> She used her personal email for official communication quite a bit. This is illegal from a public records point of view Yes, this is not permitted, even if i

> She used her personal email for official communication quite a bit. This is illegal from a public records point of view Yes, this is not permitted, even if in practice it's not a grave crime (because if it is a grave crime you'd have to lock up 95% of government employees). At least in Dept of State it looks like the IT staff retain emails as records. In the Navy even that doesn't happen, and Navy workers are expected to instead manually export all emails that might be "records" into a whole separate system. > A review of emails found classified information there. This is true, but I would like to note that any agency can classify information, whether you knew it was classified or not, and this covered much (I won't claim all) of Clinton's activity. E.g. a Washington Post article gets sent to her about outcry in Pakistan due to a U.S. drone strike in the area. Huge diplomatic incident. "How should we handle this boss?". The problem is that the drone strike came from a covert activity run by a different agency. Since it's covert, it's also classified. Now Clinton is "engaged in classified correspondence". It doesn't help that it's already in the public sphere and that she is literally talking about this issue with Pakistani diplomats who are definitely not cleared to receive U.S. classified info. Nope, in the same way government workers were told to be careful not to comment on news media about Snowden leaks, Clinton is technically guilty of sharing classified info over unclassified (and personal!) email. I don't know whether the present case is like Clinton's (i.e. mixed in with what you might call innocuous) or actual witting sharing of classified info. I'd probably still bet on the latter.