Why are you ignoring that her comment would be superfluous -- literally "unremarkable" -- if the document were not classified and not marked so in the "heading"? The fact that it was the "secure fax machine" that was being problematic to transmitting the document to her immediately as she demanded taken in conjunction with Clinton's distinction that the "heading" be stripped so that it could be transmitted over an "unsecured network" is evidence that it was a classified document; thus, an illegal directive. Originally Posted by I B HankeringI'm not privy to the private to the inner workings of the state department. So I don't know why she may have wanted/needed the "identifying heading" removed. But simply because I don't know every type of "identifying heading" and why she might need it removed to send it to her email does not mean the only explanation is that she was removing classified heading. Unless you can prove to me that the only reason to do so is because it was classified, or that the document in question was actually classified, then this is nothing but circumstantial evidence.
So can you do that? Can you prove that the document in question was classified? Or prove that there are no other "identify headings" used by the state department that would make sense to remove before sending via email?