But you're arguing from a position of ignorance. We don't know how important the information is. There may be completely valid reasons those things are top secret. You cannot know why because you're not privy to that information and neither am I.
More than that, you're not responsible for a nation's security so you don't know what kind of threats and challenges a country faces (not just the U.S). There could be perfectly valid and justifiable reasons for wanting to keep something that might "appear" mundane, a secret.
But you're arguing from a position of ignorance. We don't know how important the information is.
Err.. My post asked "Just how sensitive was the information she shared?"
I was hoping someone would have some details of what the information was. I'd note that there are no claims it was classified let alone top secret, just that some fields weren't publicly available. There appears to be no claim she shared those non-public fields.
The details of funding sounds precicly the kind of information that should be public - and probably is - somewhere.
More than that, you're not responsible for a nation's security so you don't know what kind of threats and challenges a country faces (not just the U.S). There could be perfectly valid and justifiable reasons for wanting to keep something that might "appear" mundane, a secret.