Hypothetically, if congress passed and the president signed a new law making the actions of hillary clinton, in regard to her home email server, illegal, such a law would be unconstitutional because

The answer is It was an ex-post facto law  

Explanation:

The meaning of a facto law is a law that applies to violations that occurred under the steady gaze of the law was passed. A case of an ex post facto law is a law go in 1994 that applies to acts that happened in 1989. Ex post facto laws retroactively change the tenets of proof in a criminal case, retroactively modify the meaning of a wrongdoing, retroactively increment the discipline for a criminal demonstration, or rebuff direct that was legitimate when perpetrated. ex-post facto law. A law that makes unlawful a demonstration that was lawful when submitted, builds the punishments for an infraction after it has been submitted, or changes the principles of proof to make conviction less demanding. The Constitution restricts the making of ex-post facto law.

going on the gulag might you to find a better answer for that problem

hi.

i'm not sure about the answer, but, i would say c. *when the recipient was not included on the original email.*

hope this , well if it's right. uwu

merry christmas! ^-^