As text, it can be misinterpreted if you work at it.But the source of the text is English speech; it is a transcript. You don’t criticize spoken English for not being written English; the two are different and anyone who does critique someone else’s speech as if it were writing would, if confronted with a transcript of what he himself literally verbalized, be embarrassed.
If you consult the video you have no reason to doubt who forwarded the message. But even if you treat it as text, “A sent to B, and she forwarded to C” is not terribly ambiguous. If you wanted to indicate that “A sent to B” and “A sent to C,” why use the term “forwarded???” You can stand on the ground and understand that “B forwarded to C” - or you can climb a tree and convince yourself that “A sent to B, and she (meaning not the last-named B but the first named A) ‘forwarded’ (from some unidentified, and otherwise unreferenced, D) to C.”
Had the speaker wished to indicate that “A sent to B and then to C” he could, and would, have omitted the pronoun “she” from the sentence altogether.
I still respectfully disagree.
“This note was about the UAE [United Arab Emarites] and [Huma]Abedin sent it to Clinton and then she forwarded it”
In this sentence “She” is ambiguous. If I heard this in a conversation, and it was important, I’d ask the speaker to clarify it.
This phrase can be easily interpreted either way without “working at” misinterpreting it.
Thanks for your thoughts, guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.