Look, it’s entirely possible that she’s right on this one. The talking points might not have been classified, but the system they were trying to send them on was a secure system.
So when it failed to send she tells them to send it non-secure, but leave the heading off to make it more difficult for someone scanning it to pick out what it was about.
But they could easily have been unclassified talking points that she received regularly. In fact, the use of the word “nonpaper” would imply that it had happened before. Otherwise, who would understand what the hell she meant by “nonpaper”?
Hillary is a crook and a liar, but people are making some assumptions here that might be unwarranted. She almost certainly should be indicted for her mishandling of classified documents, but this just might not be one of those cases.
You might be right that this is legit. My understanding is nonpaper is industry jargon in international diplomacy for a talking points, a draft agreement, or something else that doesn’t include classified data, but isn’t marked to show attribution to the county that produced it. What’s on the page isn’t confidential, but that the US offered what’s on the page might be.
A piece of paper that says “the king of country x is a crook” isn’t confidential (scrawled on a napkin, for example). But, but on some official letterhead, you might want to control the piece of paper. Substitute “a crook” for “accepted a 100,000 dollar bribe one June 4th in a parking garage” might be classified, because it includes details obtained from surveillance or a spy. “ Nonpaper” means it’s non-secret info not tracable to the government who wrote it, to be used in diplomatic meetings.
This email might very well be completely legit. A fax that included the opinion of the US govt might be confidential. A no paper stating the same position, but not traceable or attributable to the US govt, is fine.