Page 35 - 793 News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

I think anything under the espionage act which is section 793f of 18 united states code could be justified. >> a trump administration could open this case and relook at these charges. however petty that might seem to some. >> with whittaker in and mcgahn out, our big question is what happens when there's no one else left to tell the president no? joining me kelly o' donell who joins us from west palm beach and kimberly atkins and chuck rosenburg. kelly, has the white house commented on this report? >> reporter: still no comment from the white house on this. it is in some ways not

Really horrible idea, then maybe it went further. then we get into ethical issues, and then we get into potentially impeachable offenses. remember, impeachable offenses need not be crimes. a very popular one is abuse of power. it's been used in the past, and it does not correlate with any particular crime. >> one person who apparently might support a prosecution of at least hillary clinton, the acting attorney general. this is what matt whitaker, this is what he wrote in an ed editorial. this is 2016. kw quote, i would indict hillary clinton, and he was quite vocal about it on tv and radio as ...

Obama lost, gregg, six seats in the senate but 63 house seats. he fought to keep the senate ass hard as he did. it's rather profound now because all of the threats that thee democrats are making, all of this would move right over to the u.s. senate, wouldn't it? >> and lindsey graham is the perfect person to conduct the investigation. because he knows there is aa plethora of evidence that there was an illicit scheme by the fbi and department of justice to clear hillary clinton and frame donald trump. he would reopen the hillary clinton email case -- you know, it's a crime for ann fbi director ...

>> why was the change made? >> my recollection, sir, and i'm not an attorney, my recollection was that attorneys within the fbi had raised the concern that the use of "gross negligence" triggered a very specific legal meaning. >> criminal. criminal. >> exactly right, in a legal context, "grossly negligent" is used in various statutes, particularly one of the mishandling statutes in 793, to talk about a criminal -- element of the criminal offense. sir, if i may, quick, i promise -- >> this change was hillary's get out of jail free card, right? >> absolutely not, sir. >> well, hillary hasn't bee...

Messages in roughly the same time period. >> you were an assistant united states attorney for eight years, is that correct? >> correct. >> in that time did you ever charge any espionage case or 793f? >> i did not. >> i'm trying to understand the need for intent. people never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence, right? >> correct. >> so some courts have stated that willful blindness satisfies the requirement of knowledge. for example, this happens in cases where a defendant is transporting a package containing narcotics. courts have never allowed the defendant to claim he ...