6) or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it. Despite the verbose language in the indictment, a key element of Lawfare, the case is weak. The prosecutors know it.
4) The DOJ is not, repeat NOT, arguing a classified docs case. The entire legal framework is centered around documents they define as vital to the defense security of the United States. EVERYTHING is predicated on this 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) violation: 18 U.S. Code § 793 (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance,
5) or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it,
3) Jack Smith is relying on 18 U.S. Code 793, a law created in 1948 intended to stop contractors to the Defense Dept from stealing, selling, or copying U.S. defense system secrets, or patents on defense products. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 The premise of 31-counts [each an individual document] pertain to “National Defense Security.” The subsequent six counts are predicated around the claimed 793(e) violations.