No way out of what? The Congressional testimony today lets the air out of all your tires. And I'd quit barking up this tree were I you - you're basically going back on all your intent arguments from before. Let's review:

I think you're misremembering the argument. Clinton didn't commit a crime because she received the information. She wasn't the one to remove it from where it was supposed to be. The relevant statutes don't criminalize the stuff you mentioned - if someone has clearance to possess classified information, it is not a crime to possess it outside of a secure facility as long as you're not the one who removed it from the secure locations. Only the removal, not the possession, is criminalized - unless you retain it after being asked for it back:

albaby1 replies on What needs to happen next

Regardless, it doesn't matter whether you agree with my position on that law or not - under your interpretation of the law, it would be a crime not just for Waltz and Hegseth to send classified or national security information on Signal, but for Rubio and Wiles and everyone else to receive it.

Ratcliffe says Signal came installed on his machine. Signal is encrypted. Therefore, somebody thinks that Signal is okay for officials to talk.
All of them said there was no classified information in the chat. No classified info, no crime.

Again, only Gabbard and Ratcliffe said the information wasn't classified - but it's not information generated by their agency, so it's not their call. Even if the information wasn't marked or designated classified, it can still be classified even without the designation. And it doesn't matter whether it's classified, because it is illegal to disseminate national defense information this way, regardless of classification status.

It will be interesting to see if the Administration reveals the contents of the chat - or if the President and/or DoD confirms that the information is not classified.