Steven Aftergood is a critic of U.S. government secrecy policy. He directs the Federation of American Scientists project on Government Secrecy and is the author of the Federation publication Secrecy News.[1] (wikipedia)
If the FBI can persuade a court that there is probable cause that there are stolen records in that collection, then they should go to court. They cannot bully or attempt to intimidate the family or the university into surrendering private records.
It makes reporter's job more difficult, but also gives them the responsibility to work to overcome the impediments put in their way.
No one is suggesting the NSA is monitoring Hillary Clinton.
Some categories of classified information are protected by statute and not only by executive order. Intelligence sources and methods are protected by the National Security Act and cannot be declassified even by the say-so of the president.
It prompts speculation that perhaps the government was using information that was illegally obtained.
If you think about all of the infrastructure needed to support that number of people, you start to get a sense of just how vast our intelligence system has become. Think about all the things going on that we don't know about.
I presume it's an attempt to provide some context for the information that was disclosed. If such information was already in public circulation or widely disseminated, that could arguably mitigate anything the defendants did wrong by communicating it.
It's perfectly understandable the press office would be frustrated by leaks. But they are the ones with the documents, they are the ones who need to exercise discipline. You can't ask the press not to report what they learn.
I think there will be problems and cases where employees are tripped up by the tests, ... But the bureau as a whole will adapt.
I think there is enormous understanding and tolerance for an argument from necessity, and there's willingness to retroactively forgive what might strictly speaking be violations of the law.