> Of course, but then they're not Secretary of State. It's not a stretch to imagine her position should come with some latitude on how they execute their job fu

> Of course, but then they're not Secretary of State. It's not a stretch to imagine her position should come with some latitude on how they execute their job function. Sounds like the Nixon defense. Though at least Clinton wasn't (apparently) acting out of malice. She might have just been a bit paranoid about security, incompetent (at IT security - and allowed yes-men to get her set up), or somehow needed a level of convenience that she couldn't get from the official system. It's even possible the official system was suspected of being compromised (if it was, we might not know), and she could get a safer system.