Unauthorized Removal And Retention Of Classified Documents Or Material
18 U.S.C. 1924
Class: A Misdemeanor
Possible Penalty: Imprisonment for 1 year and/or $100,000 fine
Text: “Knowingly removing materials containing classified information of the United States with the intent to retain said info at an unauthorized location without the authority to do so”
All classified or later classified emails retained on her personal email server and also Huma's Laptop violate this statute. Having a non sanctioned storage device is arguably a violation as well.
There are two issues. Clinton's server, and Abedin's laptop.
Regarding the server, I have bolded a very relevant part of the statute, namely "unauthorized location". It was the FBI's conclusion that as Clinton was the boss, if she directed information to be stored in a particular location, that location was by definition an authorized location. Comey's analysis was that the aforementioned authorized location was damn stupid, but as the law doesn't specifically forbid stupidity, there was nothing prosecutable.
Regarding Abedin's laptop, my understanding is that she was a top Clinton aide, and that therefore she as a person was authorized to receive the emails in question. Nobody seems to be complaining that Abedin was sent those emails, just that they turned up on her laptop. Therefore, I fail to see how their existence on a laptop that Clinton had no control over, or that she even knew existed in any way implicates her in wrongdoing. Also, even if the existence of the laptop emails constitutes a smoking gun that confidential emails went through the Clinton server, see point #1 regarding the fact that setting up the server itself was already not considered to be a prosecutable offense.
Gathering, Transmitting Or Losing Defense Information
18 U.S.C. 793
Possible Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years and/or $250,000 fine
Text: “Allowing [by means of gross negligence] any document relating to the national defense to be removed from its proper place of custody or destroyed –or- willfully retaining unauthorized documents relating to national defense and failing to deliver them to the United States employee entitled to receive them –or- failure to report that unauthorized documents relating to national defense were removed from their proper place of custody or destroyed”
Classified docs on the server and laptop violate this. Her forwarding them to Huma is also a violation as Weiner's personal laptop is not a secure device.
Again, server and laptop.
This one has a new twist for the server. Once again I have bolded the relevant part, with italics on the key phrase. As stated earlier, by definition, the place Clinton directed the emails to be stored was its proper place. Stupid, but not illegal. The twist is that stupidity is a hair's breadth away from negligence. So if by directing that the proper place for documents was a hackable server, and that server was hacked, then she would be guilty of gross negligence in allowing confidential information to be removed from its proper place. However, while there is evidence that there were attempts to hack the server, there is no evidence that anyone was successful. So Clinton was stupid but lucky, and therefore still not prosecutable.
Regarding the laptop, as Abedin was an authorized recipient of the emails, by accessing them on a laptop Weiner had access to, Abedin would be guilty of 18 U.S.C. 793 (had Weiner actually seen the emails), not Clinton.
Concealment, Removal, Or Mutilation Generally
18 U.S.C. 2071
Possible Penalty: Imprisonment of no more than 3 years, a fine, or both
Text: “Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same”
Destruction, Alteration, Or Falsification Of Records In Federal Investigations And Bankruptcy
18 U.S.C. 1519
Possible Penalty: Imprisonment of no more than 20 years, a fine, or both
Text: “Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States”
Wiping the server after the subpoena violates both statutes.
This is a tricky one. Unfortunately, there is a lot of subtle misinformation regarding what actually happened. According to Politifact, the wiping of the server is only a half truth, and the full order of events is important. What had happened was that after turning over emails relevant to the Benghazi investigation, Clinton directed a security company to delete any emails older than 60 days. Then the subpoena happened. Then an employee, unaware of the subpoena, realized that the emails hadn't been deleted as directed, and went ahead and deleted them. Had the emails been deleted when they were supposed to be, they would have been deleted before the subpoena, and therefore not in violation of the cited statutes. At any rate, the FBI determined that due to that timeline, there was no intent to impede an investigation, but rather that the deletions were just a normal part of cleanup after Clinton's tenure as SoS was over. Again, nothing prosecutable.
To say you've never seen anything says you just never read past the tl,dr of any article you saw on it.
To be honest, I had heard people try to claim the espionage act statute (18 U.S.C. 793). I still have not heard any arguments that stand up to scrutiny.