No. of Recommendations: 1
With Clinton, there's no way they could have proved one of the elements of this statute: to wit, the requirement that the person "knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority." This crime can't be committed just by having possession of or receiving classified information in an unauthorized location. You have to have also removed them from where they were supposed to be.
You've argued this for years, but you have no idea how all that classified material got on her server in the first place.
Ask yourself this. Did Huma have the same security clearances Hillary! did? Did any of her staff? The answers are NO and NO.
So who put the material there? Had to have been...Herself.
But these are emails. These are things that were sent to her, by other people. Any classified information that was appended to or included in the emails would have been removed from their proper location by the sender, not Clinton (as the recipient).
You can't send that kind of material from a classified network to an unclass network.
When you have access to that kind of material, you can only send it to people who are inside that particular network. Someone has to remove it and put it someplace else.
There are two elements of that crime that can't be met if you want to prosecute Clinton: "knowingly" and "department or agency." The first, because Clinton claims - with corroborating witnesses - that she gave the order to delete the emails on her server before the Congressional subpoena was issued, and thus did not have knowledge that those materials (or any materials) were being sought for an investigation. The second, because Congress isn't a department or agency - so their investigations don't trigger this statute (or any duty to preserve documents).
That's hilarious.
