> "Getting your gmail account hacked does not reflect on you as a professional."

Doesn't it though? Especially when your profession involves the security of a nation and you can't even secure your own personal email account successfully?

Shouldn't the FBI be protecting its own members -- especially its executives -- personal digital footprint, given the risk?

Leaking one’s credentials to sensitive personal repositories of information is a “real failing” lol, how could one think any differently? I would be mortified and immediately rectify the situation.

> Getting your gmail account hacked does not reflect on you as a professional.

Why not? Most professionals at larger organizations have to do security training. These kinds of attacks are far less likely to succeed on anyone who follows the basic precautions taught in such training. E.g., if he had MFA enabled on his account - as he certainly should have had - they would not have been able to compromise it externally, i.e. it would have had to be much more than his email that was hacked.

I don’t get the propensity some people seem to have for defending this shameful collection of incompetent criminals, bullies, and clowns.

> Getting your gmail account hacked does not reflect on you as a professional

If you work in security: it *absolutely does*, because 99+% of the time you are the primary contributing factor, whether from password reuse or downloading malware or clicking bad links or opening random emails or being susceptible to social engineering, etc.

If you are the head of a security organization: obviously you should not expect to retain that job, as your poor reputation is now an albatross around the company's neck.

If you are the head of the FBI: lol. lmao. what the actual fuck. my money is on someone spearfished him with an email subject about a book deal and he'll just click fucking anything.