or this fight burned 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 in tense negotiations. their goal is a diplomatic negotiation 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 letter's signatories. would you be pleased to talk more about this important matter but i know there have been questions about my e-mails so i want to address that directly and thenally 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 e-mail 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 e-mails instead of two. looking back it would have been

better if i had simply used a second e-mail account and carried a second phone, but at the time this didn't seem like an issue. second, the vast majority of my work e-mails 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 e-mails from our personal accounts. i responded right away and provided all my e-mails that could possibly be work-related which totaled 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 e-mails and deliver them to the state department. at the end, i chose not to keep my private personal e-mails, e-mails about planning chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements condolence notices to friends and yoga routines and family vacations the other things you typically find in in-boxes. no one wants their personal e-mails made public and i think most people understand that and respect that privacy. fourth, i took the unprecedented step of asking that state department make all my work-related e-mails public for everyone to see. i am very proud of the work that and my colleagues and our public serve abouts at the department did during my four years of

secretary of state and i look forward to people being able to see them for themselves. again, looking back it would have been better for me to use two separate phones and two e-mail 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. >> secretary clinton -- >> nick is calling on people. >> sorry. madam secretary, turkish television, on behalf of the u.n. correspondents association, thank you very much for your wrooe marks and it is 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 probably become an issue and my second follow-up question is if you were a man today, would all of

this fuss be being made thank you? >> well i will leave that to others to answer. but 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 state.gov e-mail account and when i got there, i wanted to just use one device for personal and work e-mails instead of two and it was allowed and i said it was for convenience and it was my practice to communicate with state department and other government officials on their state.gov accounts so the e-mails would be automatically saved in the state department system to meet record-keeping

requirements and that is indeed what happened. and i heard just a little while ago the state department announced they would begin to most some of my e-mails, which i'm glad to hear because i want it all out there. >> madam secretary -- >> andrea. thank you. >> thank you, madam secretary, can you explain how you decided which of the personal e-mails to get rid of and how you got rid of them and when you will 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 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? >> 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. they were not in any way related to my work. hi no reason-- i had no reason to save them but that was my decision because the guidelines were clear and the state department was clear it is that employee's responsibility to determine what is personal and what is 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'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 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. >> right here. >> hi madam, secretary. i was wondering if you feel you

made a mistake in using your private e-mail or in the lack of response and if so what have you learned from that? >> i have to tell you, as i said in my remarks, looking back it would have been probably 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 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 it might have been smarter to have those two devices from the very beginning. >> secretary, did you or any of your aids 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 suggest having an independent arbiter look at your server for instance? >> we did not. in fact my direction to conduct the thorough investigation was to error 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 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've done exactly what we should have done.

when the search was conducted, we were asking that any e-mail be identified and preserved that could potentially be federal records. and that is 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 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. >> right there. >> madam secretary, two quick follow-ups. you mentioned the server that is one of the distinctions here.

this wasn't a g-mail or yahoo, this was a server that you owned. is that appropriate? was there any precedent for it? did you clear it with any state department or security officials and did they have full access to it when you were secretary? and then will any of this have any bearing or effect on your timing or discussion about whether or not you run for president? thank you. >> 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 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 e-mails. they are going to be in the public domain. and i think that americans will find that interesting and i look forward to having a discussion about that. >> madam, secretary, how can the public be sure that when you deleted e-mails that were perm in nature that you didn't also delete e-mails that were possibly profession and unflattering and how do you feel about the idea of having an independent third party come in and examine your e-mails. >> first of all, you would have to ask that question to every

government official. the way the system works, every employee, the individual whether they have one, two, three devices and how many addresses, they make the decision. so even if you have a work-related device with a work-related dot-gov account, that is the way the system works. so we count on and the judgment of thousands of 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 can judge for themselves. >> 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 e-mail that employee needed to turn the e-mails over to the state department to be preserved on government computers. why did you not do that and why did you not go along with state department rules until nearly two years after you left office and also the president of the united states said that he was unaware that you had this unusual e-mail arrangement, the white house counsel ofz said you never approved the arrangement through them and why did you not do that and why have you caught the white house by surprise. and then one last political question if i might, does all of this make -- affect your decision in any way on whether or not to run for president? >> 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 e-mail for work. that is undisputed.

secondly under the federal records act, records are defined as recorded information regardless of the form or characteristics and in meeting the record obligation it was my record to e-mail officials on their state or other into dot-gov accounts so that was captured and preserved. 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 e-mailed to e-mail and i not only knew and i expected that to be captured in the state department or any other government agency that i was e-mailed to at a dot-gov account. what happened in -- i guess late summer early fall is that the

state 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. and what i did was to direct my counsel to conduct a thorough investigation and to error 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 the e-mails over when the rules say you have to turn them over? >> why delete the personal e-mails? >> i would be happy to have someone talk to you about the

rules. i fully complied with every rule. >> were you breached on the security implications of using your own e-mail server or using your own personal e-mail address with the president? >> i did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. there is no classified pearl. so i am certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material material. >> [ inaudible question ]. >> 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 had nothing to do with work. but i didn't see any reason to keep them.

>> when did you delete them? >> at the end of the process. >> [ inaudible ] who was forced to offered to two years ago because of his personal e-mails. [ inaudible ] from al jazeera. >> david i think you should go online and read the entire i.g. report. that is not an accurate representation of what happened. thank you. thank you. >> thank you very much. we thank you all. >> you've been listening to former secretary of state hillary clinton addressing the controversy over her exclusive use of a private e-mail address when she was at the state department. we of course have full coverage this hour. we're lucky to be joined by blmberg news jonathan allen at the white house. and he wrote about her e-mail use in hrc out in paper back. and we have kasie hunt here with us at the table. and washington post columnist dana mill bank in d.c.

welcome to all of you. jonathan she said she opted for convenience that was her explanation for why she used the private e-mail address exclusively and so that was the reasoning, the rational. but she is not planning to turn over her personal server which means that she gets to be the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't work-related. >> and i think that is the real reason she has a personal server. it took eight days to come to the word convenience. that seems kind of convenient. that could have been tweeted out in one tweet. the other thing she said was that she's taken unprecedented steps, and the reason is because she's taken unprecedented steps to hide her e-mail. i don't think this press conference will do a whole lot to quell the questions about what exactly she was thinking and why she did it. and the one thing we don't have, i imagine she's smart enough not

to have e-mailed anything to anybody that would look terrible for her. but i think the whole question of whether there is one set of rules for hillary clinton and another set of rules for other government officials and for other people was brought up by her when she said that these records would have been preserved by her e-mailing other people on their government accounts and that only works because they all used their government accounts. >> that is a fair point. and that was the first point she raised regarding the fact that this was a choice of convenience, jonathan. that she didn't want to carry two devices, something many people can relate to and many people aren't secretary of state and subject to those rules. i want to go to dana in washington and i'm here in philadelphia. watching this today, it was striking to see the array of defenses that hillary clinton offered. i thought the most important investigative takeaway though was she made it clear, just now, i think for the first time that many of the e-mails have already been deleted. she said that and the server is

private. so that means as a practical matter, some of the e-mails that are gone can never be appraised for whether they might, under federal law, be properly the property of u.s. government and potentially subject to public oversight. >> and that is also the political problem for her, ari, and that is she couldn't come clean and say i'll have the national archives or some independent arbiter and back up what i said and say these are private and these are public. so this is going to launch all kinds of conspiracy theories. i wouldn't be surprised if people start asking on the right if there is hidden evidence of the rose law billing or anything else. the same questions could be asked of any government official who has two phones. it is always up to the

individual to be their own arbiter and she is in the situation where she can't land saying there is no way to verify it. that is why the controversy doesn't go away with this. >> and casey, we wondered how much questions she would take and we counted maybe ten questions and we wondered if she would be rusty and we wondered if we wouldn't be satisfied and we heard a lot of convenience, and a lot of folks will understand that and folks in the chattering classes will not be satisfied. how are you feeling? are you satisfied with the way she took all of the questions she had. >> i think there were plenty of people trying to ask questions when she left. but we knew democrats were starting to get uncomfortable with the way she handled this so far and i think they were pressuring her to explain. at the end of the day, the only explanation we got about why she did this this way was that it

was more convenient. she didn't want to have more than one device. i don't know about you, i use multiple e-mail accounts on one device. it is not a technology impossibility. and we'll hear more about -- ari said it i deleted all of the rest of the e-mails that i didn't turn over to the state department and that is the first really confirmation that we have of that. and i think the question is going to be the one that andrea mitchell poses is how did she decide which ones of those to dilute delete? how do we know it was yoga routines and not information that is something that the american public should be aware of. >> snl nailed it last week. and i want to ask dana and jonathan this sometimes it is not how she says it it is the way she says it and it seemed as if she was chuckling and annoyed this is such a controversy.

dana how do you take the look she had and the way she handled it. >> well her body language showed she didn't want to be there. and she hasn't given a press conference for a while and you don't want to on this topic. and at the beginning, she tried to make it on the republican senators on iran and women and children about the united nations. but she gets points for being up there and fielding the questions. i think that will take some of the pressure off of her. but the problem is she had nothing substance wise to give them. so no matter how well she handled it in terms of body language, it doesn't solve the problem. >> jonathan, do you agree with that? do you think the tone was right? >> i think the tone was right. is what you expect from secretary clinton. i think there is often from her detactors there is a level of contrition. i don't think you will see that. i think she'll say she could have handled this better.

for her fans this is a time to her to polarize and divide and get her support behind her and i think she was trying to do that. i think there was a desire to show she was upset and say that the american public will understand where she's coming from. and i think we'll just have to see how that shakes out. but from her perspective, she will never win over the other side and she needs to shore up her base right now. >> and jonathan giving people answers is the right thing to do in terms of transparency and governance and politically wise because people all over the world people who like her, they want to know an answer for this and on covering government so much, she said we don't have to worry about any work e-mails that should be public would have gotten deleted or put in the personal category because they used a broad standard what lawyers would call in the

jargon an over-inclusive standard and haven't you seen people up to the supreme court, who aren't lying, but disagreement about whether something is work-related or released and something this is something that is fighting over or preempted. >> and i think what most politicians do and certainly the clintons fall into this category is how do i do it? what is the legal justification and what the farthest i can push this. when she debates the legalisms of it she will lose people. >> casey, and she was asked how she complied with the record-keeping requirements and her way of dealing with that is she said to e-mail other government officials on their government accounts so that the e-mail would be preserved because it was e-mailed to other

government accounts? is that really sufficient? certainly she sent some e-mails to this private account that didn't go directly to u.s. government employees? >> i think that is the at the center of what we could learn from what the state department has said will be a wide online release of the 55,000 pages of e-mails which we know according to what is he said about 30,000 actual e-mails, about half of her 60,000 e-mails were considered to be work-related. and i think that is the heart of the question that everyone had all along, which is what kind of business was she conducting with people not inside of the state department that might relate to this. was she having on going conversations in other countries and that ties in with security concerns. she said there were no security breaches and it was set up for president clinton. he would have high level security concerns about making sure his e-mail wasn't hacked into. but i still think we are going to learn quite a bit from --

hopefully from what they are going to release now publicly. >> dana andrea mitchell brought up something on her show harkening back to whitewater and hillary answering all of the questions, she believed if you sit there and answer a million questions, this will end and of course that didn't end. that only metastasized and it feed this is belief or we are told, that she is overattacked and overscrutinized and no matter how much questions she answered but it never seems to end with her. >> you are right. she is over-attacked and over-scrutinized and it is not terribly fair. but she is in this situation. and when you get into this situation, the solution is get everything out there and get it out there as fast as you can. the problem with whitewater is not that yes, she answered questions, but a couple of years later the rose law firm billing records show up in a shoe box in

the white house residence and people think something was hidden because they went missing in the first place. and then she said the records were destroyed. records destroyed is never a good thing even if done in a completely kosher manner. and nobody will care about her yoga and her mother's funeral or her daughter's wedding but the real shame is she can't be vindicated if the records were destroyed because she can't have somebody go through and say, okay, she did it the way it was supposed to be done according to government standards, let's all move on. now there is no way to dispute that. >> dana i'm curious about the yoga or what. >> she gets big points if it is hot yoga. >> and there is a practical reality that dana is speaking to and this will persist because of the nature of the lack of document retention. and kais case -- casey, i've

heard from her former aids and other people i've talked to that, look even if this is a semi-problem, this is not the biggest problem in the world, not as big as washington or the media are making it out, say hillary's allies and speak to us if you would, about her opening of the address that in hillary world, they think the media should be addressing, under-cutting her former bus, as they try to reach a deal with iran and gender equality and what do you say to her argument that this thing, whether or not it has problems, is blown totally out of proportion. >> i think they've run into political trouble under-estimating this and even andrea mitchell addressed it she's devoted her life to working on women and children and this is the 20th anniversary of the speech she gave in beijing so well-known in her

development of her over all political brand, image and car sear. so yes, i do think they have a point to a certain extent. but if you look at from a strictly political event contrast this with how jeb bush handled his personal server and i'm going to put this in a book and anybody can e-mail me and here is the address. and questions about whether or not he made the same decisions and set of calculations as to which of his e-mails were going to be turned over to the state, from a political perspective that is a non-issue, and for this campaign in waiting causes problems. >> i think the reality is the story is bigger than this. the narrative speaks something

much bigger for hillary clinton. eugene roberts wrote about this controversy titled new scandals and wonder if hillary is hiding something. and he said i'm not convinced that voters will necessarily care how her electronics communications were routed but they may well ask themselves whether they are ready for the dynasty and the drama. and i think it is fair to say, many people are sick of hearing about the clintons and how they are above the law. so the question is, is her campaign so focused on the clintons or about the vision she has for this country? >> well look i think part of the reason you saw her do this press conference today is because democrats started to get concerned about this. they have all of their chips on hillary clinton in 2016. they have no alternatives. and the reason why she suddenly felt pressured after eight days is people within her own party were making that point and they are the ones saying we can't possibly go back to what we dealt with when the clintons

were in the white house. but i also think you heard her say in the press conference when she was discussing why she may have deleted the e-mails and in that americans will understand or she thinks americans will understand what is private and what is public. and they have -- an intuitive understanding of this is my private e-mail and her mother and she mentioned personal things funerals and condolences and jonathan allen touched on this, the people who are her core supporters that will resonate with them and it will be a valid defense. >> we'll have to wait and see how the folks out there respond. jonathan allen, kasie hunt dana mill bank we appreciate it. we'll take a quick break and then live to the united nations where alex seitz-wald is right now. stay with us.

sunday dinners at my house... it's a full day for me, and i love it. but when i started having back pain my sister had to come help. i don't like asking for help. i took tylenol but i had to take six pills to get through the day.

so my daughter brought over some aleve. it's just two pills, all day! and now, i'm back! aleve. two pills. all day strong, all day long. and now introducing aleve pm for a better am. ♪ [ piano background music begins ] ♪ when i was on wall street i felt trapped in that i was investing in a health care industry that i didn't believe in. for years i really struggled with this idea that people were making money off my illness and i wanted to do something different and so i finally made that change. [thunder and rain] [thunder and rain] [thunder and rain]

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 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 the two devices from the very beginning. >> we're back now with reaction to hillary clinton's explanation why she used private e-mail as secretary of state. alec seitz wald is outside of the united nations. alex what was the vibe in the room. >> reporter: the vibe was tense. this is the first time recorders have had a chance to ask secretary clinton in this kind of format. there was over 100 reporters and producers, 25 cameras and everyone wanted to get a question in. there wasn't enough time. she was calm. she handled herself well. she went first to a foreign

correspondence correspondence, a warm-up. he thanked her before taking on the questions. >> and let's head to d.c. and senior political reporter perry bacon, jr. you wonder why the clintons seem to feel above the rules and arrogant as some people say. and this is an unforced area and like malpractice, something she could have avoided and somebody one her circle should have said this is not a good idea and we both agree this is not going to have major elector implications in the primary or the general and she can have mistakes and survive them? >> i think it is important to look at today. in some ways hillary clinton has been trying to run for president without doing the announcement and being covered as such. and you saw today for the first time the stories that come out and therefore the media is treating her as a candidate for president because we assume she is and so she had to confront this.

and the one things challenging about today, she wanted to give an announcement on her terms and this was the first event of her presidential campaign, standing in front of the u.n. answering the nine or ten questions that she sort of struggled to answer. and obviously looking forward, it is to look for a question about her -- she made the point that her e-mail is security because she used the same server president clinton does. that is something they will look into. i assume the white house has high security for their technology and so on and maybe different from clinton. i don't know that issue wellba maybe it is something to look into further. and it is still a question about how secure was this technology. >> perry, let's pause on the political point you are making. rahm emanual has said a lot of leadership is when you are pitching and when you are catching. are you saying as a practical matter that hillary clinton for presidential campaign started

today? >> not as -- as a practical matter it probably started the day after president obama was inaugurated. but i'm sort of kidding but serious. we thought of her as someone running for president as a long time. but this is the first time she's been doing a public event where she is taking questions and people are watching her and there is an nbc news special, being shown on every network very aggressively and she would prefer that to be a moment where she talks about, i'm running, i could be the first female president and nobody has the experience i've had and this is an event today with her saying i had a private e-mail for convenience and i couldn't hold two devices at the same time. this is not the launch for her moving federal. >> alex why not turn over the personal server. why not hand it over to the state department and allow an independent arbiter and sit down

and determine what is private and business related and at least give her allies a talking point that look she handed over the thing? >> reporter: well she was asked that question specifically and she said the server will remain private. and she said after she went through this review with her lawyers going back through all of the e-mails she sent as secretary of state and determined what could be considered work and permsonal, they deleted the personal e-mails and she's asking us to trust her and every other official with a personal account and i don't think republicans and others will be satisfied. she is keeping the server private because it is personal and no one wants to have their personal e-mails read. and while that may be true at this point it will continue to raise questions that she might be hiding something. >> perry, the crazy thing about this is two weeks later this continues to dominate the headlines, still the top story.

everything she said today she could have said two weeks ago. so to me this is less about the e-mails, more about how her team handled the controversy. we talk about the clinton machine and how they are prepared to handle things but this is how not to handle things. >> and kasie made the same point, jeb bush had a private server and it wasn't clear he followed the florida regulation so he came out and said look i'm being transparent. here is all of my e-mails and a book of my e-mails and he knew this problem coming and he ran head on. hillary clinton waited a long time. she does not clearly have a great explanation for the server, a convenient explanation is not a good one. she could have said convenience 12 times like she did today on tuesday. i didn't think it was a great argument or a message for her

coming campaign. but that said we still don't have a lot of people who were for her weeks ago that are not for her now. you could tell she was speaking to that audience today. saying the american people will trust me. the american people understand that you wouldn't want your personal e-mails, and i e-mail about yoga and i'm not going to release that and this was a media thing and a republican issue and this is not an issue real voters care about and now we'll see if that is true or not. >> indeed perry. hillary's strong polling numbers and her strong financial advantage make me feel like she can handle this and will handle this differently than if she were in a competitive race do you think that is right, perry? >> yes. i think that is true. i think that as -- as we talked about yesterday a little bit. the reason -- i think this press

conference maybe would not have happened in the first place or this level except for democrats like dianne feinstein, serious people were criticizing her and that becomes a problem. hillary clinton has such a big advantage because the democratic party is organized around here and the way to keep the advantage is to make sure the democratic party around you. so dianne feinstein ordered her to do this and so she comes out today and answer questions. she didn't answer them to the way i want to hear the answers and i still want to know why the server was created and what was deleted and so on but the core question is did she address the questions enough for other people in the democratic party and are they satisfied and the think the answer to that might be yes but time will tell. >> alex perry made an interesting point saying that folks that support hillary, they will not change their support based on how this played out and we'll see if this is something that voters will care about.

we in the media talked about this 24 hours a day but are voters going to care about this and will this have any impact on hillary? >> reporter: last week i talked to about a dozen democratic officials in the presidential states and they told me this issue hadn't broken through to voters. and even the people who are savvy and politically engaged, even if they personally had concerns about her doing this voters were not paying attention. that could change. a press conference like this gets a lot of attention i think that is why they were trying to avoid a situation like this and that was unclear. and that is why mark murray made points last week in that the lasting consequences here are with the media, she was hoping to turn over a new page and had a rocky relationship with them during the 2008 campaign and going back to the white house and now the doubt she was hoping to build up might be in

question. and the other question is the benghazi committee with the subpoenas and saying she deleted the personal e-mail accounts they're going to keep asking questions and dropping political bombs into the future. >> and an interesting dynamic as casey said democrats are all in if the race for the presidency is a game of texas hold em they need hillary to be the best possible candidate she can be. alex perry, thank you. for from politico is next.

♪

shopping online is as easy as it gets. ♪ wouldn't it be great if hiring plumbers carpenters and even piano tuners were just as simple? thanks to angie's list, now it is. we've made hiring anyone from a handyman to a dog walker as simple as a few clicks. buy their services directly at angiealist.com. no more calling around. no more hassles. and you don't even have to be a member to start shopping today! angie's list is revolutionizing local service again. visit angieslist.com today. in new york state, we're reinventing how we do business so businesses can reinvent the world. from pharmaceuticals to 3d prototyping,

biotech to clean energy. whether your business is moving, expanding or just getting started... only new york offers you zero taxes for 10 years with startup ny business incubators that partner companies with universities, and venture capital funding for high growth industries. see how new york can grow your business and create jobs. visit ny.gov/business ♪ building aircraft, the likes of which the world has never seen. this is what we do. ♪ that's the value of performance. northrop grumman.

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. >> and we're back now with msnbc political correspondent ccasey hunt and michael. this is a controversy that has played out for two weeks now. did she leave room for more questions or did she nip this one in the bud? >> i don't think she nipped this one in the bud. there's 20% of the country that will never believe the bud is nipped, even if she allows the media to come live with her in her house. in seriousness, i think the fact that she appears to have deleted

a lot of these e-mails she says are personal is kind of throwing a bunch of gasoline on the fire here. it may be defensible. it may be the case these are personal e-mails she had the right to keep private, but the fact she was the one who made that judgment and not some independent outside person is going to leave a lot of people saying, it shouldn't happen that way. that's where this is going to go from here in my opinion. >> speaking of people who never believe the bud is nipped trey gowdy has issued a statement. he is certainly not satisfied. having finally heard from secretary clinton about her exclusive use of personal e-mail in which to conduct official business regrettably we are left with more questions than answers. goes on to talk about security concerns also. who authorized this exclusive use of e-mail and who combed

through the e-mails? he has no choice but to call her to appear before them to address e-mails and another time to address further questions about libya and benghazi. your reaction michael? >> well, for the clintons this is just a disaster because i think there was kind of a consensus -- certainly in the media -- the benghazi horse was just flogged to death, and republicans were starting to make themselves look a little foolish by continuing to go after it spend money, call these hearings. they didn't seem to be turning anything up and suddenly this gust of wind fills the sail of the whole concept of benghazi again and these investigators look like they are producing new secret information and they have new justifications. there's no way they could have made a credible claim to make

her come testify based on all this evidence that had been hashed over again and again, but now there's this kind of new crop of material that allows them to have a platform and publicity to make the case. it is great news for these republicans. it is a huge headache for hillary. the question again is is there any substance to it. i'm just very skeptical when it comes to the actual benghazi episode that there is anything truly significant that we don't know yet. >> there are some republicans that are so focused on finding something that hillary clinton is hiding. you follow this so closely. how is this going to play out from here based on what she said to do? how are republicans going to respond? how are dems going to respond? they have sort of sat back. >> i think the republican

response is going to be pretty predictable. i think the point that michael raised about benghazi is a good one. it was something that became "this again." this has resuscitated that a bit. if you look at it in the context of 2016 with jeb bush emerging the way he has as a de facto frontrunner frontrunner, he has a bulletproof case in that they can defend how he released his e-mails and contrast it with the way she's handled this. whether or not that happens with other republicans i think is still a question. you have wisconsin governor scott walker who has run into some issues of his own with e-mail. >> i just want to jump in. benghazi works both ways. mitt romney made it his closing argument. michael, how important is it for hillary here to focus on in in the technicalities rather than

the big picture that it is not her e-mail just like air force one is not your plane? >> if you're saying is it better for her to avoid the technicalities and go to the big picture, it is. nobody wants their personal e-mails made public. e-mailing about her daughter's wedding, using -- evoking incredibly sympathetic concepts that i think any average person would sympathize with that's the strategy here the big picture and the personal privacy question. >> appreciate you both. thank you. that does it for "the cycle." "now" with alex wagner is next. uh, excuse me sir? i think you've got the wrong bag. >>sorry, they all look alike, you know? no worries. well, car's here, i can't save people money

chatting at the baggage claim all day. geico®. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. why do i cook? because i make the best chicken noodle soup. because i make the best chicken noodle soup. because i make the best chicken noodle soup. for every way you make chicken noodle soup, make it delicious with swanson®. ideas come into this world ugly and messy. they are the natural born enemy of the way things are. yes, ideas are scary and messy and fragile. but under the proper care, they become something beautiful. sunday dinners at my house... it's a full day for me, and i love it. but when i started having back pain

my sister had to come help. i don't like asking for help. i took tylenol but i had to take six pills to get through the day. so my daughter brought over some aleve. it's just two pills, all day! and now, i'm back! aleve. two pills. all day strong, all day long. and now introducing aleve pm for a better am.

hillary speaks. is the debate over or has it just begun? it is tuesday, march 10th, and this is "now." >> there have been questions about my e-mails, so i want to address that directly. >> hillary clinton's news conference. >> first news conference in two years. >> i responded right away and provided all my e-mails that could possibly be work-related. >> pressure has been building on hillary clinton to do something along these lines. >> i'd like to hear her explanation of why she did it and what was covered by it. >> i did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. >> she's not going to satisfy republican opponents. >>