I am arguing the law. If anyone is arguing from ignorance, it is you. You can't convict someone without showing the crime. Your repeated attempts to claim you know about classified documents doesn't prove anything as to the facts of what was on Hillary's server or the markings on those emails.
Asking an authorized person to remove a classification is not a felony. Someone can be fired for doing so or lose their security clearance but they can't be prosecuted.
Receiving emails that someone else copied from classified information and didn't properly mark is not a felony.
Thanks for proving Hillary didn't commit a crime. An email is not an official government document. You didn't answer the question as I asked. Does (c) in every document denote "confidential"?
Your document would prove that there was no way to know that the email contained classified information since the requirement on classified documents is that all unclassified paragraphs be marked with (U) and there be a header with an overall classification as well as an originating classifier and the date classification ends.
Perhaps you should read the rest of your document. The person sending the emails would be the one responsible for putting the proper classification markings on a document. Their failure to give a header, classify each paragraph and include their name as the classifying person is not a crime by Hillary Clinton.
Of course, I must be a mindless nut because I don't agree with you but instead follow the actual law. The law requires you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. You can't even lay out a logical case from beginning to end. You jump from email to removing the header on a fax to your own experiences without ever tying them together to show how they break a specific law.
Let me repeat. There is no way you can convince an unbiased person beyond a reasonable doubt that a felony was committed.
