Funny too because the argument is that Hillary wasn't negligent with classified data, thus why would Podesta emails be unlawful to read? Either information is classified and Hillary was criminally negligent or it's not and therefore nothing 'unlawful' about WikiLeaks.

More interesting that CNN thinks they can read them but the public can not. Media organizations have no security clearances and thus are subject to the same access as anyone else.

"It's different for the media."

Oh CNN.

Proving that those who say the media thinks they're above the rest of us are right.

Well to be fair, media organizations like CNN have legal departments staffed with experts ready to fight on this type of stuff. You and I probably do not.

There is also the famous Pentagon Papers case, which to my knowledge rests on the "freedom of the press" language in the First Amendment.

That said, this was a stupid thing for the CNN anchor to say. Regardless of the law, no federal prosecutor is going to waste their time trying to find and prosecute every U.S. citizen who visits the Wikileaks website.

Nope, but some of the people who watch CNN will be scared enough to not visit, and thus miss out on seeing the evidence of corruption...

The number of media members who think "Freedom of the Press" is about them is astounding.

It was about the printing press and the ability to print what you wanted and, just as importantly, not be forced to print the things you didn't.