Why did Hillary Clinton think it was necessary to use a private server to conduct her personal and government communications?

Hillary Clinton's decision to use a private email server for her personal and government communications during her tenure as Secretary of State was motivated by several factors, although her exact motivations were not fully articulated by her.

Convenience

Clinton cited the convenience of carrying only one phone as a reason for using a private email account. She preferred to use her BlackBerry for all her email communications rather than switching between a personal and a government-issued account3.

Control and Privacy

Using a private server allowed Clinton to maintain control over her email archives, which could limit access to her messages by government or private entities. This setup also afforded her lawyers the opportunity to object to subpoenas in various legal cases, potentially protecting her emails from being turned over1.

Precedent and Personal Preference

Clinton argued that other government officials, including former secretaries of state, had used private email accounts for official business. However, she was the only secretary of state to use a private server hosted in her home. She opted for this arrangement despite warnings from State Department security personnel about the security risks associated with using an unsecured BlackBerry and a private server3.

Security Concerns and Measures

Although the server was located in her home, which was guarded by the Secret Service, Clinton and her team believed they had implemented sufficient security measures. The server was initially set up by Justin Cooper, an aide to Bill Clinton, and later maintained by Bryan Pagliano, who had worked as the IT director for her 2008 presidential campaign. However, these individuals had limited expertise in computer security, and the server's security was criticized by experts as inadequate23.

In summary, Clinton's use of a private server was driven by a desire for convenience, control over her communications, and a belief that she was following a precedent set by other officials, despite the associated security risks and potential violations of federal records laws.