"... [Hillary] Clinton's blanket assertions that she faithfully followed all laws and regulations related to both federal records and classified information [are becoming] increasingly untenable." --- CNN
--- Donald Trump called Hillary Clinton a "Criminal," unfit to run for President of the United States -- all because of her mishandling of classified material on her private E-mail system
--- Hillary's response (delivered in "prison stripes") was "I am confident that I never sent or received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received. What I think you're seeing here is a very typical kind of discussion, to some extent disagreement among various parts of the government, over what should or should not be publicly released.... I think there's so much confusion around this that I understand why reporters and the public are asking questions, but the facts are pretty clear. I did not send nor receive anything that was classified at the time...."
--- Disputes like that get settled in courts every day --- they are called "criminal trials"
BUT --- Is that where it all stands, right now ?
According to a post by CNN, "Of the many allegations related to Hillary Clinton's emails -- ranging from reasonable to conspiratorial -- the most serious are the findings by two inspectors general that Clinton's private email server contained classified information and a related referral to the FBI concerning a 'potential compromise of classified information.' While details remain unclear, the alleged presence of classified information on a private email server undoubtedly has legal implications for the controversy -- and places a strain on Clinton's public defense...." (See "How serious is the Clinton email controversy?" by Douglas Cox, 7/27/15, CNN [http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/27/opinions/cox-clinton-email-controversy/index.html]).
After a lenghthy and detailed discussion of Hillary Clinton's obligations and actions handling "classified" material on her private E-mail system, CNN's Douglas Cox concluded his blog-posted article with this: ".... In the end, the high political stakes and aggressive voices on both sides make finding the middle -- or the truth -- challenging. There is, so far, no evidence Clinton has committed a criminal act, and those making such allegations risk overplaying their hand. In fact, had there actually been a criminal referral against Clinton, it would likely serve as a silver bullet for Clinton's public defense. Such referrals rarely result in criminal investigations, much less charges, and the eventual, inevitable decision not to pursue the matter would allow Clinton to claim vindication.... Ultimately, though, details about the private email server continue. And as they do, they are making Clinton's blanket assertions that she faithfully followed all laws and regulations related to both federal records and classified information increasingly untenable."
HILLARY IS UNTRUSTWORTHY & HER E-MAIL EXCUSES NEVER PAN OUT -- JENNIFER RUBIN, WA/POAccording to Jennifer Rubin's column in Sunday's Washington Post, "There is a reason Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers show voters think she is untrustworthy: She keeps telling them things that are not true.... On the use of her e-mails, we know the long list of untruths about the private e-mail server and the e-mails, thousands of which were destroyed. She turned over everything she had. (No, about 15 documents were not given to the State Department.) She never got a subpoena. (Oh yes she did.) She did it only for the convenience of using one device. (She had multiple devices.)... The biggest untruth of them all: She followed all the rules. No she did not, The Post’s Glenn Kessler found: “In reality, Clinton’s decision to use a private e-mail system for official business was highly unusual and flouted State Department procedures, even if not expressly prohibited by law at the time. Moreover, while she claims ‘everything I did was permitted,’ she appears to have not complied with the requirement to turn over her business-related e-mails before she left government service. That’s a major misstep that she has not acknowledged.” There was no classified material. (Actually, an inspector general says there was.)..." (See "Hillary Clinton’s e-mail excuses never pan out" by Jennifer Rubin, 7/26/15, Washington Post/ On the Right [https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/07/26/hillary-clintons-e-mail-excuses-never-pan-out/]).
WHAT THE INSPECTORS' GENERAL REFERRAL TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS ALL ABOUTThe following is the analysis provided by "The Daily Signal," which is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation: "After this referral hit the news on Friday, a dispute erupted over whether the request by the inspector general of the intelligence community to open an investigation of Clinton’s handling of information classified as 'secret' was a 'criminal' referral or not. At first, a Department of Justice official said the 'investigation was criminal in nature' according to the Wall Street Journal but the department 'reversed course hours later without explanation.'... As the former head of the National Security Division of the Justice Department, Lisa O. Monaco, who is now an assistant to the president for counterterrorism, explained in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 2012 (before the public knew about Clinton’s personal server), the intelligence community must report the unauthorized disclosure of classified materials to DOJ.... The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. We’ll respect your inbox and keep you informed.... Those referrals 'come in the form of a letter identifying the classified information' and providing other relevant information such as 'the level of classification.'... That is obviously exactly what the inspector general has done in the referral letter sent to DOJ.... Before anyone can definitively assert that there has been no disclosure of classified material, they should be reminded that that is the precise issue here: we don’t know—at this point— if there has been any such disclosure.... What we do know is that the inspector general for the intelligence community has alleged that information classified as “secret” at the time it was sent went out on a non-secure, personal email system in contravention of all of the rules and regulations (and common sense) governing the handling of secret and sensitive material.... According to Monaco, agency referrals like this one by the inspector general go to the National Security Division and 'typically represent the first step to initiating a criminal investigation.'... ” (See "The Clinton Emails: Will DOJ Conduct a Real Investigation?" by Hans von Spakovsky, 7/27/15, The Daily Signal [http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/27/the-clinton-emails-will-doj-conduct-a-real-investigation/]).
HERE'S WHERE IT STANDS RIGHT NOWA joint statement by the two inspectors general, who were involved in the referral of the matter of mishandling classified information on Hillary Clinton's E-mail system to the DOJ, was issued late Friday. That joint statement contradicts what former Secretary of State Clinton said about the emails on Saturday. To date, the IG for the Intelligence Community has only been allowed to review a small sample from Clinton’s private email server [ 40 out of the total of 30,000 emails that Clinton has turned over to the State Department]. In that limited sample of forty (40), four (4) E-mails contained classified information.
According to a report from the Conservative News Service, ".... 'The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification marking and/or dissemination controls,' State Department Inspector General Steve Linick and Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough, III, said in their joint statement released late Friday afternoon.... 'These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather, these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today,' the inspectors general said...." (See "State Dept. Inspector General Contradicts Clinton: Emails ‘Contained Classified Information When They Were Generated’" by Brittany M. Hughes, 7/27/15, CNS/ CNSNews.com [http://cnsnews.com/news/article/brittany-m-hughes/state-dept-inspector-general-contradicts-clinton-emails-contained]).