This is a bit of conspiracy theory, but sometimes I suspect that has already happened. It seemed somewhat coincidental for the intelligence community to time t

This is a bit of conspiracy theory, but sometimes I suspect that has already happened. It seemed somewhat coincidental for the intelligence community to time their very public investigation of Clinton the way that they did after largely leaving politicians alone for so long (at least in public). The conspiracy theorist inside me wonders if part of the reason for the use of a private server went beyond convenience, obliviousness, or active avoidance of FOIA requests which are the common suppositions. Perhaps she was aware of the surveillance state and tried to circumvent scrutiny from a meddling intelligence community by going private? The implementation was poor, of course, but it would strike me as a reasonable thing for one organization of the government to do if there was some other organization that was overreaching to the point where they were eavesdropping on government communication. This is definitely all speculation, but given the lack of transparency in government activity at that level, it's hard to come up with something more data-based. I don't know that this is completely implausible, given a few assumptions: 1. The surveillance state has been making extreme advances with their capabilities. 2. Clinton likely has a greater knowledge of the extent of those advances as part of her role in the executive branch. 2. The various agencies have a history of political engagement behind closed doors. 3. FOIA seems relatively weak, given ability of the government to delay or redact released information. This weakness would seem to reduce the likelihood of FOIA avoidance as a reason for the violation. 4. Clinton _had_ to know the policies that were in place which restricted her use of private email, given her position and history. At the very least, the people performing the implementation knew. This reduces likelihood of convenience as viable causation. If, for theoretical discussion, we accept the possibility that Clinton was actively attempting to thwart attention of the surveillance apparatus, then the timing and public nature of the investigation (after leaving politicians alone for so long, at least publicly) could be seen as retaliation in the right light. It would certainly send an object lesson to other politicians and government officials that they should avoid treading on the interests of the intelligence community. As to what those interests are.. well. It depends on your degree of trust, I imagine. Perhaps they have a political agenda, or perhaps this is simply protection of their assets (as it is possible retaliation for lack of security resulting in a breach with material impact that they chose or were not able to disclose). When the leaders of the intelligence community come out to publicly state that political dissidents should be executed, all bets are off when looking at their motivations. So.. yeah. I'm going to take off my tinfoil hat now.