http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:b54a250a40e9410baaaca5f9fb58ea94
So that link from the AP shows these two "top secret" emails involved the following:
"The officials who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity work in intelligence and other agencies. They wouldn't detail the contents of the emails because of ongoing questions about classification level. Clinton did not transmit the sensitive information herself, they said, and nothing in the emails she received makes clear reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing.
The drone exchange, the officials said, begins with a copy of a news article that discusses the CIA drone program that targets terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere. While a secret program, it is well-known and often reported on. The copy makes reference to classified information, and a Clinton adviser follows up by dancing around a top secret in a way that could possibly be inferred as confirmation, they said. Several officials, however, described this claim as tenuous.
But a second email reviewed by Charles McCullough, the intelligence community inspector general, appears more suspect. Nothing in the message is "lifted" from classified documents, the officials said, though they differed on where the information in it was sourced. Some said it improperly points back to highly classified material, while others countered that it was a classic case of what the government calls "parallel reporting" — different people knowing the same thing through different means."
So yeah, nothing.
The article about a ticking time bomb has, in order:
1. email. That's going nowhere but at least it's linked to her.
2. Her husband's "slush fund"
3. Her husband's penis (including some sly insinuation that maybe Bill slept with underaged girls)
You know if the article had said that Hillary needs more viable challengers to push her policy, or simply because they don't like the idea of one candidate being coronated, that would be a respectable point. This article is not remotely respectable, it's just an I don't like Hillary (and you should really vote for Bernie) article, that tries to mask itself as not a pro-Bernie article by suggesting other candidates come in.