Must really kill you to know no jury would ever convict beyond a reasonable doubt she "knowingly and willfully..." blah blah classified info.
Especially when the info was labeled classified years after the fact.
Were the emails marked classified? If so then she definitely was KNOWING and willful.
Kee-rist. How many times does this need to be said?
NO> They were not classified. They were labeled upgraded to classified
years after the fact.
OK you win. Mrs. Clinton doesn't know a classified document from a hole in the ground. Agreed she is that ignorant.
...
You started out so well too. Then jumped into stoopidland.
Nonetheless,It might behoove you to read this article
. I can only post a portion due to copyright rules, but it would help you understand a good deal more so you don't look like you have no idea what you're talking about.
Five myths about classified information - The Washington Post
1. Information can be “classified,” even if no one has classified it.
"Many news reports and commentators have suggested that “information is classified by (its) nature” (as Sean Davis writes in The Federalist), even if no agency or official has classified it yet. These accounts treat “classified” as a quality rather than an action — one that is inherent, immutable and self-evident. If information is sensitive enough, it’s classified, no matter what.
When it comes to “original classification” — the initial decision to classify information — that portrayal is simply wrong. Under the executive order that governs classification, the 2,000-plus officials who have this authority “may” classify information if its disclosure reasonably could be expected to damage national security. The determination of harm is often highly subjective, and even if an official decides that disclosure would be harmful, he or she is not required to classify.
Information provided by foreign governments in confidence is different. The executive order cautions that the release of such information is “presumed” to harm national security; agency rules provide that such information “must be classified.” There is a difference, however, between “must be classified” and “is classified.” After all, when an official receives information, its source and the circumstances of its disclosure may not be apparent. This category of information is not self-identifying, let alone self-classifying.
....
2. It’s easy to figure out whether information has been classified.
There is a common refrain that Clinton “should have known” there was classified information in emails she got, even if it wasn't marked.
3. Anything classified is sensitive.
<snip>...The result is massive overclassification.
4. Any mishandling of classified information is illegal.
5. Our classification system protects us from harm.
