let me do you mine. yes, sir. in one case you are talking about highly classified information. in the other case you are talking about john podesta saying bad things about the boss. i will say this, if john podesta said that about me and he was working for me i would have fired hmm so fast his head would have spun. he said terrible things about her. but it wasn t classified information. regardless, if you look at the rnc we had a very strong at my suggestion, and i give reince credit. at my suggestion because i know something about this world i said i want a very strong defensive mechanism. i don t want to be hacked. and we did that. and you have seen that they tried to hack us and they failed. the dnc did not do that. if they did it they could not have been hacked. they were hacked and terrible things came in. the only thing that i do think is unfair some of the things when i heard some of those
hudson. that is the risk. at a certain point people begin to say like there s got to be a certain decisiveness. to put it nicely your trip to the loo has to be productive or you need to leave the bathroom. very nicely stated. think about it. joy reid, thank you. thank you. up next, new regulations that was well done. for a rapidly expanding hobby because of its potential danger. if only the same consideration would be made for another hobby. and the republican chairman of the benghazi committee says he has had some of the worst weeks of his life. does he expect matters to get better when hillary clinton testifies this week? stay with us. it s your grandpappy s hammer and he would have wanted you to have it. it meant a lot to him. yes, ge makes powerful machines. but i ll be writing the code that will allow those machines to share information with each other. i ll be changing the way the world works. (interrupting) you can t pick it up, can you? go ahead. he can t lift the h
but they ended up leaving the name of a cia source in the subject line. so they redacted her name in the e-mails, put it up on the committee site but left her name on the subject line so anybody who went to the website could see the name of this cia source that was supposed to be kept private. now, it was all in the context of trey gowdy trying to embarrass hillary clinton for using her private e-mail server for e-mails with sensitive information. and he ended up putting it on the committee website. you also end up in a situation where it just it looks i think that there s been a kind of perfect storm for gowdy because of these republican comments of kevin mccarthy and then the staffer who came forward. but it also just looks to all the world watching this like they ve lost the plot. like what is the thread here other than an e-mail server? you could hardly even imagine them doing the kind of investigation they say when on the witness list were huma abedin who had nothing to do w
from his own party, telling people that the whole committee is a sham. but then just in the last couple of days he tried to embarrass hillary clinton by talking about e-mails that she sent from her private server that has sensitive information on them. but it turned out the cia said oh, no, that wasn t classified information. and trey gowdy said, yeah, well, we need to protect it. and then he put it up on the committee website and outed the name of a cia source. so it s just like it s getting to the point where i m people are really wondering what is the whole point of this anyway. yeah. what you re referring to, there are these e-mails that the committee had chosen to redact, right? the committee redacted them and said oh, this is sensitive stuff. the cia came back and said no, it s not sensitive, it s fine that she e-mailed about that. and then the committee ended up posting some unredacted stuff that might have actually exposed someone in the cia if i m tracking that correctly.
oh, no, that wasn t classified information. and trey gowdy said, yeah, well, we need to protect it. and then he put it up on the committee website and outed the name of a cia source. so it s just like it s getting to the point where i m people are really wondering what is the whole point of this anyway. yeah. what you re referring to, there are these e-mails that the committee had chosen to redact, right? the committee redacted them and said oh, this is sensitive stuff. the cia came back and said no, it s not sensitive, it s fine that she e-mailed about that. and then the committee ended up posting some unredacted stuff that might have actually exposed someone in the cia if i m tracking that correctly. they posted the e-mails on the committee site in an effort to show that they re transparent about, you know, hillary clinton s private e-mail server and stuff. but they ended up leaving the name of a cia source in the subject line. so they redacted her name in the e-mails, put it u