Hillary Clinton on Email in 2011: 'A Lot of Security Restraints on What I Can and Can’t Do'

    Hillary Clinton is under increasing pressure for her exclusive use of a personal email address during her four years as secretary of state. In October 2011, Mrs. Clinton was interviewed by Savannah Guthrie of NBC's Today Show, and Guthrie asked about her personal email address. While Mrs. Clinton did not directly answer the question, she did acknowledge that she had "a lot of security restraints on what I can and can’t do":

QUESTION: You mentioned technology. I have to wonder, do you – how many people have your personal email address? Do you use your BlackBerry a lot? Do you like technology? 

SECRETARY CLINTON: I do. 

QUESTION: Are you good at it? 

SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m okay. For someone of my generation, I’m okay. But no, I have a lot of security restraints on what I can and can’t do. But I do try to stay in touch as much as possible, and electronically is by far the easiest way to do that.
QUESTION: Are you a BlackBerry addict? 

SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m an aficionado. I’m not sure about the addict part.

     Mrs. Clinton had made remarks in the past regarding the importance of security when it came to email within the state department. In June 2011, there were reports of Chinese hackers breaking into Google email accounts of U.S. officials, and then-Secretary Clinton was asked about this at a press availability:

QUESTION: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Google is reporting about Chinese hacking into the email accounts of U.S. officials. Have you talked to the Chinese about this? Do you have any evidence that sensitive information was compromised, and what are you doing to mitigate any damages?... 

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Elise, first with respect to the recent announcement by Google, we are obviously very concerned about Google’s announcement regarding a campaign that the company believes originated in China to collect the passwords of Google email account holders. Google informed the State Department of this situation yesterday in advance of its public announcement. These allegations are very serious. We take them seriously, we’re looking into them, and because this will be an ongoing investigation, I would refer you to first Google for any details that they are able to share at this time and to the FBI, which will be conducting the investigation. 

One of the reasons why we’ve created the first-ever cyber security coordinator position in the State Department, filled by Chris Painter, a very experienced official in this area who was one of the leaders in helping to draft our governmental framework for cyber policy, is because we know this is going to be a continuing problem. And therefore we want to be as prepared as possible to deal with these matters when they do come to our attention.

    On the same day, the issue was raised with state's deputy spokesperson Mark Toner at the daily press briefing. Toner said that state department employees were not prohibited from using private email accounts, but that staff was told during training that there's "no assumption of confidentiality in any kind of personal email account and that you should obviously act accordingly."

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Obamacare Pledge: Info on Applications 'Won’t Be Used For Immigration Enforcement Purposes'

    Beginning with a speech last Thursday, President Obama is seeking to rejuvenate his administration's push to reform immigration laws and perhaps draw some attention away from the Obamacare launch debacle that has been dominating the headlines for much of October.  The day following the speech, a new topic appeared on the Healthcare.gov website entitled "What do immigrant families need to know about the Marketplace?"  While a previous entry listed the various immigration statuses that qualified for Marketplace coverage, the new entry is an extended discussion of the questions immigrants, regardless of status, might have about the insurance exchanges.  Among the subtopics discussed are: "Lawfully present immigrants and private insurance," "Immigrant access to Medicaid and CHIP," and "Disclosure of immigration status."
    Under "Disclosure of immigration status," the site goes to great lengths to explain that Marketplaces, whether federal or state, are not permitted to ask for the immigration status of family members who are not applying for coverage or benefits.  "States can’t deny benefits because the applicant doesn’t provide the SSNs of people who aren’t applicants for benefits or recipients of Medicaid or CHIP benefits, or those not required to provide SSNs," the site explains.  After describing how government agencies, including marketplaces, use the federal "data hub" to verify application information, the site notes that "[p]eople who aren’t seeking coverage for themselves won’t be asked about their immigration status."  If an application or the subsequent verification process does reveal problems with immigration status, the site goes on to assure applicants that "[i]nformation provided by applicants or beneficiaries won’t be used for immigration enforcement purposes."
    Elsewhere on the site, users are told that the "U.S. Department of Homeland Security [DHS] may verify your immigration status and/or naturalized citizenship status." But the new statement above suggests that if DHS is unable to verify legal status or the process reveals a possible violation, no action will be taken relative to immigration laws.  However, any false statements on applications may be pursued by law enforcement according to the individual privacy statement on the Healthcare.gov site, which includes the following caution:

If you don’t provide correct information on this form or knowingly and willfully provide false or fraudulent information, you may be subject to a penalty and other law enforcement action.

    As THE WEEKLY STANDARD reported early in October, the privacy policies of the exchanges for at least some states (Maryland, for one) include statements that they "may share information provided in your application with the appropriate authorities for law enforcement and audit activities."  But based on the above language at the Healthcare.gov site, possible violations of immigration laws will not trigger the "law enforcement action" threatened in other cases.


Note: A version of this article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Audit: Some IRS Employees Still Using Outlawed ‘Illegal Tax Protester’ Designation

    Despite a law passed 15 years ago, some Internal Revenue Service employees continue to use the designation "Illegal Tax Protester" and other similar designations in case narratives according to an audit just released by TIGTA (Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.)  While the IRS has not reintroduced an actual code for such designations, the audit found out of 257 million records, there were

54 instances in which Enforcement and Deputy Commissioner for 45 employees referred to taxpayers as  Operations Support.  “Tax Protester,” “Constitutionally Challenged,” or other similar designations.

    A similar audit in 2010 found 164 such instances, so the occurrence of such designations continues to drop.  Congress enacted to law to prevent taxpayers from being stigmatized even after they comply with IRS regulations, and to prevent future bias by IRS employees towards prior offenders.  The audit noted that

[t]he IRS has long disagreed with our determination that in order to comply with RRA 98 § 3707, IRS employees should not designate taxpayers as Illegal Tax Protesters or similar designations in case histories.

    The decrease in such occurrences, however,  indicates the IRS is attempting to comply, if somewhat reluctantly.


Note: A version of this article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.