Now, let's be honest, do think he said what he said just
because of the security clearance aspect?

I think he said that because he was parroting what administration officials have continually shouted. Presumably CNN verified the credibility of the statement, which made it even more newsworthy. He's basically communicating information given him by another source, judged to be newsworthy because at least one (very significant) party thinks it incredibly important to communicate, and as best he knew it was true and pertinent.

That's precisely what Wikileaks does, does it not? Or do we call a piece of news a talking point when we don't like it, and just the facts when it's something we approve of?

Wikileaks gets a pass for shoveling everything sent its way, but now you're unhappy because CNN failed to affirmatively apply some editorial license?

That's what I mean by saying that it's easier to find fault with other news outlets than it is with Wikileaks. You're holding CNN to a higher standard than Wikileaks. And you know what? You should! But that also means that determining what's "trustworthy" is a heck of alot messier.

Also since you seem to know a bit about this stuff. Curious
what you think about Hillary's private email server with TS
SAP material on it. Do you think she should have been
prosecuted and not allowed to run for President? Why do you
think she wasn't?

I've heard of people going to jail and at best lost their
jobs and probably a chance to get clearance forever for a
lot less.

Regarding Hillary, I think it was much ado about nothing, even ignoring the partisan angle. Colin Powell and countless other officials did and presumably still do the same thing. That alone isn't an excuse. But if government IT is anything like corporate IT, I'm not surprised people felt hindered and unproductive dealing with the rules, and neither surprised nor upset that such officials felt entitled to skirt the rules. And, frankly, I think a cabinet level official has and should have (perhaps as a matter of law, but certainly as a practical matter) significant license. A C-level executive isn't going to get in trouble for violating one of IT's rules, nor should they. Their productivity is paramount, and there's no objective way to tell them that they're wrong in that regard.

I think what Bush Whitehouse officials did with their private e-mail servers was far more suspect, but even at the time I was dubious on the illegality of it. High-level officials play by different rules, for good reason. There are limits to the laws Congress can pass to constrain the executive without violating fundamental separation of powers principles. We can quibble about how immune Hillary would be to liability for ignoring procedural IT rules and regulations, but there's a very strong case that she had Constitutionally-protected authority to disclose classified material however she saw fit had she chosen to do so. Just like I believed Dick Cheney did, presuming he intentionally leaked or ordered the leak of the identity of Valeri Plame. (And, by god, I truly believe Cheney is a fscking malevolent sociopath, though unlike Trump being a narcissist I understand that's taking a leap.) Libby went to prison for perjury, not for disclosure. I'd bet money if Libby just admitted it, and he defended himself all the way to SCOTUS, that the charges wouldn't stick.

That other people have been punished for the same thing Hillary did is beside the point. First, while I think the rules are applied inconsistently, I'd simply prefer that we loosen them up for everybody. I'm not about to argue for throwing the book at Hillary out of spite. And in any event, high-level officials, especially Cabinet appointees, have inherent powers which makes them legitimately exceptional. Second, I think the over-classification of material harms national security. They sure as hell didn't stop the OPM breach or countless other breaches. They provide a false sense of security, including the sense that IT systems can be secured at the edges with trivial procedures and limitations rather than systemic improvements to data security and exfiltration prevention. If they did that then government might realize that by classifying everything under the sun, they're making it more difficult to secure the truly sensitive stuff.

Finally, there's little reason to think Hillary's e-mail damaged national security. First of all, nothing in the published e-mail was damaging, even presuming it was classified then or later. (A _big_ presumption.) Certainly nothing that would even be remotely surprising to Russia or China. Second, however secure her personal server, I'd be shocked if her server was substantively less secure than whatever the State Department was using.

As I've posted elsewhere, I think the election of Trump has been a travesty. I think the man has a mental disorder. More to the point, I won't be surprised when he intentionally or unintentionally leaks national secrets all over Twitter, whether from his NSA-provided smartphone or his personal iPhone. And other officials will likely do the same thing. The left will flip out and the right will shut their ears or spin it. But regardless, it'll be Trump and his officials' fscking prerogative, and I'll be happy to defend that prerogative, as a matter of law, even when it's exercised for nakedly partisan purposes.