[blhack]

Do you have any sources for that?

The story I keep hearing is that she had this set up to make FOIA requests more difficult/impossible to fulfil.

The really out there stuff is that this was to hide any cash-for-favors exchanges that happened with relation to The Clinton Foundation.

[nl]

The "wanting the NSA phone, being refused, and continuing to do what she'd always done" thing is the real story. Her staff were dumb not to make a stand at some point.

Quotes:

Mills wondered whether the department could get her an encrypted device like the one from the NSA that Obama used.

“If so, how can we get her one?” Mills wrote the group on Saturday evening, Jan. 24. ...

A request for a secure device from the NSA was rebuffed at the outset: “The current state of the art is not too user friendly, has no infrastructure at State, and is very expensive,” Reid, the security official, wrote in an email on Feb. 13, adding that “each time we asked the question ‘What was the solution for POTUS?’ we were politely told to shut up and color.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-e...

Never underestimate the attraction of convenience.

[gizmo]

I can't prove some of the more out-there theories aren't true, but they just don't make sense to me.

Given the sheer volume of email she sent from her blackberry (lunch meetings, when to get up, where to go, can you print this, happy birthday, etc) it's pretty clear it's her primary way of communication. So that explains her refusing to take no for an answer from the NSA.

If her motivation was to block FOIA requests, then why did she do literally all important and confidential communication on paper, which falls under FOIA? Then why did the entire administration accept her use of a private email server if she didn't have an obvious reason why she needed one? If her real motivation was to dodge FOIA, then why was the NSA stonewalling? The FOIA hypothesis raises far more questions than it answers.

[jevinskie]

> then why did she do literally all important and confidential communication on paper

This may not have always been the case.

> Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it."

> Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-c...

[jflatow]

What makes you think she did all important and confidential communication on paper? Everything I've read goes counter to that.

The administration didn't accept it - a lot of people questioned it and they were told never to speak of it again (read the IG report).

[daughart]

If the latter was the case why not just use the .gov email for state dept. business and the clintonemail.com email for international cash for favors?

[blhack]

I don't want to go too far down the conspiracy theorists' rabbit hole here, so just consider this some alternative reality fiction for a second:

Because it is easier if everything is in one place. Imagine emailing back and forth with somebody, and they accidentally send you an email to the wrong account.

It makes it easier to control everything.

[untog]

Wouldn't both sides need to be outside of FOIA for it to be worthwhile? It seems most of her emails are to staff with .gov email addresses, so surely everything is still recorded, be it in Inbox or Sent?

[at-fates-hands]

>>> The really out there stuff is that this was to hide any cash-for-favors exchanges that happened with relation to The Clinton Foundation.

It would've been a good plan if she had actually secured the server properly and had encrypted all of her stuff.

Unfortunately, there's plenty of evidence of shady stuff the foundation was doing without additional support in her private emails.

[cortesoft]

Who is the one telling that story, and what is there evidence that that was the purpose?