If you take your car to a mechanic. The best mechanic. And he says "Sure, your car can drive under water" are you gonna question him? Probably not. He's the best mechanic, why would he lie?
We know Clinton setup her own e-mail server, not by her own hand but by a hired one. Whose to say those she hired didn't simply say "Yep, it's totally secure. Unhackable. Don't worry about it."
The thing is, no, I would not agree with that mechanic, because even with my very limited experience with cars, I know they don't drive underwater. Similarly, Clinton should have known that handling possibly classified information on a private E-mail server was not a good idea. Personally, I think she did it specifically to avoid FOIA requests, but we'll probably never know.
Fair enough. Then how about "your car can keep you safe in a highway crash" or "that noise isn't anything to worry about".
As for good or bad ideas, let me say two things:
1. It's not a new concept and has been done by several previous members of the white house staff.
2. Considering public opinion is that the government is horrible and can't do anything right, would it not stand to reason that getting a private company to do it would be better? The government can't do anything right so surely the private enterprise that Hillary hired would be better, yes?
But this just shows that such things are only excuses to dislike the government. We rant about the inefficiency and poor quality of the government's services but will happily condemn someone for using a private system in it's place if we don't like them.
Quote<blockquote>Authorities now believe there is about a 99 percent chance that up to five foreign intelligence agencies may have accessed and taken emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server, two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations told Fox News.</blockquote>
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/03/sources-99-percent-chance-foreign-intel-agencies-breached-clinton-server.html
Either she sold it to them and will claim "they hacked me" or they gained access due to her sheer incompetence. As I said, both are bad options.
I have one big issue with this:
How do they know? It's easy enough to determine a hack shortly after it happens if the information is released or if unauthorized access is seen but it's not like they "magically" found a new log file that shows she got hacked years ago. Nor is it likely any of her information has shown up and even if it has, the FBI wouldn't likely know about it, would they? It's all fine to say it now but it's not like the hack would have happened last week so why is this evidence suddenly appearing? And if it was buried, how did the republican investigations not see it? I mean, these investigators had over a year to show and leak the information yet they did not.
This is as fake as all those women accusing Trump right before the election. I suspect this is a group of FBI agents who are like most Trump Supporters: They see evidence where there is none. They draw conclusions before any facts. And in the end, they made their own case with their own logic and proclaim it to be factual.