Hillary Clinton’s Security Snatch Camera From Man, Deleting Image of Presidential Hopeful

Hillary Clinton


Hillary Clinton’s henchmen snatched a smartphone from a man who had photographed her giving a speech in Miami Thursday, deleting the image before returning the phone.

“That’s American politics,” one of the individuals in charge of preventing the presidential hopeful from being photographed told a Miami Herald reporter covering the meeting.

No, that’s Russian politics. Or Chinese politics. Or Cuban politics.

Or the politics from a number of other countries that we’ve been brainwashed to hate by American politicians where citizens don’t have the right to take photos of politicians.

It turns out, our politics is not much different than their politics. No matter what Clinton says during her run-up to the 2016 election, where she had launched a website encouraging citizens to contact her.

The incident took place during a travel agents convention at the Miami Hyatt, a private venue, but that still doesn’t give anybody the right to snatch your personal belongings, nor does it give them the right to delete your images.

Not even cops have that right.

In this case, the man could have refused to hand over his camera, but then would most likely have been kicked out of the venue where he could have been arrested for trespassing if he refused to leave.

But he would have left with his photo and his story.

According to the Miami Herald:

At one point, a member of the audience, Andrew Rothberg, had his Galaxy Note II smartphone taken from him by security, which removed his picture of Clinton onstage and then gave his device back in front of a Miami Herald reporter in the auditorium stands.

“It’s crazy,” Rothberg said.

“That’s American politics,” said a docent, one of a handful of hotel security and volunteers who roamed the aisles looking for people taking pictures or making recordings. None was allowed.

“I wanted to take pictures for my girls; I have four girls,” Rothberg, who was writing a piece about the conference for Boca Raton-based Grey Matters Magazine, told the Miami Herald. “I think Hillary Clinton who is probably running for president in 2016 would want all the publicity she could get and I think it’s kind of ironic they would take the camera away.”

About Carlos Miller

Carlos Miller is founder and publisher of Photography is Not a Crime, which began as a one-man blog in 2007 to document his trial after he was arrested for photographing police during a journalistic assignment. He is also the author of The Citizen Journalist's Photography Handbook, which can be purchased through Amazon.

Check Also

William Robocop Melendez convicted

Award-Winning Michigan Officer Known as “Robocop” Receives 13-Month Sentence for Vicious Beating Caught on Camera

The Michigan cop known as Robocop will spend at least 13 months in prison for …

  • nrgins

    So crazy!!! THere should be some software that automatically makes a copy of every picture you take on your phone and stores them in a password protected folder.

    • syujv

      Its called dropbox.

      • nrgins

        Really? Dropbox has a thing where it automatically uploads every picture you take without user interaction?

        In any case, I was talking about something that stores a second copy on your phone, not in the cloud. Two reasons. First, if you don’t have unlimited data on your phone plan, that could get very costly. And, second, it takes time to upload. If someone grabs your camera and deletes the picture immediately after it is taken, there might not be enough time for it to be uploaded, especially if there are already several being sent. Making an immediate copy to a hidden, password-protected folder on your phone is superior in that regard, and is what I was referring to.

        • Voice-Of-Concern

          Yes. I have the same phone & my photos automatically load to Dropbox.com

          • theprez98 (总统)

            You can enable Camera Uploads on Dropbox

    • Stretch

      You can always auto upload to google…
      But really, the guy was taking photos in a private venue, where they seem to have stated no recording was allowed, and the guy broke the rules. Seems like a pretty legit and nice way to handle the situation. What if you grabbed something off a shelf at a store and mistakenly walked to the door with it, and the clerk walked up and nicely asked you to pay for it, would you bitch about it?
      Don’t break the rules and people won’t mess with you.

      • nrgins

        Totally wrong! Taking something off the shelf and having it taken from you means they’re taking back THEIR OWN property, not grabbing yours! Totally different situation. They have no right to grab someone’s property and then delete (destroy) it. If they’re unhappy about someone breaking the rules on private property, then they can kick them out. Or sue them in civil court. But they DO NOT have the right to grab your person property and destroy part of it!

        • Guest

          Don’t bother trying to explain it to him. Don’t you recognize a boot licker when you see one?

  • Hank_Thoreau

    When are the goons going to figure out that they aren’t allowed to just take people stuff? Cops can’t do it, so what the hell makes fake cops think they can?

    • Guest

      Cops can do it. They do it all the time. And there are no consequences. So does it really matter that there are some silly Constitutional amendments that say they can’t, when the police, District Attorneys, and Judges all wipe their asses with the parchment?

    • Clark

      The fact that they didn’t take an oath to uphold the Constitution and applicable laws. That’s why I rank rent-a-thugs just above the likes of the tsa and just under the brown logs I flush down the toilet.

  • Ryan French

    Mrs. Clinton’s website: http://hillaryclintonoffice.com/ . Already sent them a message in reference to this event. I would send it to the media contact since the general comments box is probably ignored.

    • JdL

      Thanks for the link! I said:

      I am disgusted to learn of the treatment of photographers at the Miami Hyatt recently. Snatching people’s cameras and deleting images is not the behavior I would respect from someone who would purport to lead. What is she afraid of, anyway?

      • Smart with no name

        You can always automatically upload pics
        When someone takes pics in a private venue, where they have stated no
        recording was allowed, and the guy broke the rules as unfair as it seems, they were in their right to do so. This practice has been in affect for ages. When Bush Jr ran for office, they would search our purses to see if we had cameras. Pretending this is something knew is a farce.

        • JdL

          I make the same points you do in a separate post on this page. HC has the right to forbid photography at her events, and to take action against anyone who violates the rules she’s set forth. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to criticize her for making that choice!

          • Ryan French

            The only action that is allowed is a trespass. No citizen, private security or police officer has the right to delete someone’s photo. Not sure why that point is escaping some people.

          • JdL

            The only action that is allowed is a trespass. No citizen, private security or police officer has the right to delete someone’s photo. Not sure why that point is escaping some people.

            Apparently by “some people”, you mean me (among others). Please read my other post; I make the point you feel is lacking in this one.

            I believe in freedom and voluntary associations, even for assholes like HC. I would favor amending the law so that jerks can specify, “If you enter this hall, and we find a camera on you, we will smash your camera.” As long as that is prominently displayed at the entrance, I’d consider it legally legitimate (if I were writing the laws). BUT, I would certainly criticize anyone who carried out those actions.

  • Voice-Of-Concern

    I voted for Ms Clinton in 2008. I find the described behavior odious & outrageous.

    On the other hand, if he was on private property, at a private event & the rules were “No photos allowed” & he took a photo… what is the smart solution? What is the right way to enforce the posted rules?

    • bc_motoguy

      The right way is to post the signs and MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT prior. It’s still rediculous.. and criminal behaviour. If she tacitly sanctions this, then big suprise as to what other thuggery and criminality she (has already) looked away from.

      • Rail Car Fan

        Well, what do you expect from her..!!..? She’s a Clinton!

        Rail Car Fan

        • Proud GrandPa

          Interesting legal point. Since he was admitted without condition, then the attempt to impose conditions later fails legally. All they could do is give him a choice: leave or hand over the camera.
          Had he left with the picture, what could Hillary do? Nothing legal anyway.

    • Carlos_Miller

      Kick the man out.

      • Guest

        That’s a lawful solution. But not the smart solution. As you pointed out, if they just kicked him out, he still has his photo. The smart solution is exactly what they did, because they got exactly what they wanted, crime or not, with zero probability of any real consequences.

        • Carlos_Miller

          Except if they would have done that to somebody who knew their rights, like myself, they would have had a much harder time snatching my phone, which could lead to very serious consequences if they decided to get physical.

          • Proud GrandPa

            Like your hutz-puh, bro. You could LAWFULLY resist authority’s UNLAWFUL DEMANDS.
            Never give up your civil rights. Sometimes doing the right thing may even lead to your temporary arrest.

    • Rail Car Fan

      “Voice of Concern” said in part…

      “I voted for Ms Clinton in 2008.” (Emoticon showing head shaking while rolling eyes upward into head.)

      It looks/sounds like here’s another “Brain Dead” person walking the earth!

      Rail Car Fan

      • Voice-Of-Concern

        RCF, what i consider a LOT closer to “Brain Dead”, is someone so blinded by their own narrow ideology, that they are unable to conceive that a person who not their political clone, might in factshare common ground with them on certain issues.

        What i consider a better indicator of “Brain Dead”, is the instinctive need to express a xenophobic ad hominen comment, instead addressing the meat of the issue at hand.

        please, for the sake of your country & your community, try to exhibit a bit more maturity in the future. it’s a win/win response

  • Paschn

    In addition to all the other many disgusting things about this over-politicized, dying republic is this;
    for every crooked, bought-off skank or (male) blow-fly, there’s a squadron of sycophant cops, “security” toadies who’s main concern in life is being on the “winning side”. No matter how foul, corrupt or treasonous, these “back-up” worms will do anything to anyone as long as it insures their “career”, paycheck and curries favor with the filth they run interference for. Ain’t it grand to be a yank?

  • JdL

    Well … I think that Horrible Hillary is stupid for making rules against photography of her speeches, and I believe and hope that her stand will backfire (God help us if she becomes prez!), but IF the rules were made clear in advance, I don’t have much sympathy for the photographer. Snatching the camera and deleting the photo does seem over the top (unless explicitly stated as a penalty for violating the rules, perhaps), but it was well within her goons’ rights to eject the photographer. Which I guess you also stated, Carlos. My only disagreement is with your level of outrage. In private places, the photographer is responsible for abiding by the rules laid out, however ridiculous.

    • ProudGrandPa

      Never forget that the Clintons were the ones who illegally took copies of their political enemies from the FBI and used it and denied under oath to congress that they had the files. Then a maid found the files in Hillary’s bedroom and turned her in. Nothing was ever done to Hillary for her lying and illegal use of the FBI reports.
      I would not recommend voting for her. Sadly many greedy selfish Americans dependent upon welfare do vote.

      • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

        Right. And it totally wasn’t Bush who set up the torture camps.

        Can you even go a day without bearing false witness?

        • proudGrandPa

          the Clintons were the ones who illegally took copies of their political enemies from the FBI and used it and denied under oath to congress that they had the files. Then a maid found the files in Hillary’s bedroom and turned her in. Nothing was ever done to Hillary for her lying and illegal use of the FBI reports.

          • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

            Citation needed. From a factual source please. The reason nothing was done probably has a lot to do with your story being bullshit.

            Fortunately, it still wasn’t the Clintons who illegally starting the whole random wire tapping, the TSA, waterboarding, holding indefinitely without trial, warrantless searches, etc…. That would be Bush, as supported by the Republicans.

  • 2crows

    If it was established BEFOREHAND that there would be no recording, then this man is a FOOL. If this was not established, then I suggest he take a self defense course and learn how to break fingers while saying, “Stop thief!” Nobody touches my property…

  • Ron

    When you take her photo you capture her SOOOUUULLL

    Thats why no photos.

    • Guest

      Nope. Like most politicians, she sold it long ago.

  • Anon

    He handed over the camera willingly it sounds, and this was private security, not the police. So how is this about rights? He could have left with his photo.

    • Guest

      “At one point, a member of the audience, Andrew Rothberg, had his Galaxy Note II smartphone taken from him by security”

      • Anon

        “In this case, the man could have refused to hand over his camera, but then would most likely have been kicked out of the venue where he could have been arrested for trespassing if he refused to leave.”

        It doesn’t appear that the camera was forcefully taken away from him.

        • Carlos_Miller

          Who are you, HIllary’s flack?

          Read the original report by the reporter who witnessed the incident.

          “At one point, a member of the audience, Andrew Rothberg, had his Galaxy Note II smartphone taken from him by security, which removed his picture of Clinton onstage and then gave his device back in front of a Miami Herald reporter in the auditorium stands.”

          Where does it appear the exchange was voluntary?

          • Anon

            So then you were just talking out of your ass when you said:

            “In this case, the man could have refused to hand over his camera…”???

          • Carlos_Miller

            No, asshole, you’re the only one talking out of your ass.

            The guy most likely doesn’t know he could have grabbed his camera back or held on to his camera or whatever.

            He was probably intimidated by the Nazi claiming this is “American politics.”

            All I know is if that would have been me, they would probably had me thrown out but my photo would not have been deleted.

          • Anon

            I’ll have to remember that quoting you turns someone into an asshole. Thanks for the info.

            You have no idea if the camera was taken by force or not.

          • Carlos_Miller

            The headline of the original Miami Herald article states, “Security swipes man’s phone, erases pic of her at speech”

            The definition of swipe:

            1. (when intr, usually foll by at) Informal to hit hard with a sweeping blow

            2. (tr) Slang to steal


            I think the burden of proof is on you to prove the man voluntarily handed over his phone.

          • Anon

            Then maybe you should reword your own article to not give the impression that the man had a say in the matter.

          • Carlos_Miller

            I just sent Marc Caputo the following message asking him to settle the matter once and for all:

            “Good story on the Hillary thing. Would you mind explaining to me in detail exactly how the camera swiping took place? I’m having a debate on my blog as to whether it was forced or voluntary.

            In all honesty, I left it up to interpretation in how I wrote it with a sentence stating that the man could have refused to hand over the phone after stating that the phone was snatched from him.

            Usually in these instances, there is a tug-of-war, so I’m kind of assuming that to be the case here, but rather than assume, I figured I would just ask you to describe exactly how it took place.”

          • Anon

            I do think it is an important point. Thank you.

          • Carlos_Miller

            Here is Marc’s response (in quotes):

            “He could have refused. You are correct. It happened kind of quickly. It’s not like he was being threatened. He didn’t want to make a scene and he complied.”

            So basically, one of Clnton’s goons orders him to hand over the phone and the guy hands it over because he was already being made out to look as if he had committed some faux pas.

            The guy probably has never had that happened to him and just handed it over out of pure shock.

            And it’s true that most people wouldn’t want to make a scene, especially in a high-brow affair like that, so the Clinton goon took advantage of the power bestowed upon him by being a Clinton leech.

            And the guy had the audacity to say, “That’s American politics.”?

            Sad thing is, he is right.

            And I don’t mean to brag, but man, had that been me, it would have been a completely different scenario.

          • Anon

            If everyone was like you, this site wouldn’t be necessary 😉

            Thanks for the update.

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            Carlos, you are moving the goalposts, a bit, aren’t you?

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            Yah, but we all know that headlines are written to sell papers. That’s weak & you know it.

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            Carlos, no need for name calling. He didn’t call you an asshole, he called you on what appeared to be a conflict in your statements.

            It’s a distraction from finding good solutions for complicated issues. You are a journalist. This is not a simple open/close situation with one perfect solution.

            I know you believe “kick him out” solves the situation. I don’t agree that it is that simple.

  • Anon

    Also, if you want to backup your photos/videos as you take them, use a program called Foldersync for android. It can upload to almost any online storage service you want. It takes a little setup to begin with, but once you are done, it’ll backup whatever you want silently and instantly (if you choose).

  • ts

    Private property schmopoerty, Did they kill the security cameras in the venue? Look I understand the whole private property stuff……… I had a whole paragraph and just deleted it. I just hate politicians and how they try and control their image or whatever.

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      Yes, i completely agree with the point about Pols controlling their image. I think an EXCELLENT could be had on how much politicians try to control their image by putting unreasonable limits on people. Personally, I think the media should consider boycotting pols who pull that shit

  • notliberal

    A cabinate member from “the most transparent presidency in history.”

    LOL. What happened was nothing but theft and rights violation. The guy should have been thrown out, but not had his phone searched and property deleted.


  • Joseph Murray

    What I don’t get with is what the hell difference does a lousy picture of her make?! Why does anyone CARE if he took her pic? How arbitrary and stupid!

    • blah blah blah

      She wants to make sure the lighting is flattering.


    read all the comments and am having a difficult time figuring out as to why no one has mentioned, wasnt the PRESS there, didnt the herald reporter have a camera, why not? the whole thing sounds like BS! from where who knows, but its BS, as in didnt happen! where would HELLerey go where she did not want media coverage? does not make any sense! at all!

    • Proud GrandPa

      The liberal media does not report or else under-reports violations of civil rights against conservatives and independents. Read Bernie Goldberg’s exposee book, Bias.

  • harry ballzanya

    I want to know if they were federal secret service agents deleting the photo under the color of law?

  • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

    I’m extremely disappointed, and I hope Hilary fires the individual immediately.

    • Proud GrandPa

      Ha! She probably ordered it!

      • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

        Nah, she’s not a Republican.

  • Proud GrandPa

    FDR (liberal Democrat president) started this anti-camera craze. It did not happen under more recent presidents of both parties. The great President Reagan, in contrast, loved the camera.
    Am very surprised that this happened. Surely not even the liberal media can stomach it from their preferred candidate for president, Hillary Rodham-Clinton. How typical of liberalism, and how sad for America.

    • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

      Oh, look, the lying liar is telling more lies.

  • Rick Caird

    I am betting that is the new policy so that any gaffes do not go viral. Still, no one has the right to snatch someone’s phone.

  • Discochip

    First, I wouldn’t even waste the amount of electrical energy expended by the battery to snap a photo of Monica’s boyfriend’s cuckolded spouse, at least I think she was his boyfriend since what else would you call her? Secondly, if there was a sign that said, “No photos or recording devices”, then puh-leeze, what are we all doing here reading the story and commenting, the guy is a complete jerk. Period. If he did not want to abide by a simple ‘request’, meaning I don’t think any laws were broken nor were any First Amendment rights infringed upon, then he should not have taken one step past the door, or if he thought he couldn’t control himself – assuming he’s a typical Liberal with “irresistible impulses” (a defense in some criminal cases) that can’t be controlled, then hand the phone over to someone, or leave it in his car. Third, maybe she’s had some ‘work done’ and didn’t want anyone getting too close to take a picture and compare it to some of the hundreds of others less than flattering photos of her on the web. Fourth, if HIS camera was allowed, then when does it stop, is a media camera with a zoom lens allowed, are flashbulbs allowed, and remember, she’s still reeling from that idiotic “at this point what difference does it make” sworn testimony debacle at the #Benghazi Congressional hearing.
    Lastly, I’m surprised that there were no reports of repeated chants of ‘Monica, Monica’ as she experienced when visiting Egypt in her official capacity, or vociferous chants of ‘Benghazi’ as she has experienced, or ‘Attica’ cuz an image of Dustin Hoffman popped into my head as I read this story.

  • obloodyhell

    }}} “That’s American politics,”

    No. North Korean politics. Cuban politics. Not American politics.

    And that tells you exactly what kind of politician Hillary actually is.

    Remember that.

  • obloodyhell

    Wait, so, it’s ok to video Romney saying things at a private venue that sound bad, but you can’t even take a PICTURE of Hillary at a semi-public location?

    Ahhhh, yeah.

    “Rules for thee, but not for me…” — It’s the liberal mantra.

  • What Up

    Presumably photography was not allowed in the PRIVATE meeting. Shouldn’t PRIVATE meetings have the option to disallow recording? It’s either delete the photo when they catch someone breaking the rule or they make people turn in their phones and cameras before entering the meeting.