>Apparently, it's very common for agencies to argue over the classification of an email. I read this yesterday and found it interesting:
>https://storify.com/topdownjimmy/t-r-ramachandran-on-clinton-quid-pro-quo-emails


This is the problem with certain fact-checks - they attempt to provide the "voice of reason", but often leave out (or downplay) key specifics.

The FBI official who made the claim has also stated that Kennedy kept the pressure up by going to the assistant director of the FBI’s counter terrorism division (who denied the request).

I know someone with security clearances at the federal level. I would not say "it's very common" that agencies argue over classification - but I won't say it's uncommon either. However, certainly any appearance of bartering raises all sorts of serious questions, especially with everything else going on.

Bottom line, classified (and top secret) information was discovered on her server. Her public statements before Comey's announcement were either (at the least) 100% incorrect, or (at the worst) a total lie.

Here's how serious the situation was - the Inspector General of the Intelligence Committee was not permitted to discuss specifics when he testified before Congress earlier in the year. Think about that - he could not speak to specifics in congressional testimony on content that was on HRC's unsecure and unauthorized server. This is far more serious than Trump's "you should be in jail" shouting during the last debate.

And remember, the FBI summaries clearly show that HRC herself did not understand the classification system. I think it's time once again to remember what Colin Powell said about HRC...that she "screws up" everything she touches, due to her huge personal hubris.