was -- it made it more less secure that she did this in chappaqua instead of at the united states state department and reluctantly gave an answer there. she was not a hostile witness, but she certainly did not want to implicate the secretary. but clearly put in a terribly uncomfortable position by the former secretary's own sloppy -- >> there was not much to add to this. the testimony speaks for itself. i mean, if nooltt in the spirit of the law, letter of the law, tried to skirt the transparency element of her job. she may have by having the server in chappaqua created security risks in which to that. and this is the price she will pay for doing that. yeah, the clinton camp will say, well, everyone makes their own decisions about what is private and what's not. but if you start at the front he said with a public dragnet on your e-mail it's more likely