[dayglored]

Although I understand the point of the article (all too well, as I'm quite familiar with SCIFs and such), the over-arching consideration is simply that Hillary was in charge and got to do whatever she wanted. She was hardly the first top executive in an outfit to do so.

That doesn't excuse it, not one bit.

But we shouldn't be surprised that it happened, and we shouldn't expect this criticism of her to get any significant traction.

[Olog-hai]

Being “in charge” does not mean one rewrites the rules as one sees fit, especially by violating them.