ss of the 21st century. 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.

followed by a huge throng of dignitaries, of congress members. so absolutely. we will be talking about this day 50 years from now. hopefully, what we are talking about is we will be talking about the people here at selma living a better life, better quality of life. we won't be talking about 10% unemployment for the people here

in selma, 40% of african-americans living below the poverty line.

occasions and the rio grand and women to reach for the ballots, workers to organize against an injust status yeah. the same instinct that led us to plant a flag at iwo jima and on the surface of the moon. >> that was president barack obama a short while ago speaking bridge. you see the motor kade assembled there. the president and others are assembling to walk across that bridge symbolic of what happened in the state 50 years ago, but with the completely different ending. tony harris is life on the ground right now in selma, alabama. tony, the question to you 50 years from now, will we be talking about this day, or will we still be talking about that day 50 years ago? >> both. right? 50 years ago and how it brought us to this day. more than that, 50 years from now, we will be talking about this line, this timeline ex extended. right?

so where are we 50 years from this day? this day in which we mark as the first african-american president to walk across that bridge as president of the united states followed by a huge throng of dignitaries, of congress members. so absolutely. we will be talking about this day 50 years from now. hopefully, what we are talking about is we will be talking about the people here at selma living a better life, better quality of life. we won't be talking about 10% unemployment for the people here in selma, 40% of african-americans living below the poverty line. hopefully, 50 years from now, we will be talking about a kind of america where more people are living better and that more whites have been more broadly -- more has been grant -- rights have been granted to more people. the south is not lost as it was predicted by president johnson after signing in the voting

rights act, the civil rights act. maybe the south comes back to the american family and maybe the values espoused by the president on this day are espoused more broadly in this country. i am hopeful that that's what we now. >> randall pinkston, i was struck as i was watching the president make his way through that crowd of the number of cell phones and ipads that were held up, an indication that they may not be as young as you and i. letter. >> being said, many of those in isaiah. american instinct that led these young men and women to pick up the torch and cross this bridge, that's the same instinct that chose patriots to choose >> isthose are two very

different question. let me take them in order. let me give you some of the background. in going through the e-mails there were over 60,000 in total sent and received. about half from work-related, and went to the state department and 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. the federal guidelines are clear, and the state department request was clear for any government employee, it's that government employee's respond abilityresponsibility to determine what is personal and what is work related. the e-mails were produced, and i felt once the american public begins to see the e-mails they'll have an unprecedented insight into a high-government

official's daily communication which i think will be quite interesting. with respect to the foundation i'm 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 achieveed 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 wellhat it is that we stand for and what we are working on. >> hi, secretary, i wonder if

you feel that you made an mistake in exclusively using your private e-maill and the controversy around it, and if so what have you learned from that? >> well, i have to to tell you as i said in my remarks looking back it would have been probably smarter to use two devices. but i have absolute confidence that anything that could be in any way connected to work is now in possession of the state department, and i have toed a even if i 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. 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. >> secretary? >> yes. >> 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 through to prove that you didn't. some people, including supporters of yours have an independent arbitor look at your server. >> we didn't. we decided to error err on the side of anything that could be work relateed. out of an abundance of caution and care, we wanted to send that message unequivocally. that is the responsibility of the individual, and i will 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 e-mail be identified as 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 work e-mails and i think that we have more than met the request from the state department. the server contained 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. >> madam secretary two quick follow-ups. you mentioned the server.

that was one of the distinctions. this is not yahoo or gmail this is a server that you own. was that appropriate? was there any precedent for it? did you clear it with state officials, and did they have full access to it when you were secretary? and separately, will this have any bearing or effect on your timing or decision on whether or not you will run for president. thank you. >> well, the system we set up used was set up for president clinton's purposes. there were no security breaches, so i think that 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 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 e-mails. they're going to be in the public domain, and i think americans will find that interesting, and i look forward to having a discussion about that. >> madam secretary how could the public be assured that when you deleted e-mails that were personal in nature, that you didn't also delete e-mails that were professional but possibly unflattering, and what do you think of a third independent party come in to examine foes e-mails. >> you would have to ask that of

every federal employee. the way the system works every individual, whether they have one device, two devices three devices how many addresses they make the decision. if you have a work-related device you choose what goes on that. that's how our system works. 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. >> madam--madam secretary madam secretary, excuse me, madam secretary, state department

rules the time you were state secretary were perfectly clear if a state employee were going to be using private e-mails that employee needed to turn those e-mails over to public computers. why did you not go along until nearly two years after you left office. and the president of the united states said he was unaware that you had this unusual e-mail arrangement. the u.n. council office said that you never approved this arrangement through them. why did you apparently camp the white house by surprise, and one more question, does all of this effect your decision in any way whether or not to run for president. >> 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 e-mail for work. that is undisputed.

secondly under the federal records act records are defined as recorded information regardless of its form or characteristics, and in meeting the record keeping obligation it was my practice to e-mail government officials on their state or other dot-gov accounts so that e-mails from immediately captured and preserved. now there are different rules governing the white house versus governing the rest of the executive branch. in order to address the requirements i was under i did exactly what i have said. i e-mailed two people, and i not only knew, i expected that to be captured in the state department or any other government agency that i was e-mailing to at a dot-gov account. what happened in in, i guess in

late summer, 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 e-mails that might be on the personal e-mail. what i did was 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. >> why did you wait two months? why did you wait two months to turn them over? the rules say-- >> why did you dee least personal e-mails. >> i would be happy if someone talked to you with the rules. i fully complied with every

rule. >> were you ever specifically briefed on the security implications of using your own e-mail server and e-mailing the president? >> i did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. there is no classified material. i am certainly well aware of the classification requirements, and did not send classified material. >> of the [ [ inaudible question ] >> because they were matters that i believed they were in the scope of my personal privacy and that particularly of other people. they had nothing to do with work but i didn't see any reason to keep them.

[ . >> david shuster from al jazeera america. >> david i think you should go online and read the entire report. that is not an accurate representation of what happened. thank you. thank you. >> you've been legislativing to hillary clinton at the united nations she came out not only talking about e-mail controversy but women's rights, which is the subject that brought her to the u.n. in the first place. she talked about iran and officials saying any deal reached by the white house should be signed off by congress, and she questioned the motives of the letter signed by

47 members of the senate, all of them republican. they office stated that she opted for convenience in using her own e-mail address. she said that the vast majority of e-mails went to government colleagues, therefore they are on government servers. and she said that she provided all e-mails that could be work related, roughly 55,000 pages saying she's proud of the work she did and in hindsight two devices would have been better. michael shure is live for us in los angeles. she has been listening to the news conference. i was struck by the fact that she did not say when asked directly that she made a mistake. >> yes, nor did she apologize del, which a lot of people were waiting for her to do. it also makes you wonder why did this not happen a week ago when all this came out, and one of

the questioners said do you regret anything about this, i'm sure that's one of the regrets she has. but a lot of team will have problems of the whole idea of convenience. personally speaking, you can have a few different accounts on one device. the notion on this day and age that you could not have two devices, i don't know enough if the state department allows their e-mails to go to the same device as your personal e-mails but we're going to get to more questions, questions that were not answered here e and they didn't get into the legality of. this is hillary clinton saying this is the issue. we're putting it behind us and we want to move forward. she's held to a different bar. she said colin powell did the same thing. this is different if you're hillary clinton. you have a history of office-gating, hiding things and being hyper protective. this is going to be a big problem for hillary.

this is not a scandal yet. this is not a candle physical they find something out in these e-mails. >> i want to get back to your point that hillary clinton and the clintons themselves have been under investigation dating back to the white house and white water. is there anybody in washington or in the political circle that believes that knowing that everything they do and say is really under the microscope that she would be so foolish would be the worders to put word, to put something in an e-mail that she would need to erase. >> you would think that if anyone was sensitive to this woulden hillary clinton, but she does not have to public opponent. she's not in the race herself. she is protective, private and wants no transparency, this is a jumping point of that for her.

she tried to hide that part of it but making news, as you alluded to, del talking about the iran letter from the 47 senators. nobody is going to be writing tomorrow about hillary clinton's reaction to the iran letter. they're all going to be talking about these e-mails and the leaguety legality. >> david schuster was in thatting aelcaggel of reporters david n political terms it would be best to say that she did a full chris christie where she answered a lot of questions and took those questions head on. do you think reporters where you were were satisfied that she answered those questions? >> i'm not sure. the motives of the reporters and motive of hillary clinton were at crosshairs. she said she complied with all the laws and regulations. she did nothing wrong.

she was trying to protect her personal e-mail communication from going public, which is why she erased and deleted them. reporters are trying to get at the trust issue. speaking to the u.s. ambassador in kenya. he was criticized for using personal e-mails while ambassador and was forced to resign. she saidwhat she said was not that crystal clear on that point, and we'll go back and read the report, but it's very much like clinton and her parsing of words that more veteran reporters are used to, and you have to be very precise in her questions and you have to look for the precise meaning of what hillary clinton and her husband bill clinton have to say. >> how much of this is about a truly legitimate washington, d.c. scandal, even

though they have not assigned the word "gate" to the end of it, and the reporters have been around and around and around with the clintons, and many are saying, here we go again. >> it gets to the perception and the stereotypes that the clintons have that they get to play by a different set of rules. here is ike secretary of state sending out memos and internal memos around the world saying do not use personal e-mails yet she, for convenience, get to use personal e-mails and she gets to decide what is personal and dee least it. the clintons are sometimes not totally forthcoming. there are a lot of questions that hillary clinton did not answer. there are a lot of questions about the foundation and foreign money that the clinton foundation has received that she did not answer, and this is very much to control the environment. this was not a former news set

up, per se. this was a hundred reporters jammed in a hallway with cameras on the back, and this was an effort by the former secretary of state and staff to control the questions and how many. it was not a full-blown news conference where you sit down and answer every question like she did in the white water cancel scandal in 1994-59. it was not that. >> the fact that the former president also was using that server she said it was his is that going to carry water? >> well, i mean, it was in their home. they were the two people who had access to it, at least two people who had access to it. the fact that the secret service, whatever you want to say how well they protect things, the secret service had set that up and oversaw the security of that. now i think that's going to help the narrative. but the point here and the point that david is making is the fact that hillary clinton has to

answer these things directly. she speaks around things, and again we're starting to get a taste of what it's like to watch a press conference with hillary clinton. she's very good as what she's very good at, but she needs to be better than she has been in the past in answering these questions. it raise their own issues for the voters and the press. >> in your best 15 seconds come monday morning are we going to be talking about this? >> 15 seconds? can i been we'll talk about it a little bit but we want talk about it as much as we're talking about it today. hillary clinton will have moved on to other things. this will not go away entirely until some of the answers are seen from the e-mails themselves. >> michael shure joining us from the west coast and our colleague, david shuster, from inside the news conference, thank you for being us. the former secretary of state addressing the controversy she did not admit that she made a mistake, nor is she apologizing

i'm del walters on al jazeera america.

>> this week on talk to aljazeera a rising star in the ballet world misty copeland >> it was the first time i had an identity, and ot was through being a dancer >> one of six children raised by a single mother - copeland had a difficult childhood. >> i never felt a connection to anything or anyone. and i was constantly just trying to fit in >> misty copeland stumbled on to ballet at 13 she had natural talent. >> as soon as i stepped into the ballet studio i started to realize that this is beautiful,