did not have to be turned over.

As part of a nine-page statement released after the former Secretary’s press conference at the United Nations Wednesday afternoon, Clinton’s office detailed the “multi-step” process her counsel used to determine which emails it was required to submit to State. “Secretary Clinton directed her attorneys to assist by identifying and preserving all emails that could potentially be federal records,” her office said.

First, the lawyers searched all emails with a “.gov” email address in any address field, which yielded 27,500 emails—more than 90% of the total correspondence ultimately provided to State.

Next they searched for the first and last names of more than 100 State Department and other U.S. government officials. “This included all Deputy Secretaries, Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, Ambassadors-at-Large, Special Representatives and Envoys, members of the Secretary’s Foreign Policy Advisory Board, and other senior officials to the Secretary, including close aides and staff,” Clinton’s office says. Then they sorted and checked for “misspellings or other idiosyncrasies” to locate documents the search might have missed.

Finally, they performed a search for specific keywords, including “Benghazi” and “Libya.” It is not clear how many such terms were used as filters.

MORE How Hillary Clinton Fared the First Time She Was in the Hot Seat

Clinton’s office said the method was exhaustive. “These additional three steps yielded just over another 2,900 emails, including emails from former Administration officials and long-time friends that may not be deemed by the Department to be federal records,” it said in the statement. “And hundreds of these emails actually had already been forwarded onto the state.gov system and captured in real- time.”

But Baron argues that using keywords as a shortcut raises the possibility that some work-related emails slipped through the cracks. “I would question why lawyers for Secretary Clinton would use keyword searching, a method known to be fraught with limitations, to determine which of the emails with a non-.gov address pertained to government business,” he says. “Any and all State Department activities, not just communications involving the keywords ‘Benghazi’ or ‘Libya’, would potentially make an email a federal record.”

“If the lawyers had more than a few days to conduct a search, given the high stakes involved and the fact that only on the order of 30,000 emails with non .gov addresses remained to be reviewed after clearly .gov federal records were separated out, I would have imagined staff could have simply conducted a manual review of every document,” Baron adds. “Using keywords as a shortcut unfortunately leaves the process open to being second-guessed.”

Read next: Transcript: Everything Hillary Clinton Said on the Email Controversy

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

TIME 2016 Election

Here’s How Hillary Clinton’s Lawyers Chose Which Emails To Hand Over

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that her attorneys reviewed more than 62,000 emails she sent while in office to find work-related correspondence to comply with a department request to turn over records from her time in office.

After her press conference, her office released a nine-page explainer which said that her lawyers used automated searches and a scan of senders and recipients to navigate the emails, rather than reviewing each one manually.

According to the statement, 30,490 emails were provided to the State Department, and the remaining 31,830 were deemed by her attorneys to be private, personal records, that Clinton later “chose not to keep.”

Here’s how Clinton’s office says her lawyers examined her email records:

A search was conducted on Secretary Clinton’s email account for all emails sent and received from 2009 to her last day in office, February 1, 2013.

After this universe was determined, a search was conducted for a “.gov” (not just state.gov) in any address field in an email. This produced over 27,500 emails, representing more than 90% of the 30,490 printed copies that were provided to the Department.

To help identify any potential non-“.gov “correspondence that should be included, a search of first and last names of more than 100 State Department and other U.S. government officials was performed. This included all Deputy Secretaries, Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, Ambassadors-at-Large, Special Representatives and Envoys, members of the Secretary’s Foreign Policy Advisory Board, and other senior officials to the Secretary, including close aides and staff.

Next, to account for non-obvious or non-recognizable email addresses or misspellings or other idiosyncrasies, the emails were sorted and reviewed both by sender and recipient.

Lastly, a number of terms were specifically searched for, including: “Benghazi” and “Libya.”

These additional three steps yielded just over another 2,900 emails, including emails from former Administration officials and long-time friends that may not be deemed by the Department to be federal records. And hundreds of these emails actually had already been forwarded onto the state.gov system and captured in real-time.

Here’s the full statement from Clinton’s office:

TIME 2016 Election

Hillary Clinton Did Not Keep Personal Emails

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted Tuesday that she discarded tens of thousands of emails from a private server kept at her New York home.

In her first extended public remarks about her exclusive use of a personal email account to conduct government business, Clinton was adamant that she complied with all applicable rules and said she went “above and beyond” by handing over some 30,000 work-related emails to the State Department.

But her admission that she did not turn over roughly half the messages in her private account and will not submit them to independent scrutiny will likely fan the controversy.

“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,” Clinton said, saying attorneys she paid categorized the correspondence.

“They were personal and private,” she added. “They had nothing to do with work. I didn’t see any reason to keep them.”

Under fire from pundits and political critics, Clinton called the unusual press conference—the most significant since she left office—to defend herself.

The former Secretary of State said that when she began the job, she made the decision to use her private address as a matter of “convenience.” She noted the “vast majority” of her work emails were sent to government employees on their official work accounts, and as a result, those messages are preserved and archived as public records on the other end.

“I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and personal emails instead of two,” she said. “Looking back,” she added, “it might have been smarter to have two devices from the very beginning.”

Read more: Transcript of Hillary Clinton’s remarks at the press conference

The State Department said Tuesday that it is reviewing by hand 55,000 pages of emails supplied by Clinton. The Department will release emails from that cache on a publicly accessible website once it redacts information not covered by the Freedom of Information Act. The process is expected to take several months.

Clinton argued that when the State Department releases her messages, the American people would benefit from an inside view into her work. “I feel like once the American public begins to see the emails, they will have an unprecedented insight into a high government official’s daily communications, which I think will be quite interesting,” Clinton said.

But by deleting the private messages, Clinton has made it difficult, if not impossible, to verify whether there were any politically or personally sensitive matters she declined to turn over to State. “The server will remain private,” she said, when asked if she would make it available for independent review.

Clinton’s comments ended her conspicuous near-silence over the eight days since the New York Times revealed she had exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business while serving as Secretary of State.

“I want the public to see my email,” Clinton said in a tweet last week in her only prior comment on the scandal. “I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.”

After the press conference, Rep. Trey Gowdy, a key Republican investigator, said he would call Clinton to testify on Capitol Hill “at least twice” to “clear up her role and resolve issues” related to the email controversy.

The ensuing controversy has forced Clinton into a defensive crouch as she is in the final stages of preparation before announcing her second presidential bid.

The brouhaha has extended to the White House, where President Barack Obama initially denied knowledge of Clinton’s private accounts, only for a spokesman to admit Monday that Obama had corresponded with her by email at the private address.

A White House spokesman said Tuesday it would be premature to judge whether the president would claim executive privilege to prevent the release of his emails with Clinton. “Let’s just let the State Department review that process under their regular order and then we can make a determination from there,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said.

Clinton answered questions before about 100 reporters crammed into a hallway on the second floor of the United Nations, next to a reproduction of Pablo Picasso’s Guernica. The press conference followed a planned speech to a Women’s Empowerment Principles Event. Critics chided Clinton for the choice for venue, arguing the slow U.N. accreditation process and the late notice made it difficult for the media to attend the press conference.

“Hillary Clinton’s response to her email scandal is already turning into another exercise for limiting transparency,” said Republican National Committee spokesman Michael Short. “She and her team had perhaps hundreds—if not thousands—of options for a venue … but Clinton instead chose one of the most difficult places for reporters to get access to.”

During the press conference, Clinton also defended her family’s foundation, which has been under fire for accepting donations from foreign governments—including some whose practices contravene the ethos of the philanthropic organization.

“I am very proud of the work the foundation does,” Clinton said, skirting the substance of the question. “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.”

Clinton also criticized a letter signed by 47 Republican Senators sent to the Iranian government warning that a nuclear agreement reached with Obama may not be binding on the next administration. “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,” Clinton said. “Either answer does discredit to the letter’s signatories.”

With reporting by Sam Frizell/New York and Alex Rogers/Washington.

TIME 2016 Election

Transcript: Everything Hillary Clinton Said on the Email Controversy

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held a press conference Tuesday to discuss the controversy over her use of a private email account for government business while in office.

Here’s a transcript of her remarks.

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.

(CROSSTALK)

CLINTON: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all.

Read next: Everything We Know About Hillary Clinton’s Email

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

MONEY

This Is What a World Without Women Would Look Like

On March 8, females disappeared from ads to promote the Not-there.org campaign

On March 8, ads, books and magazine covers around New York City looked a bit empty.

Where there were once women—on a Dove soap billboard, on HarperCollins books, on Condé Nast magazine covers, on a phone booth ad for the New York City Ballet, among other places—pictures had been replaced with white space and a URL reading Not-there.org. You can see examples in the gallery above.

The collaborative campaign by the Clinton Foundation and ad agency Droga5 for International Women’s Day was meant to bring attention to a new report from No Ceilings: The Full Participation Project. The initiative seeks to “raise awareness that women are ‘not there’ yet on issues of gender equality.”

This year also marked the twentieth anniversary of Hillary Clinton addressing the United Nations in Beijing to assert, “It is no longer acceptable to discuss women’s rights as separate from human rights.”

On the surface, this clever media stunt taught us that a world without women would be lacking of some serious talent. The stage for the New York City Ballet would be bare. Tennis rackets would just be laying on the court at the US Open. There would be less laughter, without actresses like Amy Poehler and Cameron Diaz. And we may not have won World War II, since it was women—characterized by Rosie the Riveter—who took up the domestic effort to produce munitions and war supplies.

If you got the message and moused your way over to the report, you’d also learn about the great leaps women have made in recent years and the bounds that they still need to make to catch up.

More laws protect women today than ever before, but they are not always enforced. More girls are getting educations, and women outnumber men at colleges—but not in the STEM programs that feed some of the highest-paid industries.

The gender workforce gap hasn’t changed in twenty years, and women are underrepresented in political office and management ranks.

Paid maternity leave is now common for women across the world, but not in the U.S.—one of nine countries in the world that does not guarantee paid leave.

And women spend up to 5 more hours on unpaid domestic work than men.

While the lack of women may have been blatantly obvious on prominent billboards, magazines, book covers and bus posters, the Not There campaign also encourages us to look elsewhere. What about in the engineering programs at college? What about on the Hill in Washington? What about that empty Aeron chair in the CEO’s corner office?

This is part of The Photo Bank, a recurring feature on Money.com dedicated to conceptual photography on financial issues. Submissions are welcome and should be sent to Sarina Finkelstein, online photo editor for Money.com at sarina.finkelstein@timeinc.com.

TIME politics

How Hillary Clinton Fared the First Time She Was in the Hot Seat

Facing questions on her role in the Whitewater controversy in 1994, Clinton's response was described then as cool and measured

On Tuesday afternoon, Hillary Rodham Clinton is expected to hold a press conference to take questions on last week’s revelation that she exclusively used a personal email account instead of a government account during her time as Secretary of State.

The decision to take questions on a controversy after a period of silence calls to mind a press conference Clinton gave on April 22, 1994, regarding the Whitewater scandal. Remembered by some as the “Pretty in Pink” press conference for the hue of Clinton’s suit, the 72-minute Q&A came months after reporters began demanding that the then-First Lady discuss her role in criticized commodity trades and an Arkansas land deal first reported on in 1992.

The press conference, which the Clintons had been considering for weeks but scheduled only the night before, gave Clinton the opportunity to reclaim control of the narrative, and according to press reports from the time, she nailed it. As TIME’s Michael Duffy wrote then:

What happened was a riveting hour and 12 minutes in which the First Lady appeared to be open, candid, but above all unflappable. While she provided little new information on the tangled Arkansas land deal or her controversial commodity trades, the real message was her attitude and her poise. The confiding tone and relaxed body language, which was seen live on four networks, immediately drew approving reviews.

Clinton also explained the unfavorable attention she was receiving as a reaction to the unusually high level of influence she held as a First Lady. “We don’t fit easily into a lot of our pre-existing categories,” she said of her family, “And I think that, having been independent, having made decisions, it’s a little difficult for us as a country, maybe, to make the transition of having a woman like many of the women in this room, sitting in this house.”

Her ability to muster the same measured confidence in response to criticism will undoubtedly figure prominently in her chances of sitting in that house again.

Read coverage of the 1994 press conference here, in the TIME Vault: Open and Unflappable

TIME 2016 Election

Hillary Clinton to Take Questions on Email Scandal, Report Says

Clinton planned to discuss her use of the private email account following a speech at the United Nations Tuesday

(NEW YORK) — Hillary Rodham Clinton was expected to take questions from reporters Tuesday afternoon to address her email practices at the State Department, following a week of scrutiny over her use of a private email account as secretary of state.

The potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate planned to discuss her use of the private email account following a speech at the United Nations, according to a person familiar with Clinton’s thinking. The person spoke on condition of anonymity and was not authorized to speak on the record.

Clinton ignored the issue at a forum Monday while fellow Democrats urged her to speak out — and predicted she would — about her decision to conduct business while secretary of state in a private email account. Republicans are ramping up their attention on the issue.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois — the No. 2 Senate Democrat — became the first member of the Senate Democratic leadership to call on Clinton to publicly explain her side of the story. “She should come forward and explain the situation,” Durbin said Tuesday on MSNBC. “I think it’s only fair to say to Hillary Clinton: Tell us your side of the story. …What did you put on this personal email?”

At the White House, spokesman Josh Earnest said President Barack Obama indeed knew she was using a nongovernment account during her tenure. Obama had indicated earlier that he only learned of that from recent news reports.

Earnest said the president actually learned from those news reports of Clinton’s privately run email server, but was familiar with her private account earlier because the two had exchanged emails when she was in office. Obama did not know at the time that she was using private email exclusively, Earnest said.

Clinton spoke Monday at a carefully choreographed two-hour event involving her No Ceilings project at the Clinton Foundation, highlighting economic and educational opportunities for women and girls. She took no questions. When she sat down to lead more informal conversations with invited speakers, participants appeared to be reading from teleprompters.

The Republican National Committee used the vacuum to keep the pressure on Clinton, noting a State Department policy requiring all outgoing employees to turn over job-related materials before leaving. The policy required such employees to sign a “separation statement” declaring they had “surrendered to responsible officials all unclassified documents” related to official business during their employment.

Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement the “fact that Hillary Clinton did not abide by the same rules her State Department employees had to comply with is just the latest example of how the Clintons think the rules don’t apply to them.” Clinton left the State Department in early 2013. It was not immediately clear if Clinton signed the agreement but State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the secretary of state is supposed to follow such department policies. A Clinton spokesman did not immediately comment.

During the past week, the State Department has faced a torrent of questions about Clinton’s email practices, increasingly referring them to Clinton and her team.

Clinton is under scrutiny over whether she fully complied with federal laws requiring government officials to preserve written communications involving official business. She used her own email server, traced to her hometown in Chappaqua, New York, giving herself more control over her email.

Democrats have defended her, but Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California made waves Sunday when she urged Clinton to offer a detailed explanation. “From this point on, the silence is going to hurt her,” Feinstein said.

On Tuesday, the five Democrats on the House panel investigating the fatal 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, asked the State Department to make public some of Clinton’s emails recently provided to the committee. They wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday and urged him to make a priority of the 850 pages of documents that the department gave to the panel.

The State Department is reviewing 55,000 pages of emails that she has turned over and Republicans in Congress have said they plan to review her email practices.

Last week, Clinton said in a Twitter message that she wanted her emails released by the State Department as soon as possible — but did not address why she does not put them out herself immediately. Clinton’s spokesmen and the State Department have said she never received or transmitted classified information on her private email account, in which case there would be no concerns that disclosure of her messages could compromise national security.

Clinton is approaching a public decision on a 2016 presidential campaign and remains the leading prospect for the Democratic nomination if she seeks the White House again.

__

Associated Press writers Jill Colvin in New York and Steve Peoples in Washington contributed to this report.

TIME Opinion

Politics Aside, the Data on Women Collected by the Clinton Foundation Is Worth a Look

Melinda Gates, Clinton Foundation Release Report On Status Of Women And Girls
Spencer Platt—Getty Images Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (right) joins Gates Foundation Co-Chair Melinda Gates and Clinton Foundation Vice Chair Chelsea Clinton for the official release of the No Ceilings Full Participation Report (Spencer Platt--Getty Images)

The vast amount of data collected by the Clinton Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation says women have taken two steps forward, one step back

The hubbub surrounding Hillary Clinton’s presumptive presidential run and the controversy over her use of a private email account while Secretary of State threaten to overshadow No Ceilings: Full Participation Project, a new report on women’s rights released on Monday by the Clinton Foundation in partnership with the Gates Foundation. That’s a shame, because while the information isn’t completely groundbreaking, it’s still one of the most comprehensive looks at the state of gender equality around the world in 2015, with over a million data points on women’s advancement across dozens of areas.

Here’s the takeaway: since the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action (where Hillary Clinton famously said, “Women’s rights are human rights and human rights are women’s rights), women have taken two steps forward, one step back. There have been major gains in education and women’s health, but less so in safety, economic opportunity, and leadership. “Progress is possible, and the data provides us a roadmap for the unfinished business that remains,” said Clinton when she took the stage in New York City on Monday. “We’re not there yet.”

In health, there’s been a lot of good news when it comes to maternal mortality and contraceptive use. The rate of women who die in childbirth has plummeted more than 40% in 76 countries, and by more than 60% in South Asia, and the rate of adolescent birth has dropped by a third since 1995. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the rate of contraceptive use has doubled, from 11% to 23%.

But, as Chelsea Clinton said at the No Ceilings event, “we cannot mistake progress for success.” Worldwide, there are still 220 million women who don’t have access to modern family planning– a number that is virtually unchanged since 1995. And according to the WHO, 800 women a day still die from preventable pregnancy complications.

In education, too, there have been major steps forward. Overall female literacy rates reached 80% in 2012, and the global gender gap for primary education has closed everywhere except Sub Saharan Africa– and even there, the primary education rates have largely improved, to 93 girls for every 100 boys. But even if they’re getting a primary education, too few girls are making the leap to secondary school. In South Asia, fewer than half of girls are in secondary school– in Sub-Saharan Africa, it’s fewer than one in three.

And despite the gains in women’s health and education since 1995, there are major areas where far too little has changed in 20 years. When it comes to women’s safety, we’ve barely moved the needle. 1 in 3 women worldwide have experienced physical or sexual violence, mostly at the hands of a partner. In a survey of four African countries, 25% of first sex for girls was unwanted. And in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 62% of women and 48% of men think a man is entitled to sex even if a woman refuses.

Financially, women also remain at a stubborn disadvantage. Only about 55% of women worldwide work for pay, compared to 82% of men. That’s not just bad for women– it’s bad for economies. The GDP of the USA would rise by 5% of women were equally represented. In Egypt, women’s participation would boost the GDP by an whopping 34%.

The United States is also one of only nine countries in the world that does not have laws providing paid maternity leave–the others are the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Suriname, and Tonga. On the bright side, 75% of other developed countries now provide up to 14 weeks of paid maternal leave. (The U.S. is the only developed country that provides none.)

In leadership roles, women are still vastly underrepresented. Global legislatures remain only 22% female, and the number of countries led by women has risen from 12 in 1995 to only 18 in 2015. Still, there are glimmers of hope: in Rwanda, Bolivia, and Andorra, around 50% of the lower parliamentary seats are held by women.

So even if you’re skeptical of Hillary’s politics, the data from the project is still worth a look. You can check it out more in depth here.

 

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com