Hillary Sets New Legal Standard of ‘Vast Majority’ To Excuse Breaking Law

Hillary Clinton said a lot of specious things during the Tuesday press conference where she was forced to answer to why she used a private email system instead of the proper government email when she was Secretary of State. But one thing she said was important because she essentially set a new legal standard of “almost” fulfilling the law and maintained that it excused her for violations.

During her press conference, Hillary essentially maintained that she *almost* obeyed the law and since she *mostly* did, why, heck, she should be excused for any further violations.

Here is what she said during her presser:

Second, the vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department.

See, America. Since she gave “the vast majority” of her emails to the government, why, that must mean she is off the hook.

It doesn’t matter if any of that “vast majority” was relevant to the most sensitive emails being sought. It doesn’t matter if those emails that are important and hold key information fall outside of that “vast majority.” No, the fact that she gave *most* of the emails to the government is all she needs to satisfy the law.

Hillary has just set a new legal standard of “the vast majority.” Going forward in America you will now get credit for being mostly law-abiding, sort of following the law, almost legal, kind of correct.

America, we no longer have to do our utmost, we no longer have to fulfill every last requirement to be hailed as “the smartest person in the world.”

“The vast majority” of anything is now good enough to escape any punishment or blame.

Hillary’s is now the legal standard you can use in your own private life from this point forward.

Try these new legal defenses at home:

  • Gee, Internal Revenue Service, why, I paid “the vast majority” of my taxes, so I should be excused from paying the remainder.
  • Heck, officer, I have obeyed “the vast majority” of the speed limits, so I don’t deserve this ticket.
  • But, teacher, I got “the vast majority” of these answers right, so I should get an automatic “A” on this test.
  • But, boss, I have been on time for “the vast majority” of my clock in times, so you shouldn’t ding me for being late today.
  • But, honey, I haven’t had sex with “the vast majority” of women, so you must excuse my mistress (Bill has already used this one, apparently).
  • But, your honor, I haven’t killed “the vast majority” of people, so one murder is no big deal… is it?

I am hopeful you won’t ever need that last excuse, but, you know, it’s there just in case.

When Caught, Blame Alcohol
Federal Judge Dismisses Atheist Group's Lawsuit
  • Plinytherecent

    A more interesting revelation is her claim that no significant security breach could have occurred since she received no classified or sensitive policy emails as Secretary of State. The clear indication of that is that she really didn’t do anything but rack up flight miles during her entire tenure.

    • Commander_Chico

      Classified emails are on separate systems not connected to the internet. They are not the emails in question.

      • jim_m

        Regardless of what, systems exist and how they are supposed to be used, I think we have to assume that hillary used none of them and instead committed a felony by using her system instead.

        • Commander_Chico

          No, there’s no law against it.

          Government employees use non-government email accounts to communicate business. In the State Department context, if you don’t have a fob on you and you’re away from a diplomatic post, you can’t access your email.

          • jim_m

            The difference is that officials like Hillary are required by the records act to preserve their communications and she did not.. In fact not only did she fail to do so but she set up her email on a server that she controlled so that she could determine what emails would be preserved.
            Her lame excuse that it was too difficult is pure BS. Since we know that she deleted over 30,000 emails it could not possibly be easier to go through 30,000 emails to determine whether or not they should be saved than to have saved them on a government server.
            You’re making excuses for her felonious actions.

      • The closer we look, the worse it gets – which is why it really worries me that there’s so many insisting there’s nothing to look at.

        It’s like someone continually telling you they’re honest – even when they have no real need to. Odds are that they’re looking to rip you off some way or another. (Thinks about stereo lost to girlfriend who ‘borrowed’ it, then ‘had’ to pawn it in another city.)

        The more they insist, the more suspicious I get.

        • Commander_Chico

          It all goes back to Martin Lomasney’s advice:

          Never write when you can speak.
          Never speak when you can wink.
          Never wink when you can nod.

          In the past, a lot of messy business was only discussed face-to-face or by phone. People didn’t write letters about it.

          I don’t think this will be let go of that easily, but I haven’t seen any basic analysis of the facts showing a rudimentary understanding of the systems involved and the law.

          • Commander_Chico

            That just convinced me that Hillary is more of an idiot than I thought.

            First, what an ass-kissing email from Sidney Blumenthal. But nothing surprising.

            Second, in the analysis, noting that Hillary is a lawyer, shouldn’t a lawyer be able to contain her communications and at least appear to play it straight?

            She could have fired away to Huma and who knows who else, Carville, on her @clintonemail.com about the political scheming, while playing it straight on her @state.gov email about embassy construction budgets.

            After all, her unclassified official emails should have been pretty bland anyways. And classified emails are, well, classified until declassified in 2045 or so.

            I think this might take her down. O’Malley is already dogging her on it.

          • Yeah, it’s not looking too good.

            You or I would already be in jail, I think. The only thing really ‘protecting’ her is the Clinton status, but I think that’s wearing pretty thin at this point.

          • Commander_Chico

            I don’t know what the law is, I never heard of a law that prevents government employees from using personal emails for government business. If there is a law, it probably requires a specific intent to conceal, which is tough to prove.

            She will suffer the proper sanction, which is never being president.

            I don’t know if that guy you linked to understands the class / unclass distinction. Any device receiving classified traffic can’t access unclass traffic, and vice versa, as you know.

          • jim_m

            Email is covered by the Federal Records Act of 1950
            Proper sanction would be the federal pen for committing a felony. It’s what you or I would get.

          • Commander_Chico

            Except no criminal penalty in that law.

          • Retired military

            ” Any device receiving classified traffic can’t access unclass traffic, and vice versa, as you know.”
            Baloney. A classified system can receive stuff that is unclassified. An unclassified system SHOULD NOT receive stuff that is classified. If it does than it is immediately considered a classified system and has to have appropriate security measures in place. The only thing is that instead of upgrading the system the security folks normally just unplug the thing and destroy it accordingly as it is easier.
            Unclassified email on a classified system isn’t much of an issue. Classified email on an unclass system is a big problem.
            Another scenario would be a USB drive. You take a unclass usb drive and plug it into a classified system and the USB is automatically classified as high as the system and has to be treated as such. Even if it just has the lunch menu on it, Most of the govt is forbidden from using USB drives BTW.
            Take a TS usb Drive and plug it into an unclass laptop and that laptop is automatically supposed to be treated as TS. The security folks would normally just dispose of it though instead of adding the additional security measures on it to keep using it.

          • Commander_Chico

            By “traffic” I mean live emails through the internet and classified networks. You can’t send an email from a SIPR account to Yahoo, or vice versa, as I explained below before you wrote this.

          • I know that where we are that if it’s Company business it goes out on the Company email system. In the AF, if it was for the AF, it went out on your .mil address. Hard to think that it’d be different for State…

            As far as the Class/Unclass distinction goes, you’re mixing (I think) ‘can’t’ with ‘shouldn’t’. The networks MUST remain separate, but as RM points out Thumb Drives are everywhere.

            The link goes to a guy who specializes in (for lack of a better, immediate term) forensic computerized document discovery. He’s pointing out that…

            We have no idea where the server actually IS.

            (Looks at red flag, surrounded by flares, illuminated by 4 10KW searchlights.)

            That ain’t right.

            And in closing…

            The alternative explanation is that this did, in fact, happen — that is, sometime just prior to HRC being confirmed at SecState, WJC got a brand new server — possibly even in anticipation of HRC’s confirmation. In terms of timeline, this might tie into the block of static IP addresses registered to ‘Eric Hoteham’ in February 2008, one of which shows up as being associated with mail.clintonemail.com for five months in 2010 (see my post here). Or it might not. It could be that the server was replaced (“additional upgrades”) during the course of those four years. We just don’t know, because HRC refuses to given any details or explanations about the private server from which she (by her own admission) sent over 30,000 e-mails directly related to her position as U.S. Secretary of State, or about the actual internet connection it used, or about the security protections on it, or about anything else related to it.

            Now, HRC states that she has deleted all the “personal” e-mails on the server — apparently without ever reading them. Since she negotiated and turned over printouts of another 30,000+ e-mails related to her time as SecState, I suspect they are no longer on the server, either. So what is left on the server? Probably nothing, outside of the operating system and some applications. (Hopefully, no web browsers; as I mentioned in an earlier post on this subject, browsing the internet directly from a ‘protected’ server is a very bad idea.) There are plenty of free and commercial utilities to “clean up” a computer system — delete system log files, update and/or clear out file metadata, remove “deleted file” information from system directories, and wipe clean unallocated disk space on the hard drive(s) to prevent forensic recovery of files. I suspect all that has been done, and was done months ago.

            She gave PRINTOUTS of emails.

            Printouts. In this day and age.

            No, she’s got nothing to hide. Nothing at all.

            And if they ever DO locate that server, that thing will be as sanitized as can be.

    • Constitution First

      We don’t get to make our own rules as we go along, we don’t get to make rulings when we are players on the field… to that end, co-mingling your personal and private emails is like co-mingling funds for a non-profit, it is all suspect until an unbiased third party sorts it all out.

  • WHO’S THE BUSTER

    I wonder if the right would much rather run against Hillary than the field, even if there is no apparent options at the moment.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      If the Rs nominate Jeb, I doubt that it will matter who the Ds run – and the it’s Jeb v Hillary, I doubt that it will matter who wins. Don’t get me wrong, I think Jeb is honorable, while I don’t think that of Hillary. But policies to be initiated? In the end, I doubt that they’d be that different.

      • If the choice for most Americans is the first woman pres (Hillary) and another Bush (Jeb), Hillary will win in a landslide.

        • WHO’S THE BUSTER

          I don’t think Hillary will ultimately run and Bush simply can’t win, through no fault of his own or his Father’s. He will not have vigorous support from his own party and will not garner any votes from the middle.
          I have no idea who the nominees will be, but if I was a gambler (and I am), in both cases I would take the field

          • Well, we had a young male, easy on the eyes (if you like that sort of thing), very charismatic, minimal actual experience.

            I don’t think he’s worked out all that well, myself.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            I am merely suggesting who might have the best chance of winning.

            The GOP primaries, however, never disappoint, when it comes to entertainment.

            Of course, if Hillary is no longer considered a viable candidate there might be an interesting and varied group that might emerge. Nothing more fun than 10 or 12 candidates in a Battle Royale.

            The GOP is simply more fun because you have the Pauls (never dull), the extreme right wing, such as Santorum or Huckabee, as well as many others that reside on either end of the spectrum. I am not sure, however, who might fill the “crazy” slot that has been held down admirably by Michelle Bachman over the last decade. Those are some big shoes (or heels) to fill.

          • You know, you’ve got a point on the DNC Battle Royale. Let’s see Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and O’Malley in a cage match. Last one standing without using a walker (Oh, wait, is that ageist? 😉 ) wins the preliminaries and goes on to the Primaries.

      • Commander_Chico

        Yep, slavish obedience to Wall Street, looting Social Security, and war with Iran.

        • You’d get that with either, so no difference…

          • Commander_Chico

            Yep, that’s what I mean.

          • Jwb10001

            But you think Jim Webb (professional politician) would some how magically be different……

          • Commander_Chico

            Professional politician? Yeah, aside from being a highly decorated combat Marine, best-selling novelist, war zone journalist, lawyer, Assist Sec. of Defense and Secretary of the Navy, yes.

  • Retired military

    Bush gets beat up by the left for not knowing whether or not Iraq had WMD despite most of the competent intelligence agencies in the world, Bill and Hilllary, and a whole host of dems saying so.
    The press gives OBama and Hillary cover fire when they cant even give a straight answer on whether they emailed each other or not over a 4 year period when one was Sec State and the other was POTUS.

    • Commander_Chico

      Are you making some kind of comparison or analogy there, saying the errors and lies were equivalent? If so, it’s one of the most retarded ones ever.

      However much Hillary is full of shit on her email explanations, it did not cost the USA more than 4000 dead, tens of thousands maimed and with PTSD and TBI, and more than a trillion dollars.

      I’m surprised a veteran would be so dismissive of the cost of the Iraq war.

      • jim_m

        The difference is that the one may be a mistake but many issues from Clinton and Obama are clear evidence of unethical and corrupt behavior.

      • Retired military

        Cheeko

        I am comparing 2 incidents and showing the hypocracy of the MSM media and the left in general.

        Incident 1. A President acted on
        intelligence from several nations intelligence agencies. An action
        sanctioned by Congress to include Hillary Clinton as Senator. For that he
        has been pilloried by you and the liberal left for years.
        Incident 2. A
        President and a Sec of State who cant even get their story straight on
        whether they emailed each other during a 4 year period.
        Incident number 2
        is being downplayed by the media and Clinton is receiving cover fire from the
        left.
        This incident involves State department emails kept on a private server
        and according to reports could have been hacked by numerous enemy states
        very
        easily. Emails which very likely contained information which could
        have gotten US soldiers killed. Of course you never mention the deaths
        while your butt buddy Obama has been POTUS. Instead you and the majority of the left want to call Bush incompetent when Barry and Hillary cant even tell believeable lies about not emailing each other.

        How F*CKING STUPID CAN YOU
        BE? Forget I asked that as you have demonstrated amply that there is no
        stupidity limit for you.

        You said above that the server wasn’t connected
        to the internet. Really?
        How did emails go back and forth? Via unicorn
        farts? Hey once Clinton deleted them I am sure that Obama recycled them for
        green energy.
        If the DOD can send emails back and forth (and by inference
        other data) without using the internet why are they spending millions on
        security to prevent hacking via the
        internet?

        Even you Cheeko are saying her story is bullshit

        Also from the press conference

        QUESTION: Were you ever –were you ever specifically briefed on the security implications of using — using your own email server and using your personal
        address to email with the president?
        CLINTON: I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email There is no classified material.
        So I’m certainly well-aware of the classification
        requirements and did not send classified material.

        Notice she didn’t say anything about receiving classified information. Just that she claims she never sent any.

        From the NY TIMES (that bastion of the vast right wing conspiracy)

        “I would assume that more than 50 percent of what the secretary of state dealt with was classified,” said an
        unnamed former official who spoke to The New York Times on the condition of anonymity. “Was every single email of the secretary of state completely unclassified? Maybe, but it’s hard to imagine.”

        http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-private-email-plan-drew-concerns-early-on-1426117692

        Mrs. Clinton took office in January 2009 and began using her private email ystem for both work and personal matters. Her office said the system used
        “robust protections” and “additional upgrades and techniques employed over ime as they became available.”

        Kevin Bocek, a vice president at the Internet security company Venafi, said he Clinton server was encrypting data it sent and received as of March 29,2009, about two months after she took office, based on a search he did of nternet records. During the first two months of
        her tenure, however, it oesn’t appear that Mrs. Clinton’s email had such protections, Mr. Bocek aid.

        Gee 2 months with no encryption at all. The SEC of State email accounts ae among the biggest target in the world and yet no encryption for 2 months nd apparently no govt oversite after that. Who did she have set up the robust protection”? Of course, we
        will never know

        Another example of leftist hypocracy.
        “A few weeks ago it was beyond the pale of
        decency to ask if Obama oves America, but today it’s fine to call 47 Republican senators traitors”
        – author unknown
        We look forward to your Hillary praising posts in 2017 (no matter who gets elected) as we link back to these posts where you bash her trying to pretend you wont vote for her.
        We will have to add Option G.
        Hillary may be bad but XXXXX was worse.

        • Commander_Chico

          It’s now clear that President Cheney ordered the CIA and DOD to produce the evidence – which was bullshit. The UN inspectors led by Hans Blix were telling to world that Iraq had none.

  • Can we put a number on this? I really want to know how much of my taxes would be close enough for government work.

  • LiberalNightmare

    I wonder how long it will before her hard drive crashes,

    • Oh, I’d say it probably has already.

      But luckily, before it did (but AFTER she’d deleted the emails and compacted her folders) they cloned the drive out to a new SSD drive.

      And for security purposes, they had to destroy the old drive. But they saved the pieces.

      (Plops down baggie full of tiny metal fragments onto desk.)

  • Commander_Chico

    As I said before, her explanation is utterly bullshit on her own terms, because she could have accessed her unclassified State Dept emails on her own laptop with a fob coding token.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      I think it’s worse than originally thought. The e-mails were not read, but instead were searched for keywords. No keywords? Deleted:

      “She commissioned a review of the 62,320 messages in her account only after the department–spurred by the congressional investigation–asked her to do so. And this review did not involve opening and reading each email; instead, Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache–31,830 emails–did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be “private, personal records.”
      http://time.com/3741847/the-clinton-way/

      There is also a report at Ace of Spades [have no idea as to validity] that only access to the server was encrypted, not e-mails coming in and going out.

      Apparently she used her own private Blackberry device, despite the fact that there was available a government issued, highly secure Blackberry available: “Psaki also told reporters that Clinton was not issued an official State Department BlackBerry and had used her own personal, not secure device. Psaki told reporters it was not a requirement even if it was the Secretary of State who would have communications that would need a high level of security. When asked why the State Department would not want to control the level of security of their employees’ devices, Psaki reiterated that it was not a requirement of the State Department to issue official devices at the time but was unfamiliar as to that was still the case.”

      http://freebeacon.com/national-security/state-dept-hillary-clinton-was-never-issued-govt-phone-only-used-personal-device/

      • Commander_Chico

        Yeah but if she was using her own Blackberry, she wasn’t getting classified traffic on it. The domains are entirely separate. You can’t forward an unclass email to a classified address, and vice versa. Any transfer of information has to be done physically with a usb drive, and only legally from unclass to class under supervision of IT folks. Otherwise you’re doing what Bradley/Chelsea Manning did. Once a device touches the classified system, it’s classified.

        • jim_m

          Look dumbass. She could send classified information on her own email account thereby completely circumventing any security measures that might otherwise be in place.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yeah, anyone with access can do that. If she did, it will come out.

            So far, the issue so far is not security, it’s a public records and transparency issue on things like procurement and personnel.

            Funny how you can throw your epithets around when you know nothing about this.

          • jim_m

            The point is that since she used this email exclusively and that she could not have been doing her job without transmitting classified info, we can assume that she did so in violation of the law.

            Or is you claim that she did no work for 4 years?

          • Commander_Chico

            She might have had a classified email. That would be outside the scope of any FOIA request. At her level, a lot of the reporting is done by aides. Most of the work of a Secretary of State is talking face-to-face

          • jim_m

            The word is that she conducted ALL her email on that account and that there was nothing done anywhere else. Her own comment was that 2 accounts were too difficult to manage.

  • Brucehenry

    This is the second time in the last couple of days that I’ve seen Hillary described, ironically, as “the smartest person in the world,” as if anyone has ever made that claim. You put it in scare quotes as if someone has actually made the claim. Who has said that?

    • jim_m

      Indeed. We all know that Barry is the smartest person in the world.

    • Well, there’s this. Admittedly, ‘smartest in Washington’ is a pretty low bar these days…

      http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2012/12/17/stop-talking-about-hillary-clintons-hair

      “Never mind being one of the smartest and hardest-working women in government. She’s one of the smartest and hardest-working people in government.”

      http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/13/hillary-clinton-doesnt-know-when-to-stop/

      “It’s hard to dispute that Hillary Clinton is the smartest person in most rooms. That’s why The Times editorial board endorsed her in the Democratic primary in 2008 over Barack Obama.”

      But people keep confusing ‘cunning’ and ‘opportunistic’ with ‘smart’. Kind of wish they’d quit that…

      • Jwb10001

        No you’re wrong Bruce said so. SHUT UP! I know Bruce that’s not exactly what you said but still, come on you’d have to live under a rock to have never heard the objective press identify her as the smartest person in the room, in DC blah blah blah. Surely some objective reporter like George Steponmydickalot has said she’s the smartest person in the world, objectively of course.

      • Jwb10001

        No you’re wrong Bruce said so. SHUT UP! I know Bruce that’s not exactly what you said but still, come on you’d have to live under a rock to have never heard the objective press identify her as the smartest person in the room, in DC blah blah blah. Surely some objective reporter like George Steponmydickalot has said she’s the smartest person in the world, objectively of course.

    • Retired military

      Bruce

      That “quote” has been around for years. I put “quote” in quotes because I couldn’t find the original exact statement.

      You can find references to it back in the mid 90s and as you know things aren’t as documented on the web back then as they are now .

      1997

      http://articles.herald-mail.com/1997-06-05/news/25096633_1_lethal-injection-
      electric-chair-timothy-mcveigh

      How about this unanimous Supreme Court decision 9-0 that Bubba Clinton was never above the law? I’m so elated by the news that Bubba will soon have his day in court which Paula Jones is making possible. Of course, we Democrats
      know he is not guilty of anything. The best news for the future is that the smartest woman in the world, Mrs. Hillary Clinton, will be indicted in September by Mr. Starr. 1997 will be a banner year to remember. Oh, it’s neat to be alive.”

      http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/duane-w.-bailey

      Mrs. Clinton, once thought by many to be the smartest woman in the world, can’t remember much about her experience at the Rose Law Firm or about its files.
      Vice President Gore has a particularly weak memory for small numbers ”

      Dan Rostenkowski is supposed to have been the originator

      http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1999-07-16/news/9907150339_1_clinton-senator-inhabit
      woman
      once described by former U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee Chairman and convicted felon Dan Rostenkowski as “the smartest woman in the world” will be shown to be weak and, thus, finished as a
      national political figure

      https://books.google.com/books?id=cgdzAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=%22Dan+Rost
      enkowski+%22+%22smartest%22+clinton&source=bl&ots=rE_kVe-4jb&sig=afla0mBtVCi
      iZc2vGzhPjNEyu_c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nqABVanbH8rfoASF7ILABQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onep
      age&q=%22Dan%20Rostenkowski%20%22%20%22smartest%22%20clinton&f=false

      http://www.worldmag.com/1999/07/a_drop_in_candidacy

      I apologize for the formatting.

  • Vagabond661

    Nixon “almost” turned over the all the tapes. It was just 18 minutes after all…

  • Vagabond661

    Nixon “almost” turned over the all the tapes. It was just 18 minutes after all…

  • IndigoRed

    Even the raw numbers she used for “vast majority” is specious. When did the approx. 30,000 emails become a “vast majority” over the remainder of approx. 31,000 deleted emails?

    • Retired military

      It all depends on what the meaning of the word is IS

  • It’s looking worse and worse. She was supposed to sign a form stating she turned over EVERYTHING – and apparently it wasn’t HER decision to make whether the emails/documents were FOUO, Unclassified, Secret, TS, or whatever.

    Video here is informative.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/12/hackers-probing-clinton-server-cite-security-lapses/

    And this – if she said she turned over everything, but didn’t, she’s in deep, deep kimchee.

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/031215-743195-did-hillary-clinton-sign-form-of-109.htm