I don't think that the CNN reporter (which, to be honest, is basically a hypothetical person to me at this point) was only thinking of those with clearance. I'd bet he either a) wasn't thinking or b) wasn't about to try to reiterate whatever long-winded and complex explanation there was. As I stated, it's not as simple as maybe illegal for people with clearance, not illegal for everybody else.[1]

This is CNN. His only choices as a practical matter were to parrot it or not parrot it. He chose to parrot it. I don't think either choice was intrinsically better, especially for an outlet like CNN.

Maybe this was on one of those more editorializing shows, in which case I can see wider room for disagreement. But I still don't see much to get upset about. And Hannon's accusation harms her credibility far more than what she accused CNN of doing.

Regarding fairness, I understand and respect people's desire for fairness. And I understand that that desire is part of the fury. But it's unreasonable to expect that.

Most of those same people were silent during the Plame affair, and most of the other other half of the country up in arms. It's precisely because of that kind of partisan hypocrisy that high-level officials _must_ be treated differently. It's impossible to disentangle politics from their positions except in the most clear and unambiguous circumstances. Certainly not in a rigorous and consistent manner. Courts aren't equipped to do that; and Congress isn't unbiased. And so the law, wisely, steps back (or should step back), and law enforcement understandably more reticent to step into the fray and risk their credibility. It's far more important for them to keep their hands clean than to punish someone. And while overtime that can build resentment, there's no other easy answer.

In any event, rightly or wrongly voters got to punish Hillary all the same. That is, after all, the last check in a democratic system. And their conviction, such as it was, was legitimate regardless of whether she actually committed any crime. Had she won the election, it would have been just as legitimate.

[1] You simply can't say it's legal for everybody without clearance. First, there's no such law, legislative or judge-made, that gives such blanket protection. Secondly, I can't see the court saying that it could never be illegal. For truly sensitive material (and, for better or worse, courts normally defer to the judgment of the government in that regard), I could easily see the court crafting a rule that requires looking at the specific situation. For example, maybe the first guy to download highly sensitive material from Wikileaks could be thrown in jail. While the 10-millionth has a defense because it's considered public knowledge at that point. And maybe it would be difficult to prove who the first guy was, but that wouldn't make it legal for him. I've only briefly studied the law in this area, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's pretty close to the direction the law is going or maybe where it's already at.

FWIW, a quick Google search suggests that one basis for the presumption that anyone obtaining or retaining classified information is illegal might come from the Espionage Act. In particular, see 18 U.S.C. S. 793(e):

Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or
control over any document ... or willfully retains the same
and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the
United States entitled to receive it ... Shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both.

-- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Notably, unlike clauses (a) through (d) there's no requirement that you intend to harm the U.S. The only mens rea required is knowing your possession is unauthorized.

Now, whatever we think about the constitutionality of the Espionage Act, can you really fault a CNN reporter for presuming it valid. Of course, I doubt any reporter would ever read the text. But it's funny how the further we dig into the facts, the more complex things become. And the notion that he's simply parroting (knowingly or unknowingly) government propaganda, and should have or could have explicated the particular claim in detail, becomes more difficult to sustain. CNN looks better and better, and Hannon worse and worse.