>>>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.

according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy (I know...) this seems to be not true:
"Of the emails on the server, 113 emails contained information which was classified at the time it was sent, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret." Of the 113 emails, just three contained markings indicating they could be classified, although they lacked classified headers and were only marked with a small "c" in parentheses, described as "portion markings" by FBI Director James Comey. Comey also said it was possible Clinton was not “technically sophisticated” enough to understand what the three classified markings meant."

>This article says it's not that simple: http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/250998-clinton-emails-reveal-murky-world-of-top-secret-documents
....
>Not only is each side entitled to different standards of classification, but information can become classified almost retroactively, as situations and guidelines change over the years.

is the only relevant part in the whole article. For that reason security measures and procedures exist even at lower level to guard documents being re-classified later before that re-classification is done.

Which did happen as well (same source as above):
"Nearly 2,100 emails on the server were retroactively marked as classified by the State Department."

Back when I was handling info ranging up from internal use only, going against established procedure (which was repeated at nauseam in german, NATO and other versions, the US had the OPSEC acronym) would result in swift repercussions even if it happened with exercise material only.

So she SHOULD be tried for (gross?) negligence as well as breach of duty at least since also (from Techdirt):"The emails, reviewed by The Associated Press, show that State Department technical staff disabled software on their systems intended to block phishing emails that could deliver dangerous viruses. "

As it seems she went to that rigmarole to sidestep FOIA rules, there is a second avenue she could be prosecuted for.

While Trump promising a special prosecutor if he is elected prez was often depicted over here as banana-republic politics, as HRC was not already sent before a court, double jeopardy rules are in effect. Not charging Clinton might be in line with http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744, but as Trump runs as anti-establishment, breaking with that habit is ***at least*** in line with his campaign direction.
Why should the recommendation of an FBI official not to charge her be binding for everybody? Why NOT ask a court instead of FBI opinion if her actions were ok? Trying to evade FOIA as motive in my book is worse than what happend with Petreaus.


>And culturally, intelligence agencies tend to lean toward classification more than an agency like State would, several former employees on both sides agreed.

Now there is an argument well suited for intelligence and courts ;-)
I wonder what the outrage would be if a similar argument was made on other typical presidential theme:
"Not only culturally, but statistically as well, sexual assaults and transgressions are less often made by females"

Sorry, no way to defend that pothole. Trouble with voting for candidate not worse is that the other candidate probably is still bad.