Since the issue is continuing to haunt her in the final days, as sick and tired as we all are of hearing about Hillary's e-mails, some basic facts need to be made clear.
Cross posted from the Hillary thread:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cass ... hief-forum
She didn't point those things out because she was cut off. On top of that she was criticized for even trying to clarify as much as she did and it was dismissed as 'defensive' and 'legalistic.' How else could she have answered the question?Clinton, of course, has also made some statements in the past that have turned out to be incomplete or downright false. At the start of the forum, Lauer spent quite a lot of time grilling Clinton about her private e-mail server, and whether she had mishandled classified information, subjects on which Clinton’s language has, shall we say, evolved. She insisted that none of the e-mails she sent or received as Secretary of State had a proper classified header. But she didn’t point out—as the Washington Post’s Fact Checker column did—that, according to James Comey, the director of the F.B.I., three e-mails sent to her server bore the marking “(c),” which stood for “confidential.”
Comey answered a question from one of the GOP committee members. Did Clinton say there was no classified information included in e-mails that were sent and received on her server. The answer was 'yes.' Was there classified information included in e-mails sent and received on her private server. He answered 'yes.' However at different times, he answered questions from Dem committee members that qualified those answers and that is not what is being made clear to the public. Some of what has since been 'upclassified' was not marked as such when it was sent and recieved. It was 'upclassified' when sent to different agencies and each has it own rules for classification. It is not uniform across the government.
Then, the were the infamous three e-mails that contained the (c) for 'confidential' markings that the State Department said were left in messages but should have been taken out before they were sent to the Secretary. However, those messages did not have the headers and footers that would have indicated that the message contained confidential information. Without those stamps, the internal (c) before a paragraph could have been taken for other purposes.
This is the sort of thing that people who handle classified information would know. This is why the FBI and Comey came to the conclusion that the was no intentional mishandling of classified information.
What is unclear to me (and I doubt we will find out anytime soon if ever) is how serious was the breech if there was one of any consequence with information that was later 'upclassified.' Of course we can't know or find out because it is now classified and no one can talk about it. So, that leaves openings for all kinds of claims of incompetence, negligence, extreme carelessness, etc. against which it is impossible to defend.