You will deny it all: Comey stated as fact they found SAP marked data AT THE TIME IT WAS SENT: Therefore... 1924 (a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. Even Bill knew what was up: "On his last day in office, President Bill Clinton pardoned former CIA Director John Deutch who had committed similar violations. Deutch left the CIA on December 15, 1996 and soon after it was revealed that several of his laptop computers contained classified materials. In January 1997, the CIA began a formal security investigation of the matter. Senior management at CIA declined to fully pursue the security breach. Over two years after his departure, the matter was referred to the Department of Justice, where Attorney General Janet Reno declined prosecution. She did, however, recommend an investigation to determine whether Deutch should retain his security clearance." "All Deutch did was to take some classified material home with him to work on his unsecured personal laptops that were connected to his home commercial internet. In other words, pretty much what Hillary did on a much larger scale." Further: 44 U.S. Code § 3106 - Unlawful removal, destruction of records Executive Order 13526 - Classified National Security Information She also failed to comply with: 10 U.S. Code § 119 - Special access programs: congressional oversight You can even add the records act of 1950 as Emails are records. Though as you see above, Bill let it slide too. She deleted work emails. Proven fact.
Nope. You've been busted on that one before. No serious legal expert ever expected her to be indicted for its violation, and no serious legal expert ever expressed that she should be indicted for its violation. For a prosecution, the Justice Department would have to prove she "knowingly" removed "classified information" to an "unauthorized location" "without authority". Not only would each and every one of those stipulations fail in court, the Supreme Court many years ago made the burden of prosecution even tougher: a violation requires actual INTENT to injure or compromise the security of the United States. Wrong again, bucko. That statute prohibits the destruction of Federal records, not private emails. Comey testified that he found no evidence that Clinton destroyed anything but personal emails, and also testified that she didn't lie about it. Three strikes and you're out. EO 13526 is not a criminal statute, and in order for it to be violated Clinton would have had to ignore a directive from the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, after being given an opportunity to make corrections. There were no such directives. At the very most, violation of EO 13526 results in sanctions, not criminal prosecution.
That isn't what you asked. You asked what statues were broken. i don't mind running circles around you. People need a daily reminder how unobjective you really are.
