Sunday, March 6, 2016

HILLARY; WHY A PRIVATE SERVER? CONTROL-ACCESS-SECRECY?

If someone were to ask why a person would want a private email server I think one of the last reasons to come up would be convenience. See;Hillary Clinton email alibi is strikingly inconvenient

In fact just the opposite is true. Having to maintain  and keep up a private server is much more inconvenient than using one provided to you; in the case the US Government.

A more obvious reason(s) would be to have control and unfettered access to the information stored on it. This would allow someone to use the information as they see fit and do it in secrecy.

So the next question is, who would be interested in the goings on of the US Secretary of State; who she's communicating with and what sort of information is being exchanged. It's a no brainer to say that having access to classified information would be most useful to spies; enemies of the state. But, I'm guessing that was not one of Hillary's motives because, if nothing else, I believe she is patriotic.

Hillary Clinton wrote 104 emails that she sent using her private server while secretary of state that the government has since said contain classified information, according to a new Washington Post analysis of Clinton’s publicly released correspondence.

The finding is the first accounting of the Democratic presidential front-runner’s personal role in placing information now considered sensitive into insecure email during her State Department tenure. Clinton’s ­authorship of dozens of emails now considered classified could complicate her efforts to argue that she never put government secrets at risk.

In roughly three-quarters of those cases, officials have determined that material Clinton herself wrote in the body of email messages is classified. Clinton sometimes initiated the conversations but more often replied to aides or other officials with brief reactions to ongoing discussions.


Putting aside classified information, who else would be interested  on the remaining information?

The Post analysis is based on an examination of the 2,093 chains of Clinton’s email correspondence that the State Department decided contained classified information. The agency released 52,000 pages of Clinton’s emails as part of a court-ordered process but blocked the sensitive information from public view. The Post identified the author of each email that contained such redactions.

The analysis raises difficult questions about how the government treats sensitive information. It suggests that either material is being overclassified, as Clinton and her allies have charged, or that classified material is being handled improperly with regularity by government officials at all levels — or some combination of the two.

The analysis did not account for 22 emails that the State Department has withheld entirely from public release because they are “top secret,” the highest level of classification.

The handling of those emails has drawn particular criticism from Republican lawmakers and officials in the intelligence community, who have argued that Clinton’s use of a private server exposed some of the government’s most closely guarded secrets to hacking or other potential breaches.

The FBI is investigating the security of the server and whether Clinton or her aides mishandled classified information.


Clinton’s publicly released correspondence also includes classified emails written by about 300 other people inside and outside the government, the analysis by The Post found. The senders ­included ­longtime diplomats, top administration officials and foreigners who held no U.S. security clearance.

In those cases, Clinton was typically not among the initial recipients of the classified emails, which were included in back-and-forth exchanges between lower-level diplomats and other officials and arrived in her inbox only after they were forwarded to her by a close aide.

 
Clinton, on her private server, wrote 104 emails the government says are classified - The Washington Post



One might ask, would what goes on in the State Department be of any value or interest to people in the financial sector (Wall Street)?  Do global events have any influence on how banks and hedge funds, corporations make day to day decisions? 

With that in mind it might be prudent to ask if there's any connection between Hillary's  control and access to what could be a trove of government information and the $675,000.00 per speech events she put on for Wall Street bankers (totaling around $12 million at last count) since it does seem like a lot of money to pay for just a friendly chit-chat with people who are known for their shrewdness and cunning when it comes to making lots of money. 

There's a strong possibility that as more baggage is unpacked we will find that  Hillary's private servers were much more than convenient.

As for Hillary's gold plated speeches? 

$153 million in Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking fees, documented

Hillary Clinton and her husband, former PresidentBill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks.

The analysis was made at a time when Hillary Clinton has been under scrutiny for her ties to Wall Street, which has been a major focus of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail.

"What being part of the establishment is, is in the last quarter, having a super PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one's life raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests," Sanders said at Thursday's Democratic debate hosted by MSNBC.

Sanders: Clinton is 'funded by Wall Street'

The former secretary of state testily responded to Sanders' charges.

"Time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth which really comes down to, you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought. And I just absolutely reject that, senator, and I really don't think these kinds of attacks by insinuation are worthy of you. And enough is enough," Clinton said.

She then challenged him: "If you've got something to say, say it directly, but you will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation I ever received."



The Clinton campaign has been noncommittal about releasing transcripts of the paid speeches and Clinton has told reporters that she will "look into" making her remarks public.