And if she has a different opinion? If the head of the state department looks at something and decides it doesn’t need to be classified, and 10 years later the head of the CIA looks at it and decides that it does… why do we automatically assume the CIA is making the right call and the head of the state department made the wrong call?
Thus is unambiguously incorrect and anyone with a knowledge of classified handling would know that.
Because she asked him to? Here’s a link to an article describing just such a request, from Hillary to special envoy George Mitchell.
If she cared about doing the right thing with regard to security, shouldn’t she be telling her correspondents not to use her private email? It’s lame to take the position: “Hey, not my responsibility to call attention to a bad practice - they should have known.”
I can confirm this and we’ve had specific training on this - just because we hear something on the news doesn’t mean we can discuss it if it’s classified. And if makes sense… Sometimes the news gets it wrong, and if the info is classified, we don’t want to confirm our deny it.
This is an important point. Depending on the source, it could mean the related activity was deliberate.
Perhaps you’ve missed my point. Would you be satisfied if she had used the @state.gov address that she was supplied with for all of this?
I refer you to post 178, above.
Now the reason for it: The cherry-picked example. Only people directly involved in the specific program or operation would --really --know-- if it was in fact classified and true - an immeasurably small drop in the bucket of people who are now aware of it, but don’t know what it really means or if it is really accurate. So the investigation starts with you and your group.
This point would make sense if she were taking the position that she’d evaluated those 1300+ emails and within her authority as SoS had determined that they should all be treated as unclassified. I’m not aware that she has ever taken that position.
Was she supplied with one? Here’s an article in which a former inspector general (Howard J. Krongard) says she wasn’t:
Presumably one would have been created if she’d wanted one. Would that make you feel better about people sending her “classified” information to an unclassified email account?
You’re flippant reference to post 178 doesn’t change the fact that you made an assertion and you were incorrect. Your flip response in post 178 doesn’t negate that fact either, nor does it accurately reflect on the actual policy with regard to classified information that has been leaked and published.
At the moment, you look like a partisan who has no real, first-hand knowledge re: classified information.
ETA: Perhaps if you provided some cites to back up your assertions, that impression might change.
Sorry you don’t get it. 
Do not violate the rule against claiming other posters are deriving sexual gratfication from their opinions.
[ /Moderating ]
Just to add another point of agreement here. I’ve got multiple clearances (TS from DOE and DoD, plus other lower levels) which decidedly makes me NOT an expert but instead one among tens of thousands with similar clearances. The bottom line is that just because something is public knowledge does NOT make it unclassified.
Personal anecdote to follow: Not long ago I was in a meeting that was shutdown because one person in attendance did not have the proper clearance to see the information being presented. Which kind of killed the meeting, since the person without proper clearance was also the person giving the presentation - with information he obtained from . . . . wait for it . . . . Google. While each individual bit of information that he used was in fact publicly available, 2 things were at issue. 1 - some of what he pulled from Google was in fact still classified, despite being publicly available. But 2 - some of the information independently was not classified, but taken in aggregate - became classified. That is - you can create a classified document simply by putting together bits of information which themselves aren’t classified, but together paint a picture that is (or should be) classified.
Bolding added. You’re still relatively new here, so let me be clear. This is the kind of statement that requires a cite. Why are you unwilling or unable to provide one?
We could have a clearer idea of what sort of risks she took with classified into if we knew what the classified info was. Which is, of course, classified.
LOL, that is a very specific rule! 
[Maxwell Smart]
Would you believe I meant some other sort of gratification, besides sexual?
[/Maxwell Smart]
No? Okay. My apologies.
Apparently you cannot read for comprehension.
I said:
You can play the ‘But it wasn’t classified at that time’ crap all you want. It is bullshit put forward by a liar to get ignorant people to ignore her stunningly stupid actions.
I note that you keep harping on the ‘classified at that time’ piece while totally ignoring that some of the information was classified as soon as it was created. Talent Keyhole and other TS program information is by default classified. Period. There is no question about this. It is classified by its very nature and anyone with the clearance to receive the information damned well ought to know that.
And here is a rather simple question. Do you believe that the official email account used by the Secretary of State is likely to receive classified information on a regular basis?
Slee