She probably had Special Access Program documents on it as well

This is known.

She had zero classified documents in her email. She used the secure SIPRNET system to view classified documents and she said she preferred to read them in hard copy. SIPRNET cannot connect to the open internet. You can't email a classified document from SIPRNET to a nonsecure email like [email protected] .

The distinction is that a classified document must be marked as classified with a classification header indicating the highest level of classification contained within and each paragraph should be marked with the proper classifcation.
https://am11.akamaized.net/med/cnt/uploads/2016/07/1trump-8.jpg

The security issue with her emails is known as spillage, classified information being entered into nonclassified, nonsecure emails. A key thing to understand is that nonsecure systems is the legal issue NOT the private server. @state .gov or @cia .gov or @nsc .gov or @whitehouse .gov are NONSECURE systems. All the issues with classified info would have been the same if HRC used [email protected] . She did not create any of this spillage, it was mailed to her. Sometimes she forwarded these emails. The person at the beginning of this chain is more liable than the folks down the line, because they don't know where you learned that information. Did you read this in a foreign newspaper or did you learn it in a classified briefing? Often the recipient has no way of knowing, especially if you sent it to them on the nonsecure system where there is no presumption that you are receiving secret documents. This is the reason that classified document are marked up with big, bold, unambiguous ways on the front page. The State Department deals with a lot of open source information, so you can have the same information in an email be an example of classified spillage in one case and not spillage in another. (In fact the State Department was fighting the IC over what is classified for years)

There were dozens of emails sent to HRC from nonsecure government email addressed and every single person would have been guilty of the same thing Hillary was.

Spillage is the reason her case was not cut and dry. We are not talking about classified documents where there is a bright bold line. In fact, the initial sample that kicked off the original investigation said that four classified emails were found. They got three of these wrong. 1 or two of these were not classified and they gave the wrong classification on the other.

We already know that the most senstive of the emails were at SAP level, but they actually weren't that revealing. There was an entire 22 email thread that was not released that dealt with a drone strike. However, there is no big secret in the emails, beyond the widely known fact that we have a drone program run by the CIA. Even though this is publically known, it still an SAP program. Even emailing a news story about the CIA drone program would be a classification violation. The link I have below cannot be emailed.

The folks on these emails knew were very aware that they were not using the SIPRNET secure system, aka The High Side, but that they were using the "Low Side" aka their regular government emails, and they accounted for that. Their emails were very vague and cryptic and never mentioned drones or CIA or names or even the country

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/hillary-clinton-emailed-on-cia-drone-strikes-in-pakistan/news-story/efde9067d7fb60434e94f5b9300ada5d

The 2011 and 2012 emails were sent via the “low side’’— slang for a computer system for unclassified matters — as part of a secret ­arrangement that gave the State Department more of a voice in whether a CIA drone strike went ahead, according to congressional and law-enforcement officials briefed on the FBI probe. ... The vaguely worded messages didn’t mention the “CIA”, “drones” or details about the militant targets, officials said. State Department officials told FBI investigators they communicated via the less-secure system on a few instances, according to congressional and law-enforcement officials. It happened when decisions about imminent strikes had to be relayed fast and the US diplomats in Pakistan or Washington didn’t have ready access to a more secure system, either because it was night or they were travelling.

Emails sent over the low side sometimes were informal discussions that occurred in addition to more formal notifications through secure communications.

One such exchange came just before Christmas in 2011, when the US ambassador sent a short, cryptic note to his boss indicating a drone strike was planned. That sparked a back and forth exchange among Mrs Clinton’s senior advisers over the next few days, in which it was clear they were having the discussions in part because people were away from their offices for the holiday and didn’t have access to a classified computer.

The drone campaign, though widely reported in Pakistan, is treated as secret by the US government. Under strict classification rules, officials have been barred from discussing strikes publicly and even privately outside of ­secure communications systems.

The State Department said in January that 22 emails on Mrs Clinton’s personal server at her home have been judged to contain top-secret information and weren’t to be released. Many of them dealt with whether diplomats concurred or not with the CIA drone strikes, officials said.

Several law-enforcement ­officials said they didn’t expect any criminal charges to be filed as a ­result of the investigation, ­although a final review of the evidence will be made only after an expected FBI interview with Mrs Clinton this northern summer.

One reason is that government workers at several agencies, ­including the departments of ­Defence, Justice and State, have occasionally resorted to the low-side system to give each other ­notice about sensitive but fast-moving events, according to one law-enforcement official.