Well, I don't have a security clearance and I never worked at State, so I'll need to go by what's reported in the news. You could go with a lying, slug POS like Tucker Carlson:
Everyone in Washington knows, and it is a fact, that information is never retroactively classified. That's just not true. Ask anybody in the intel community. (
video source see 1:43)
Douchey nods vigorously and say's "That's right."
Or you might decide to go with institutions like
NPR and
WaPo:
The White House said after the release that the FBI had determined that
previously unclassified material in the emails needed to be classified on later review; spokesman Josh Earnest said such a decision isn't uncommon. — "
Some Clinton Emails Were Retroactively Classified," May 22, 2015
So how could information sent on an unclassified system turn out to be "top secret"? The answer is easy — when State Department officials review it in response to a request for public release.
"
State's upgrading process is retroactive,” said one congressional aide. “It's not a sign of wrongdoing but rather the normal process used by State under all administrations before unclassified documents are made public (usually via FOIA).
Often an unclassified email will be retroactively classified to protect foreign and diplomatic communications, for example." — "
How did 'top secret' emails end up on Hillary Clinton's server?" Feb 4, 2016
My understanding is that a lot of these emails were from the traitor and established terrorist sympathizer, Sidney Blumenthal. My guess is that Clinton wanted to hide those communications from the reactionary pigs that have been after her and her husband for the last twenty-five years. My thought is that I wanted her to be able to get Blumenthal's unvarnished advice, without having to wonder if the sluts at Faux News or Judicial Wretch or some other right-wing lie-tank was gonna get at them.
Her server may have been hacked. Didn't Kerry say that State's system is frequently attacked as well, and may have been compromised? Is the gubmint's system any more secure?
>>There are also possible ethics violations in using a private server and email accounts to hide information from FOIA requests.
Was that her intent? People compare her situation to Petraeus's. My understanding is that he
did intend to violate the law and that that's why he was charged.
>>It has been reported that Senator Clinton did not want to use the government provided unclassified computer, and requested permission to use her Blackberry (or an encrypted one similar to that owned by POTUS), though her request was denied.
That may be, but does that make her actions criminal?