Obviously, my preamble is tongue in cheek. No one cares about William Roebuck. Thus David Shuster call them the "Clinton e-mails." Well, the e-maiis in question are NOT the "Clinton e-mails." In particular the "TOP SECRET" e-mail was from Roebuck.
So what's Shuster's theory? His theory is
18 US Section 1924:
18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
(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.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
© In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security. [My emphasis]
A simple reading of the statute demonstrates that Clinton is not implicated at all.
1. Clinton "knowingly removed" nothing. Hell, she didn't "unknowingly remove" anything. She was the recipient not the sender.
2. None of the information was "determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security." at the time of removal.
3. As Secretary of State, Clinton could have determined the information was not classified and removed it. She had that power.
Now, it didn't take much more than reading the statute to figure this out. Shuster apparently could not do that.
So is Roebuck in trouble here? Of course not, unless some crazy Special Prosecutor is appointed, in which case well, yes he could be in trouble because politics does not care who is destroyed.
The Media and the politics take the innocent and the not so innocent alike. This is an untold part of the despicable insanity that is EGhazi.