>>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.

Surely you agree there's a difference between something that was classified at the time it was sent and something that was later classified. Pretty sure she said she hadn't sent emails that were classified at the time.

Tamar