Actually, you didn't---at least not whether the underlying "facts," at this point in time, are classified.
No, it doesn't. It "all boils down to" the desire for someone (for reasons that, I suppose, one can only speculate) to not be transparent and not follow the law.
The "data classification" issue is a sideshow. Information does not need to be classified as being classified in order to be classified. Anyone in government with a modicum of intelligence knows that.
The fact that Hillary specifically requested one of her underlings to, essentially, sidestep the restrictions on handling sensitive data, remove a classified marking on a document, and send the document over an unsecured line* speaks directly to her failures of judgment, honesty, integrity, and leadership.
This is no simple "data classification" issue.
Nor is this, as you suggested in post 3065, a simple case of where the " information did not have a classification standard at the time," but has later "become sensitive and had been classified as such."
We have seen "something" by now.
Only when the public becomes aware of the breach and/or when someone's current job is on the line.
* Source:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ommon-practice)