Mark Levin – Hillary Clinton Violated The Espionage Act – Section 793 Penal Code, Could End Up In Prison
h/t Nena S.
Section 793 of the Penal Code, subsection (f) is a problem for Hillary Clinton.
It is very specific in defining the offenses which meet the criteria for a violation and it appears that Ms Clinton has potentially thousands of counts, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands, against her.
Mark Levin read the subsection on air, which states, “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note or information relating to the national defense…” He notes this statute is a portion of the Espionage Act.
Levin continued, “Subset one: ‘through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust or to be lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed.’ Got that? I’ll get to the next section later. I’m hearing on TV: ‘It depends on her intent, it depends on her intent.’ No it doesn’t, not with respect to this, Subsection (f).”
He goes on, “Or two, ‘having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust or lost or stolen or abstracted’ and so forth. So here’s her problem. Subsection one: “through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody’”
“The entire server was not supposed to be, it turns out it’s in her barn,” says Levin. “She has a barn on her property. So any classified information, including top-secret information, which is the highest of the classified information, Code Black top-secret information.
“But let me underscore this again. It really is in plain English. Section 793, you can Google it yourself, of the Penal Code, Subsection (f): ‘Whoever being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book’ and so forth and so on, ‘through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust or to be lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed.”
Levin note that his point is made, when she set up an unsecured server in her barn she was beyond negligent, she deliberately bypassed the security protocols.
He then makes the case allowing her the benefit of the doubt based upon stupidity. He says, “Let’s say you didn’t think or didn’t know that you were intentionally bypassing the process that is used to secure that server and that information, which seems absurd to me, but let’s play along. Okay, if you do it through gross negligence, you permit the same to be removed from its proper place. So I would argue to you, when that server was removed and information was flowing through it, including classified and especially top-secret information, boom. You did it.”
He adds, “And every time that happened, ladies and gentlemen, that’s considered a count. You don’t aggregate it all. Every time that happened, that’s considered a violation of the statute. Now what’s the penalty if you’re found guilty? ‘Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years or both.’”
Levin notes, “I didn’t check the fine, but I’m sure it’s substantial. Ten or 20 grand a violation. Now this is why typically the Justice Department, through the Public Integrity Section or the U.S. attorney’s office, would direct the FBI to get involved because of the potential criminality of what took place regardless of who the person is.”