Is Hillary able to distinguish classified and unclassified without someone else marking it for her as required under law?

Even if it's not legally her responsibility, her inability to distinguish kinda supports Bernie's charge that she isn't qualified for office.

Charlesetta does have a point in regards to the primary responsibility, but even in my job, we are told to assume certain levels of privacy, even if the documents we're handling have no such marking.

For God's sake, she's Secretary of State and she can't figure out what is and is not sensitive?

It's been repeatedly verified that nothing that was sent to her was critical. Why are you still hassling over this?

No mention is made on this news story by you, right?

"Newly released emails show NSA rejected Hillary Clinton's request for secure smartphone - AP"

Or this--

"Report: Analysis of computer security logs for Hillary Clinton's private server show no evidence of foreign hacking - New York Times"

Or this --

"US State Department releases 881 emails from former Secretary Hillary Clinton's account; 88 upgraded to confidential, no top secret upgrades; official says none were marked classified at the time - NBC News"

And since the State Department is still verifying that they did not send anything critical, all the yelling still comes down to people trying to keep a dead story alive.

Since neither you nor I are privy to classified information of the magnitude involved in foreign policy, this is not a question that can be answered with any specificity.

The markings, according to an official memo sent to the phony "Benghazi hearing" leader Trey Gowdy by the Inspector General McCullough indicates "None of the emails under review had classification or dissemination markings at the time they were sent or received" (by then Hillary Clinton). What this suggests is that the markings are generated from somewhere other than the sender or the receiver.

The different departments have different rules, also. According to former Secretary of State Colin Powell (a GW Bush nominee and someone who discussed why he had chosen to use a private server as Secretary of State), the technology used by the State Department is very dated and the 1950 Foreign Information Act in place at State allowed the use of private servers. Sometimes one agency (such as Homeland Security or maybe the CIA) will put a "Classified" marking on something that another agency will not, so there is not a lot of cohesion between the various agencies (the proverbial "left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing" thing).

Important points to note regarding Hillary as our Secretary of State, to clear her GOP-tarnished reputation:

The first private server used by Secretary Clinton was one set up for her former-President husband Bill Clinton by his Secret Service detail. Since a President has a top level security clearance, one could easily assume that a private server set up for a former President by his security detail would be quite secure. Proof of this would be in the fact that Hillary Clinton's private server was NOT HACKED, but the so-called "secure" government server the Congressional Republicans keep claiming Hillary "should have used" was HACKED TWICE, the most recent time by an arrogant treason-committing high school dropout named Edward Snowden, who stole secret (classified top-secret) files DURING WAR TIME and during FINANCIAL CRISIS and took these TOP-SECRET FILES all the way to China, then on to Putin's Russia! Hillary's e-mails could have been on this HACKED government server, but the Hillary to-and-from e-mails were NOT HACKED!

The building the GOP keeps on using to smear-campaign Hillary was not even a State Department facility---it was a CIA OUTPOST, and the Navy SEALs who were killed were CIA OPERATIVES, under the control and jurisdiction of then-CIA Director General David Petraeus (a Republican, by the way).

"""Perhaps you all are not giving Hillary Clinton much credit. Shes not James Bond or The Hulk. But she smart as hell. Just a little biddy woman. Being dragged through the dirt. And its so sad my friend. Only a woman or a black would be so unfortunate in this climate. Fact. I am so filled up with it I cant take another bite. It was cute at first but so far the Republicans haven't been able to come up with a thing. I say, that is a misuse of our money. Wasting our tax dollars on Trumped up conspiracy theories.

Don't be fooled, that tw@t knows damn well what the difference was. But if she acknowledges that, then playing dumb won't be very compelling will it?

That woman is the most deceptive worthless piece of sh*t politician I have ever seen. I would take obonzo wrapped in a reid covered in rangle mixed with a pelosi and hand tossed through a feinsteinn, over that lying evidence destroying recriminating tw@t.

She tired a lot she could not tell the difference from income rounds and a smiling young girl giving her flowers guess she felt it was incoming roses she had to duck and run for cover from