Hillary's Email: How to deal with deleting selected items in a large amount of email.

[MineralMan]

People have been talking about the 30,000 or so emails deleted from Hillary Clinton's private server. Some are saying that every item should have been read by someone before a decision was made. Well, if you think about the time required to read and analyze that many emails, it's easy to understand why that wouldn't work very well at all.

In the first place, everyone doing the review would be people who had no role in creating the emails, either sent or received, and it would take a number of people to do the review in a timely way. It would take the originator far too long to do it alone. So, how would they decide which emails were related to the SOS's office and which were private?

That's simple: The reviewers would be given a long list of what to look for, including senders and recipients, terms that might indicate a SOS-related subject and other information that would need to be watched for. Quite a long list, really. Then, as they looked at the emails, they'd have to check to see if the senders, recipients or subject matter were in that list. If so, then the decision to delete or preserve could be made.

Not simple? You're right. Very difficult, actually, if people were used to do that review. Now, imagine this: Instead of providing a list of those things to people, you created a computerized search through that very large mass of information, looking for matches. The computer can easily compare all aspects of email to a list of any length. If a match indicates that the email is SOS-related, it is preserved. If no match occurs, then it can safely be deleted.

It's the same process, whether people or a computer does the comparison. The difference is really the time required, accuracy, completeness and objectivity. People are slow at such things. In the first place, they can't remember the entire list. In the second, they might not be entirely objective in making decisions. Finally, people miss things in doing such comparisons. The computer, on the other hand, does such comparisons quickly, completely, and without any human failings. Of course, the quality of the review depends on the data being compared and the skill of the programmer who designed the algorithm. But the same thing is true if people do the comparison.

Here's another thing to consider: Most of us have email client applications that check incoming emails and move some into a spam folder. This uses the same sort of data analysis. I use Yahoo mail. It has been a very long time since I found an email in my spam folder that did not belong there. Months, at least. I review the spam folder every day before permanently deleting everything in it. If there's any failing in that algorithm, it is in sending spam sometimes to my Inbox. It fails safe. If it doesn't know, it errs on the side of showing me the email. I add to its comparison data by marking such mail as spam after my own review.

Computers do a much better job at this type of comparison, and that's how Hillary Clinton's emails were reviewed. Data analysis and comparison is the sort of job that is ideal for computers. Humans do a crappy job of that sort of thing.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. If she just had separate work and personal email accounts

Each email would have been decided on a case-by-case basis, with no extra effort.

[99Forever]

2. Naw...

... that would have made far too much sense. Besides, what would we do without a constant steam of The Clinton Drama Show?

[pnwmom]

91. If she had separate accounts, she'd still have had to decide to classify

every email into one account or the other. The same decision her detractors don't trust her to make now.

[rgbecker]

115. Finally someone gets it. Right on pnwmom!

The current MSM press can't seem to have a talk about what this email thing is all about.....it's all about love or hate for Hillary.

How come the press, who seems to want access to absolutely everything hasn't demanded transcripts or recordings of every telephone call since Alexander Graham Bell?

[ManiacJoe]

126. Actually it is the sender of the email that makes the decision

which account to send TO. The recipient of the email gets no say in that decision.

Personal email gets sent to the personal account.
SOS email gets sent to the gov account.

[pnwmom]

134. Yes, and I was talking about her actions when she send emails. n/t

[Thor_MN]

140. And what then happens if an email gets sent to the wrong account?

Then it has to be forwarded to the right account and no matter what is done the right wing media is going to claim gaps...

[JaneyVee]

3. True, but she opted for convenience. Which was legal.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. And shows good judgement, amiright?

[DanTex]

6. It makes no difference to anyone except people who hate Hillary.

[JaneyVee]

8. True. One must first believe there was nefarious intent.

BENGHAZI!

[FarPoint]

9. That's exactly correct.

Each time a Democratic discusses the issue, a GOP demon in hell gets a new wart....The " ring the bell" play is in motion.

Stop feeding the GOP scandal propaganda machine.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Incompetence and malfeasance only matter for people we hate

Not, say for people who want to hold the most powerful job in the world.

Got it.

[DanTex]

20. It's neither incompetence nor malfeasance.

It's a choice of how to arrange her emails that was totally legal and also totally irrelevant.

[Man from Pickens]

52. it's not incompetence

but malfeasance is pretty much a given

Why would anyone print out 55,000 pages of documents when they could simply turn over the data in digital format, unless they specifically wanted it to be difficult to figure out what was in that document dump - and what might be missing. And furthermore, why would someone who was on the up-and-up lie about what she was doing, and so poorly that even her own husband wouldn't cover for her.

Normal human beings don't do this kind of thing. There really is no reason whatsoever to do it unless one needs to cover something up. And we have a very good idea of what kind of behavior is likely to be exposed, should the full record ever see the light of day - and it ain't yoga classes.

Clinton Foundation admits breaking ethical rules by taking money from Algeria
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/11437994/Clinton-Foundation-admits-breaking-ethical-rules-by-taking-money-from-Algeria.html

Does anyone of sound mind seriously believe that the Algerian incident is the only such incident of its type? The likelihood is near zero - that's simply the first one we know about. There is undoubtedly more to come, and I wouldn't put it past the GOP to be sitting on piles of data waiting for the Democratic Party to make the historic error of nominating her.

[DanTex]

56. It's not malfeasance either. It's a choice of how to arrange emails.

People who think Hillary is evil incarnate will obviously think everything she does is evil. A few weeks ago it was HSBC. Then the speaking fees. And so on.

Regular people realize that her email setup is completely irrelevant to her actual performance as SoS and her potential as president. Instead they focus on where she stands on issues, her experience, etc. This is a sideshow.

[BlueCaliDem]

59. BINGO. And we ALL know how Manny feels about Hillary Clinton...or any other Democrat, reallly. eom

[Man from Pickens]

66. Well if we're talking performance she comes out even worse

We have her war in Libya which we have since learned would not have occurred without her dogged, persistent prevention of diplomatic resolution. That's the opposite of what the head diplomat is supposed to do. The end result continues to drag out to this day as misery and chaos for millions of people.

She is also highly culpable in the mess in Syria.

Plus, we know from the Algerian incident that her assessment on human rights with respect to any given country was related to how much money they gave to the Clinton Foundation. Obama anticipated this behavior which is why he forced her to sign an ethics agreement to not do this very thing, which of course she violated since rules don't apply to her. It opens the question, how much of her activity in office was threatening countries with adverse human rights reports and possible sanctions or other negative consequences, if a substantial donation didn't show up in a timely manner?

She messed up her "reset" with Russia as badly as it possibly could have, leading us into a new Cold War.

Asked to name her own accomplishments as SoS, she couldn't name one and completely deflected the question.

So, if you're judging job performance, the fail is even greater than if we're merely discussing the latest of her endless train of unethical behavior.

[DanTex]

69. Hmm. But isn't it odd that the Hillary-haters are so obsessed with the email nonsense.

And before that, with HSBC. And with the speaking fees.

Seems to me that they really don't want to engage in any substantive discussion, they just want to find things to hate.

[Man from Pickens]

80. I see the opposite

It's Hillary's defenders who don't want to discuss her record, so if you mention the war in Libya they start screaming "Benghazi" as if that is an even slightly relevant part of the picture.

If we do discuss the war on Libya - "Hillary's War" (really just her first, as she owns a good chunk of the Syria debacle too and likely had a hand in the Ukraine fiasco as well) - then revelations of her disastrous actual performance in office would make it impossible for any serious person to support her for any other office.

If you made her dogcatcher, your town would be overrun by strays and she'd leave office millions richer for reasons no one can adequately explain.

[DanTex]

86. Interesting. So now it's Hillary's fault that Russia invaded Ukraine.

Yeah, that's the other tack. Blame every problem in the world on Hillary. Thanks Obama!

[Man from Pickens]

89. Come on now

I post about Libya and make a side note about Ukraine, and you respond only to the side note and ignore the main issue completely.

Which side of the pro/anti Hillary camp is avoiding the real issues, again?

Why don't you tell me what you think of her performance in Libya, which is the centerpiece "accomplishment" of her time in office? This is the real issue, and you claim to be more interested in it than in emails, so let's hear your thoughts on the matter.

[DanTex]

95. I think she did fine as SoS. Libya, and elsewhere.

I also think she would be a good president. I agree with her on most things, though not all.

Hillary-haters like to pretend she caused all the problems in the world (you did mention Ukraine) and that without her everything in the Middle East would have turned out wonderfully. You know, because civil wars always turn out great.

Meh.

[Man from Pickens]

98. Let me provide you some information

I am going to assume you don't support war and chaos. If you do, then we are at odds on policy and that won't be resolved. But presuming you don't, then the details of the story would prevent any fair-minded person from continuing to support her for any political office.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/hillary-clinton-marco-rubio-and-the-ill-fated-wars-they-supported/387535/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/hillary-clintons-hawkishness-could-cost-her-the-presidency-again/385629/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/09/libya-isis-and-the-unaffordable-luxury-of-hindsight/
http://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/16/hailed-model-successful-intervention-libya-proves-exact-opposite/


I don't find it as funny as she does. Or funny at all.

And it's not funny because the consequences are still being realized - not just for Libyans, but for all the neighboring countries as well.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-17/libya-chaos-put-regional-forces-on-alert-as-italy-weighs-action

[DanTex]

124. Libya was nothing like Iraq.

Among the people who supported the NATO airstrikes in Libya are Juan Cole and Nick Kristof. Not to mention the UN. If those two are too hawkish and neo-con for you, I don't know what to tell you.

I imagine you also would have opposed intervention in Rwanda. It's easy to just take the point of view that all military action is bad, no matter what. The world is more complicated than that. Even if the Libyan airstrikes were a mistake (far from clear), it doesn't remotely disqualify Hillary from anything. She's more hawkish than I am as well, but I'm not blind to the enormous differences between Hillary and say Dick Cheney.

Like I said, in the end, I agree with Hillary about most things. She's about where Obama is on the spectrum, which is fine with me.

[Thinkingabout]

111. Whose record are you willing to discuss?

I talk about Hillary's record all the time. I see post on the negative side for Hillary but the don't present about others.

[Man from Pickens]

112. Anybody's

Feel free to ask if you are interested in my opinion on any other individual. When it comes to Hillary I am all claws and teeth because I know how dangerous she is to our party and to the country.

[Thinkingabout]

113. RW talking points, gotcha

[MineralMan]

117. If you're supporting someone as a primary opponent,

maybe you should be promoting that candidate. I haven't seen any of that from you so far - just attacks on Clinton. I guarantee that won't work without a strong, organized, supported alternative. So, let's hear about your candidate, including some evidence that he or she is actually planning to run.

So, I'm asking for your opinion. Who do you support? You said to ask, and I'm asking. Let's hear from you about the candidate you want to win and why you think that candidate should win.

I'll wait right here.

[Man from Pickens]

120. My vote is open to the best candidate

And I view every single alternative prospect to be far superior to Hillary.

O'Malley, Webb, Warren, Sanders - you name it, I am open to voting for any one of them and would line up behind them in the general even if I favored another.

Hillary is another beast entirely. She represents the emerging feudal corporate aristocracy, which is the open enemy of you and me and everything we love and hold dear. And that under no conditions will I ever endorse in any way.

[MineralMan]

121. Pick one.

Warren says she's not running. O'Malley is likely to run. Sanders is questionable, both in the primaries and general. Webb? He's not a good choice for getting women to vote for him. Really he's not.

Sing the praises of someone. Again, you're just attacking a candidate, who is the solid leader at this point. It's going to take more than that to get someone else nominated.

[Man from Pickens]

122. We'll see who's running

I have lots of nice things to say about Jim Webb. The man is a serious thinker, honest, performed very admirably in office, was humble enough to voluntarily decline to run for re-election (without any shadow hanging over him to influence the decision), and doesn't take a heedless-rush-to-war approach to foreign policy. He's well-spoken and a formidable candidate, having beaten the odds to win a Senate seat in a state that was heavily Republican at the time. Because he performed well, he led the way for a Democratic renaissance in his state that in turn led to a sweep of statewide offices by our party. And there's not a whisper of any kind of ethics problem about him.

I barely know anything about the other announced candidate, O'Malley, so I have nothing yet to say either way about him, other than that I'd happily roll the dice on a complete unknown in preference to she-who-demands-loyalty-above-all-things.

[LiberalFighter]

136. It was not provided in digital format because they wouldn't accept anything but paper.

It is standard practice to print emails for review.

State Department official said that printing emails is common practice because they would have to print Clinton's emails in their normal review process.

State Department regulations are very clear: all emails "warranting preservation as records ... must be printed out." From the State Department Foreign Affairs Manual:

[Igel]

46. Flip it the other way around.

Instead of saying, "Everybody gives HRC all the good will, and suspicion and good judgment only matter for those who hate her" it should go the other way around.

"HRC has to prove that she'll make a good CiC, chief executive, principled negotiation in foreign affairs by demonstrating sound judgment as confirmation to those who love her, enough evidence to tip the balance for those who are uncommitted, and repudiatory evidence to at least quiet those who hate her.

"Evidence of actual bad judgment is really only important for those who already are committed to her, proof that she's not the best candidate. For everybody else, lack of excellent judgment is enough."

It's not like we need to find evidence to show she's not qualified for her coronation. All evidence goes into the hopper and is weighed, possibly weighted by partisan filters and MSM spin (as well as timing, context, etc.). What's needed is enough evidence that she's a sound enough candidate to be elected by 50% + 1 of those voting. Early on in the process, negative evidence is easier to deal with than positive evidence. It's something that (D) strategists do in trying to shape the image of opponents to make them unelectable in the general election, or remove possible strong contenders during the (R) primary phase of the selection process; it's something that they know in vetting and defusing anything that could derail a (D) candidate, either in the primaries or the generals.

[DanTex]

53. This is not evidence of bad judgement.

There is plenty of evidence that Hillary is extremely competent. How she arranges her email is irrelevant.

[MBS]

97. It's relevant to how she arranges her campaign and her potential presidency

As an indicator of limitations in political judgment and sense of political strategy, the whole incident, from beginning (the decision to set up the system this way in the first place) to the end (handling the political/PR fallout) is worrisome. And that's why the story continues to have legs. Here is Mark Shields (a Democrat, not a frothing Republican), yesterday, on PBS Newshour:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/videos/#137878
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/shields-gerson-clintons-email-problem-senate-sabotage-iran-negotiations/#transcript

JUDY WOODRUFF: Let’s talk about Hillary Clinton’s…Let’s talk about Hillary Clinton’s e-mails.
Mark, did she answer all the questions out there with her news conference this week?
MARK SHIELDS: No, of course not, Judy. The questions will keep coming and keep coming. But there was one result of it that just hit me so hard. And that is the great advice, beware of any national leader — and I don’t limit this to Secretary Clinton, by any means — but who doesn’t have close to him or her contemporary friends and confidants who can tell them when necessary they’re absolutely wrong and go to hell.. ..

. . . .(NB:I added the quotes below, for clarity, to differentiate Shields' hypothetical question to Hillary from his comments to Judy Woodruff)

I just ask Mrs. Clinton, "who in your retinue, among your group of advisers, when you had the idea of having a personal computer e-mail service of your own, an individual one, who didn’t say, are you out of your 'expletive deleted' mind? This is politically indefensible and probably morally indefensible and may be legally problematic."
And I guess that is what really bothers me. And I think that’s a question that persists even after all the details, whether the relevance or irrelevance of the e-mails turns out to be anything at all legally or substantively. That is a real problem.

[Ms. Toad]

129. How she arranges **her** e-mail is irrelevant.

How she arranges the SOS's e-mail is not. Once she chose to mingle the two, she no longer had private e-mail (aside from any completely separate account she may have maintained).

[awake]

48. I am afraid too many Hillary supporters have blinders on

It is not just people who hate the Clintons, there are real questions about Hillary's judgment in not only how she setup her email but in the way she has handled the issue by staying quite for 2 weeks and not responding to questions when they first came up. In her press converance she said that she only wanted to use one cell phone but just weeks earlier she told a group in California that she use both a iPhone and a BlackBerry. Before we hand over the nomination to HRC we need to be sure she will be able to become president. Asking the hard questions now will only make us stronger, but if we do not clear this up then the Republicans will surly use her evasiveness as example of how she "can't be trusted" Kerry let the swift boating questions go unanswered for too long and it hurt him, lets make sure our nominee this time around is ready for prime time. She may just be a little "rusty" but if we want to be sure of a win then we need to see clearly not just what we like about Hillary but what are her short comings and what needs to be done to improve her performance.

[DanTex]

57. OK, maybe she misplayed it politically. But probably not. It will go away and nobody will care.

Because it's a non-issue.

[awake]

68. Non-issue is another way of saying put your blinders back on

That is the attitude that will sink us next fall, wishing that "It will go away" will not make it go away and we can only hope "nobody will care" because you can be sure that the Republicans will do every think they can to make people care. Misplayed politics is what sank Hillary last time around and could do it again unless we help her get and keep her A game.

[DanTex]

72. What blinders? It's a non-issue. It hasn't affected polls.

And really, if you are opposed to Hillary, the last thing you want to do is talk about the importance of beating the Republicans. All the polls show that she is best positioned to do that, and she has fundraising capacity way beyond any other Dem.

[awake]

83. I do not trust polls that are a year and a half away from the election

Wake Up this is not a "non-issue" it will be talked about on the sunday talk shows and the right will fan the fire till it is put out which it has not been.

[DanTex]

88. Of course you don't trust polls. They reflect political reality, which is not your friend here.

I don't worry about non-scandals that take place a year and a half before the election.

[awake]

96. The question is not the polls today the question is winning in 2016

If we think this is over we will regret not coming clean and upfront now, I wish Hillary had put this to bed 2 weeks ago but she has only fueled the fire by holding on to the email server. The sooner we see that stone walling will not work the better.

[DanTex]

125. We agree on that.

That means you're not part of the "Hillary is the same as a Republican" crowd. Good.

The important thing is for a Democrat to win the White House. Substantively, there is nothing to this email story. It doesn't remotely imply that she is not qualified to be president.

Possibly she misplayed it politically. OK. I'm pretty confident that in a year and a half nobody will care. I do think she needs more competent people in her camp than she had in 2008. Because this time around, there's no Obama. It's gonna be Hillary, and she needs to win.

[BlueCaliDem]

62. With "blinders" you mean, people who aren't hawk-eyed focused on every tiny

thing she does that might appear nefarious in the right lighting and set of circumstances? Yeah. You're correct.

[awake]

77. By blinders I mean not seeing the down side to stonewalling questions

Hillary needs to get her "war room" up and running asap, this problem came about by Hillary's choice to use a home email server not by some reporter digging up a false story or a right wing plot. Having her people run interference or casting blame will not help in the long run, she needs to step up hand over the email server to a Government Archivist or Judge so we can all move on.

[JaneyVee]

7. I don't think it matters either way.

I wouldn't call someone who chooses a convenient, legal method "bad judgement". She said she carries 2 phones nowadays anyway. 2009 was a different tech world.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. In 2009, a single phone could support two email accounts. nt

[MineralMan]

27. So? I could have dozens of email accounts, and could

have had in 2009 or even in the mid 90s. Instead, I have just one email address. On all of my websites over time, the hosts had email accounts assigned to them, but for each, I used that host's filtration system to delete all incoming email, since I never revealed any of those addressed publicly. In fact, I ended up deleting all emails on the hosts servers automatically, because I didn't have time to go though all of the spam.

Hillary had just one email account on her Blackberry. That was her choice. It would have been mine, as well.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. And again,

Unless evidence is forthcoming to the contrary, you did not have a legal obligation to preserve all work emails.

Heck, many small business owners have a separate credit card for business, just to keep bussness records seperatefor tax purposes.

[MineralMan]

33. See, again, you have no idea about my business operations.

In several of them, I had a contractual obligation to preserve such communications. You know nothing about me or my businesses. I do not have to justify any statements about my business. Suffice it to say that I had an obligation to retain those emails, and all of those obligations had time limits. At the end of the required time, I purged those communications to simplify my own life.

I have no idea of what your business might be, either. I would not speculate on how you run it or how it is structured. It's none of my business. Neither is my business any of yours.

[MannyGoldstein]

35. Remind me, who was it that brought up *your* email accounts as an example?

[MineralMan]

38. I did, and you are trying to get me to make more than general

comments on how I use email. I said that I had a legal obligation to preserve my emails with regard to my business. That is a fact. Exactly why that was so is none of your business. It's a matter of contracts with my clients, my financial institutions, and others. More information than that is not going to be forthcoming, Manny.

You can look at one of my businesses by clicking a link in my signature line. That's the only business I'm in these days, since I"m semi-retired and have closed all of my other operations. At that link, you'll also find other information about who I am and what I do. I make no serious attempt to keep my identity private. That was a conscious decision on my part.

But, if you want any other information about me, you're not going to get it, and certainly not on a public discussion forum.

Yes, I used my own email as an example. So what? Mine is complex enough, and I have no trouble managing it.

[MannyGoldstein]

42. You wrote that ALL businesses have a legal obligation to retain their emails

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6363735

I asked for a citation demonstrating that all businesses have a legal obligation to retain their emails.

[MineralMan]

45. I suggest Google. I am not your servant.

All of my businesses had that requirement, contractual if not required by law. I'm done with providing information on demand. I have no contract with you. I don't even know who you actually are. Your request for a citation is denied. But here's a starting place for you regarding business data retention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_retention

Have fun.

[Rex]

143. LOL! I cannot believe what people will say instead of just admitting they are wrong!

There is no law in the land that says all business have to by law keep their emails, that is one of the largest piles of bullshit I've read in a long time.

[MannyGoldstein]

147. So I'm not hallucinating.

MM did claim that before he kinda didn't claim that.

[MineralMan]

101. You want to hear something funny, Manny?

Since I mentioned the link in my signature line, my humble little web content blogs has had 75 visits today, all of them referred by democraticunderground.com. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to call attention to it. I'm guessing one of those visits was by you. The link has been in my signature line for a very long time, by the way.

[MannyGoldstein]

146. Glad I could help

I still think your claim that all businesses are required by law to keep there emails is inaccurate.

But somehow I doubt an apology is forthcoming.

[Rex]

148. Forget an apology, how about simply admitting to being wrong?

You gotta start out with baby steps. A simple, "gee that was a silly thing to say" kinda admittance would even work. That was one of the biggest BS claims I've seen in a while.

[pnwmom]

94. Good judgment if the aim was to actually preserve emails

which,as it turns out, the government system wasn't set up to automatically do.

[MineralMan]

15. But she didn't do that, which was OK at the time.

I have just one email address, too. I use it for both my business and my personal communications. I maintain a long, long list of folders, into which I sort incoming email. At the end of the year, last year, I eliminated some old folders that were no longer being used. I didn't even look in them. I simply deleted the entire folder, because I knew that folder had nothing in it of interest to me any longer. I'm betting in each of those folders, there were a few emails that had been wrongly sent there. But, it doesn't really matter.

I don't know the structure of Hillary Clinton's email server. I'd be surprised if she didn't also have a folder system. But, I don't know. I do know that the time require to review tens of thousands of emails manually is enormous.

Thanks for your reply.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Do you have a legal obligation to retain work email?

And if you did, would you comingle those emails in a single account?

[MineralMan]

21. All businesses do. And I do retain them, for the recommended period.

Last edited Sat Mar 14, 2015, 11:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Thousands of them, in fact. I've used the very same email account as my only one since 1994. Prior to that time, my email was on CompuServe. In that time, I've started and closed half a dozen businesses, all small, but all heavy generators of incoming email. I've had half a dozen different computers during that time, which is why I use an online email client. It keeps me from having to deal with email storage on my own computers.

When the emails are no longer needed, either legally or for business purposes, I delete them from the Yahoo server. Since I have a well-designed folder system, it's pretty easy to do. We do not know how Hillary Cinton's email server was set up, nor how her email storage was organized. Given how busy her email system must have been, I imagine a storage strategy had been created and used. Wouldn't you think so?

[MannyGoldstein]

23. There's a legal obligation to retain all business emails?

Really? Can you cite this?

Seems like Hillary didn't have a folder system that she trusted, otherwise there'd be no need to have a key-word algorithm to rule things *in*.

[MineralMan]

26. What it "seems" like to you is irrelevant, frankly.

As far as I know, you have no specific knowledge of any of this, so you're merely speculating. Speculation is not information. I have specific knowledge of data management strategies. That was the subject of my original post.

[MannyGoldstein]

31. Ok, so how would *you* reconcile having to run an algorithm

If she had a good folder system?

[MineralMan]

47. Manny, I do not know how Hillary Clinton's private email server

was organized or even what software was used. Do you? Apparently, some method was used to decide which emails had to be retained and which could be deleted. I also don't know exactly what method was used. I described one such method that can be used. I don't have to reconcile anything, nor did I attempt to do so.

I must say, though, that it is good to be talking to the MannyGoldstein persona in its native voice. At least I know it's you.

[riderinthestorm]

123. I've never heard of businesses being legally required to save emails

I did just run a Google search at your suggestion and came up with nothing.

As a small business owner, I'm very interested in this and really would appreciate a cite.

[Rex]

142. That's because it is total bullshit. I can't believe some of the garbage I am reading.

The sad thing is someone will come in here and read that and believe it!

SMH.

[pnwmom]

90. No, if she had separate accounts she would have had to decide for each and every mail

whether to classify it as personal or work-related.

The same decision her detractors don't trust her to make now, with or without computer help in sorting.

[Ms. Toad]

133. It is a very different task to decide one e-mail at a time

than sorting the collection after it has accumulated. No one is suggesting that she may not have personal phone e-mails or phone calls, etc. As an attorney she knows very well how to avoid co-mingling. It is an ethical obligation imposed on all attorneys with respect to client money - you maintain a client separate account (generally at an institution of your own choosing) from your firm's account. When you receive money from clients, if it is for services already rendered, you may put it in you firm account. If it is for services not yet rendered, you must put it in the separate account. Same principle. Single decision at the outset. And the same consequences if you dump all money into the single account, co-minging it: Deep doo-doo.

And if you screw up and co-mingle things, you'd preserve everything until it is all sorted out. That is my biggest concern about all fo this. It is one thing to o an electronic sort and hand over the results of the sort - and have the ability to search again if something business related is missing. It is quite another to destroy it, so you have no ability to undo mistakes in sorting.

[Rex]

127. You mean make new folders and *gasp* label them? MY GOD MAN!

SNAP OUT OF IT! We can have none of that! You have any idea how long it takes to click and make a new folder!? DO YOU!? You probably have 5000 contacts all in one huge, uncompressed file. Most people do! Nobody ever separated any of that stuff ever in the history of email. It's just not done.

Okay in fairness Jeb Bush had his separated. However technically having three folders labeled 'porn', 'junk' and 'money' is not the best system imo.

Besides, for 200 million dollars a year you cannot expect to get good helpdesk workers! All they do is wait for the boss to leave and play minecraft!

What the FUCK IS MINECRAFT!?! I say we just outsource Congress. Hell, could a group of total strangers really do a worse job?

[LiberalFighter]

137. It would had required two separate phones.

Blackberries were not capable of 2 separate email accounts at that time.

[MannyGoldstein]

139. Would that be such a big deal? nt

[randome]

4. Exactly. No one personally read 60,000+ emails. It was an automated purge job.

All this hand-wringing about how it might look to Republicans is embarrassing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[leveymg]

10. Half a dozen lawyers and staff can do it in about two weeks. Tops.

Including taking short notes. 1,000 a day per examiner. One can use automated search to locate email for examination, but nobody would use it in discovery to cull out messages without reading them. That would invite sanctions from the Court for failure to fully disclose.

Anyone who has ever done litigation discovery or simply had to clean out their own office email knows that.

[stevenleser]

102. This isn't a discovery situation. nt

[MineralMan]

105. Exactly. This is a record-keeping question.

It's amazing how many people are putting Hillary Clinton on metaphorical trial, even with no evidence that there is any culpability or legal issue involved. Uff da!

[Man from Pickens]

11. That's why the whole thing should have been turned over

She co-mingled the documents, and the method of segregation used to determine which is which was both improper and inaccurate. As a lawyer she knows exactly what co-mingling is and why it is a huge no-no.

As there is no imaginable harm that could come from her yoga appointment emails being in the hands of the Department of State, she should have turned over the entirety of the account and let DoS decide what was official business and what wasn't.

Right now she's claimed that her own error results in a right to decide which is work-relevant and which is not, a right possessed by no one else. Ironically, she's claiming more privacy for herself with respect to documents which very well may be work-related than she affords to any of us on our incontrovertibly personal communications, thanks to her relentless support of the surveillance state.

The only explanation consistent with both the facts and her stance on the issue is that those documents would reveal trading favors from the US government to large corporations in return for favors to the Clinton Foundation and associated entities, something she's already been caught doing with the Algerian affair.

[leveymg]

16. Right now, it looks like she committed error upon error to evade revealing her official messages.

There are several topics of nonclassified email of an official nature she might want to withhold as extremely embarrassing, to say the least, as not conforming with public information released by the Department on the subject. You mentioned Clinton Foundation matters. Another would be events in Libya, a third would be Syria. Blumenthal's hacked messages to Hillary show that. The attack on the US compounds in Benghazi is just a subset of one subject.

There's no way that a keyword search is going to capture every relevant message. In legal discovery or production of records, one would use automated search to help identify relevant documents for closer examination, not as the sole means to cull out all non-relevant documents. The procedure used by Clinton's lawyers does not conform with the rules of discovery and production of records.

[MineralMan]

24. Does it look like that? I don't know that it does, frankly.

I've not seen her email system, don't know its organization, nor do I know what algorithm was used to deal with cleaning it up. Do you? I don't believe any of that information is available.

Lots of speculation out there about this, but precious little actual information. Assuming that stuff was deliberately deleted isn't appropriate. We don't know that anything like that happened.

And actually, a comprehensive keyword system would have been needed, no matter who reviewed the emails. We also don't know what was in the comparison database. We don't know much about the details. I will not speculate on them.

[leveymg]

32. I said, that's what it looks like. When and if her server is examined, assuming half the email

wasn't permanently erased, we may find out this was a kerfluffle. But, on the surface, this is looking more and more like a cover-up. In politics, the appearance of impropriety also counts.

Yes, when one does discovery or disclosure in legal proceedings, automated search is commonly used for large datasets and documents. But, one does not simply throw out half the documents without further examination. One would have to produce the full set for examination by both sides. The irrelevant docs would be ruled inadmissible, but everyone would be satisfied a throrough production had been made. Her lawyers know that, but decided that the rules of civil procedure don't apply, so they chucked the normal procedures. Bad political mistake, as that creates the impression of a cover-up.

[MineralMan]

34. You'll judge Hillary Clinton as you will judge her.

You make whatever assumptions you wish to make. You speculate as you wish to speculate. That's fine. I don't really care. I posted some information on using data comparisons. I'm not making any judgments about Hillary Clinton at all, because I don't have enough information to do so. Neither do you.

We will never have that information. And there it is.

[stevenleser]

103. No, it doesn't. Not at all. nt

[leveymg]

106. Can we take it, Steven, that's all you have to say? nt

[MannyGoldstein]

145. Spot on. nt

[greatlaurel]

14. That explanation pretty much shows all the criticsm for what it is, nonsense.

The algorithms take out all the nefarious claims. It is pretty funny how all the critics are still trying to find something when it is clear this was handled properly by professionals.

Thanks for the information.

[MineralMan]

18. Thanks. Having written many such review and sorting algorithms

I know that they do a far better job, tirelessly, than humans do.

[Man from Pickens]

22. having done actual e-discovery processing

I know for a fact that they are not adequate substitutes for human review.

As do the roomfuls of lawyers the big legal corps hire to sort through relevant documents - manually, one-by-one.

[leveymg]

36. You are correct. Actually, in really big cases, discovery and disclosure review are outsourced

to firms that do this for a fee. This wouldn't be considered a big document matter, and would probably be done in-house by most corporate law firms.

[Logical]

43. So true, the OP is pure BS. nt

[stevenleser]

104. Good thing this is not an e-discovery situation. nt

[Man from Pickens]

109. it will be

that much is inevitable.

More to the point, if it's not an e-discovery situation then her lawyers using an e-discovery method to produce the documents isn't appropriate, is it? Yet that is what they did.

The very fact that she had her lawyers handle this indicates that she was already in defendant mode, anticipating litigation, at the time of the document production. Which again is far far far from normal behavior. Why lawyer up if there's no controversy?

[leveymg]

110. Hillary's lawyers seem to have applied an inverted sort of e-discovery solution.

The normal procedure is to use a search algorithm to locate the most relevant messages, and then read them most closely. What is described is instead a wholesale deletion of email if there wasn't a keyword match. That would be a violation of the rules of discovery.

This adds to the the impression of a cover-up. Even if the legal standards are different, the political consequences of the appearance of evasion are still present here. Lawyers sometimes make terrible political advisors.

[greatlaurel]

25. Your posts are always interesting and the computer posts are written so people like me learn a lot.

I really appreciate the information.

[MineralMan]

28. My pleasure.

[leveymg]

19. We haven't seen the full set of algorithms, just the examples given in the TIME article.

http://time.com/3741847/the-clinton-way/

Jason R. Baron, a former lawyer at the National Archives and Records Administration who is now an attorney in the Washington office of Drinker Biddle & Reath, says, “I would question why lawyers for Secretary Clinton would use keyword searching, a method known to be fraught with limitations, to determine which of the emails with a non-.gov address pertained to government business. Any and all State Department activities–not just communications involving the keywords Benghazi or Libya–would potentially make an email a federal record. Given the high stakes involved, I would have imagined staff could have simply conducted a manual review of every document. Using keywords as a shortcut unfortunately leaves the process open to being second-guessed.”

[MineralMan]

29. Again, we have no information regarding the extent or

quality of the matching database, nor of how the algorithm was structured. It's clear that you do not, and neither does Mr. Baron, Esq. A keyword-based search can be very useful, if the keyword database is properly structured and populated. Since we do not know any of those details, any speculation about its capabilities is just that: speculation.

Every manual review is also based on a keyword list. That was the point of my OP. Data management strategies can do amazing things. For an example, check Google. It's ranking algorithms are quite effective. I can't imagine how large the underlying data sets are.

Your example of someone else's speculation confirms what I suspected. You actually have zero information about how the winnowing of the emails was done. So, you speculate, based on completely irrelevant information and suspicions. I reject that kind of speculation outright.

[leveymg]

37. Don't assume that. You have no idea what my work experience includes.

I've reviewed stacks and stacks of files and email, and am familiar with software used in legal document management and discovery. You grossly mischaracterize and oversimplify how large document legal production works, and your explanation is doing nobody any good as it is not completely candid.

If you had ever worked in litigation, you would know how improper the procedure used in the Clinton email matter really is.

[MineralMan]

39. OK. Then you understand the process.

I think we're done with this discussion.

[leveymg]

41. Do you, in any professional way?

[Logical]

64. I think you are way overestimating your algorithms. And not sure why. nt

[MineralMan]

71. Not my algorithms. I had nothing to do with designing

a method for those emails. I have no idea how it was designed. I do know, however, that a well-designed data comparison algorithm can work better than any number of people doing a review, and with far more objectivity. But, I didn't design this one. Neither did you. None of us knows the details.

[Logical]

75. "None of us knows the details" but you are SURE it worked better than people. LOL, OK, brilliant!!

[MineralMan]

81. No. I'm sure that effectively prepared data comparison algorithms

can work better than people in making such comparisons. You may not be reading my post carefully enough. Without any knowledge of how this particular comparison was done, I can't comment on its effectiveness. I would assume that competent people designed the algorithm and data set used for the comparison. Certainly such talent is available in good supply.

You might assume something else, but that's not my concern.

[Logical]

87. You are the one that made the claim that it was way more accurate than people......

and then admit you have no idea if it was more accurate.

The purpose of the OP is to try to shut up any discussion on the story. I get it.

[MineralMan]

93. How could I "shut up" any discussion?

It appears to me that discussion is going on in this very thread. What I actually said that, given the same data comparison information, and a good algorithm, a computer can do a more accurate job of reviewing any targeted data, and much more quickly and efficiently. That's what I said. You're reading something into my post that is not there.

The purpose of this OP is to open a new line of discussion, not to "shut up" anything. Clearly, I'm participating in this discussion, and it is rapidly getting longer and longer. You're woefully incorrect as to the purpose of my OP.

[Man from Pickens]

54. you can exclude documents deliberately with keyword choice

Sure they probably had "Benghazi" and "Libya" among the keywords, but that's not really the important stuff.

I want to know what, if anything, turned up for searches like "Goldman Sachs". That's where the real meat is here, and it is rather certain that that was not among the terms included in the search.

[MineralMan]

58. Oh, dear. Again, you're making assumptions based on zero information.

We don't know what was in the comparison dataset. As for Goldmann Sachs, I have no information at all. Were they involved in her work as SOS? If not, then it's not relevant to official emails by the Secretary of State. The only thing in question here is whether emails having to do with her service in that position were deleted.

The Clinton Foundation is not relevant, since it is a private foundation. You might like to know, but there is no legal requirement for her to share any communications about that foundation.

If you're looking for ways to damage her possible candidacy, you might be interested in that, I suppose. I'm not talking about her candidacy at all...just the emails related to her job as Secretary of State.

In any case, I suspect the dataset used to review the emails contained a very large number of keywords and phrases. But, I don't have any detailed information about how that review was done. I don't think you do, either.

[Man from Pickens]

74. The Clinton Foundation is highly relevant and she herself made it so

Let me quote directly from a report on the Algerian affair:

The Clintons' global charity has admitted violating White House ethics rules by accepting money from the government of Algeria while Hillary Clinton was still serving as America's top diplomat.

After such an admission, no assertion that the CF is not relevant to her actions as SoS can be supported.

Barack Obama was concerned enough about the potential for conflicts of interest that he made Mrs Clinton agree to a set of ethical rules before nominating her as secretary of state in 2009.

You'll have to take my word on this, but I am of the firm belief that Obama is not a right-wing conspiracy theorist. He saw this coming and specifically made her promise not to do it. And she gave Obama the middle finger, doing what she wanted anyway.

The Clinton Foundation admitted to the Washington Post that it had broken those rules at least once by taking a $500,000 cheque from the Algerian government in 2010.

At least once. In other words, there's a hell of a lot more that isn't yet public (but is likely to become so after this albatross is irrevocably hung around our necks).

The charity said the money was not solicited and arrived without notice after Mr Clinton appealed for the world to help Haiti in the wake of its devastating earthquake. The donation reportedly coincided with an intense effort by Algeria to lobby Mrs Clinton's State Department over US criticism of its human rights record.

Means, motive, opportunity. Direct relevance.

This can't be hand-waved away. And in case you were thinking of saying it is an isolated case...

According to the Washington Post, other countries including Qatar, Kuwait and Oman also donated to the foundation during Mrs Clinton's four years as secretary of state. Those donations did not break the rules because the countries were already donors before Mrs Clinton took office.

Hillary is an ethical scandal of epic proportions. One can only degrade oneself by attempting to defend her behavior.

[MineralMan]

78. See, I'm not trying to defend anything or anyone.

People seem to think I'm a supporter of Hillary Clinton. If she gains the nomination, then I'll be a supporter of her election. Until then, I'm not supporting anyone for President in 2016. I will support the Democratic nominee.

As for your assertions, I have no information on that. I'm talking about how data management strategies can be used to identify individual emails that meet certain criteria. That's all. I have no information on the exact ways it was used, nor does anyone else in this thread. I'm discussing techniques, not reasons, here.

[antigop]

79. or "Boeing"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-hillary-clinton-and-boeing-a-beneficial-relationship/2014/04/13/21fe84ec-bc09-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html

[Man from Pickens]

84. yikes

wasn't even aware of that one, but it does fit her M.O. perfectly

Clinton did not point out that, to secure the donation, the State Department had set aside ethics guidelines that first prohibited solicitations of Boeing and then later permitted only a $1 million gift from the company. Boeing had been included on a list of firms to be avoided because of its frequent reliance on the government for help negotiating overseas business and concern that a donation could be seen as an attempt to curry favor with U.S. officials.

I do believe we've established motive beyond any reasonable doubt.

[antigop]

85. or "Lockheed Martin" or "Google" or "MasterCard" or "Dow Chemical"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554

[greatlaurel]

40. You are going to need electric shock paddles to keep this "scandal" alive.

It is quite clear that no rules or laws were broken. The vast majority of people understand the hullabaloo about this issue is a non-scandal created by the GOP to try to harm the person most likely to run for the Democratic Party nomination for POTUS in 2016. Much ado about nothing.

How about someone investigate Mr. Baron and his use of email at the Archives and at his office at Drinker Biddle & Reath? Did he properly preserve all his emails when he left government service? If so someone should do an FOIA request for all his documentation. Furthermore, who does this man work for now through his law office? Is this law firm associated with the GOP or one of the right wing dark money groups? I would very much like to understand why Mr. Baron has chosen this time period to raise these concerns. Should he not have spoken up right after Clinton left the SOS position if he was truly concerned about her archival procedures?

The House of Rep has known about Clinton's emails for quite some time. It took the right wingers this long to come up with an attack based on her emails. They sure do not have much ammunition, if this is the best they can come up with.

[leveymg]

44. I think they were waiting for an opportune moment to leak this.

As we see more and more of the pieces -- and Hillary's response -- the worse this looks for her. She should have turned over the server to DOS months ago.

[greatlaurel]

49. HRC is coming out of this like a champ. The GOP has gone down in flames in the past two weeks.

Turns out Trey Gowdy has his own private email account, too. Can the Democratic Party do an FOIA request for his emails? The best excuse for signing Tehran Tom Cotton's letter was because he was in a hurry to get of town due to a snowstorm. Proceed, governor.

[greatlaurel]

51. So what do you know about Mr. Baron's political affiliations? nt

[leveymg]

55. Mr. Baron isn't the presumptive candidate for President.

I doubt the NYT, AP, or Time Magazine are going to dig particularly deeply into him. If you can come up with something interesting, please share with us.

[greatlaurel]

63. You should provide the information since you are using him as an important source.

Otherwise, I think we can safely assume he is a right wing operative.

[leveymg]

67. How am I relying on him, in particular? n/t

[awake]

92. Do not fool your self this is very much alive

And will stay so till the email server is turn over, Nixon thought that the 18 min. gap in a tape would end his troubles, if we are not on top of this issue it will become Hillary's "18 min. gap"

[Igel]

50. Algorithms are automated.

It's also not random mistakes that matter except to moral extremists. It's a pattern of mistakes that would matter. Or a pattern of non-mistakes that sanitize the records.

The selection criteria are determined by a person or by people. It makes the pattern easier to implement and faster to implement. This doesn't solve the PR problem except for those who think there's no problem and want a phrase to make it go away.

[MineralMan]

61. You know, I didn't mention anything other than how such a review

might be done. I'm not the one bringing up these other issues. I don't really care about PR. I care about facts. Unless we are given the details about how the review was accomplished, I can't really speak as to its effectiveness nor about its accuracy. I do know that a properly designed algorithm, supported by a good dataset, can do a better job than a group of humans looking at individual emails. That much I do know.

[hughee99]

60. Why did any of it NEED to be deleted? n/t

[Dr Hobbitstein]

70. People delete emails every day.

That's why. If it's a personal email that is no longer needed, why keep it?

[hughee99]

76. Deleted emails aren't automatically "gone" from the server, nor do most people send or receive

emails they are required to turn over to the national archives. The Secretary of state isn't "most people" and their email shouldn't be treated the same as a 19 year old's yahoo account.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

82. She deleted personal emails.

But the Republicans thank you for making this non-issue relevant.

BENGAWWZZZIIIIIII!!!!!!

[hughee99]

107. She deleted email that she determined to be not relevant to the national archives.

and that determination was left to her and her staff to make. If a republican had done this, or a wall street banker, or virtually anyone you weren't planning to vote for, you'd be up in arms about this.

It IS a problem, not just for Clinton but for ALL the politicians that are doing it. Rather than sweeping this under the rug because it's Clinton, people should be asking how the hell you can have transparency in government when politicians are allowed to determine for themselves what needs to be available for FOIA requests and what doesn't? Would you take a republican's word for it when they say they turned over all the relevant documents and deleted the rest?

[MineralMan]

108. Just like everyone else.

Why would she do things differently? That's how it works and how it worked when she was SOS. Should that be changed? Probably. However she's following the normal procedure.

[hughee99]

114. I'm not arguing she did anything illegal, but I am arguing that she, and others who did this

should have known better. As the secretary of state at the time the Wikileaks issue came to prominence AND as someone who appointed her own Cybersecurity specialist to the state department you'd think she would have been as well informed as just about any politician on security and the importance of it. It's not a "pass" for Gowdy, Jeb Bush or any other GOP clown that was also doing it. If any of them believe that it's not a big potential problem, then that shows questionable judgment in my opinion, and if they realize it could be a potential problem but feel the "benefits" outweigh the risks, than that's an even larger issue, because the single largest benefit of all this is that the politician has enormous control over all their correspondence when it comes to archives, FOIA requests and even subpoenas.

There's a difference between "following normal procedure" and not violating a policy. Setting up your own email server and controlling all your archives, while not violating any existing policy at the time, wasn't the standard or preferred practice for government officials either.

[MineralMan]

116. Perhaps. Government email servers are lousy, in general, and were worse

a few years ago. She made a choice that let her avoid dealing with that, except for classified materials, which are handled in a different way. Frankly, I don't see this as any sort of issue that is beyond nitpicking. People will have to judge her based on other things. She said she deleted personal emails and turned over all official ones. People will trust her or they will not, but the actual facts are not going to be revealed. It all comes down to whether people trust her enough to elect her to office. Nothing else is in play, really.

We'll see how that plays out, no doubt. I don't really pay a lot of attention to the presidential primary race, anyhow. It's not something I can influence, so I ignore it and focus on my own legislative districts, where I can have an influence. Come 2016, I'll be supporting whoever the candidate for President turns out to be. Frankly, I doubt that this email stuff will play much of a role in determining that. What will play a role is the appearance of an extremely strong primary candidate. So far, none has appeared. Will someone appear? I do not know. But nobody has stepped up yet who has any possibility of winning in the primaries, given the current polling. The email thing has not affected that polling in any material way, either.

People who are focused on the primaries need to find a candidate to support. Just being against a candidate accomplishes nothing in today's political environment. A primary opponent needs outstanding support from actual primary voters, along with superb name recognition and a well-established organization. When someone shows up who has all that, it will be a big news event. So far, though, there's nothing.

[hughee99]

118. You think the "government couldn't run an email system in 2008" defense is viable?

Why would anyone trust a government official to determine for themselves which files are relevant and which aren't? If you think this SHOULD be fine then we're definitely miles apart on what's acceptable.

This is going to have ZERO impact on the primary. By the general election, it will be dismissed as "old news" anyway. As I see it, this IS an issue, should be an issue, and people should push this issue because other politicians still think this is an acceptable way to conduct business, not because of any impact it will have on future elections.

Would you be okay if President Hillary Clinton conducted her email business on a private server set up by a private contractor in the basement of her private home and when she left office, turned over some of her email for posterity and deleted the rest? I know you wouldn't be okay with this if president Jeb Bush did it (for more reasons than just that there would be a "president Jeb Bush&quot .

[MineralMan]

119. What I think is irrelevant. I have nothing to do with government email services.

From what I understand, though, they were in bad shape and still appear to be, at least in some areas. I don't know, though.

I do agree that it's not going to be an issue in the primaries.

Do I think such strategies are good ones or that the President should be able to do the same? Of course not.

[Generic Other]

65. I have limited email space at work

I have to delete the junk (which is a huge percentage of email I receive). The interoffice offers of printer cartridges, retirement parties, spam, sales, conference info, etc. etc. These would fill the max email space very quickly. So I do not know how my deleting them would be viewed, but I do it anyway. Otherwise, the mail system would break down.

[MineralMan]

73. Yes, well, I'm sure the system used on Clinton's private email server

wouldn't have any problem handling tens of thousands of emails. That's a rather trivial thing, data management wise.

[Sick_of_TP]

99. Honestly now

why would she willingly give these crazy Rep any more ammo from her personal account. Maybe they'll find one that has her calling Kerry a bore. Maybe something bad about Ob's decision on the color of his tie. Maybe a comment about Boehner crying drunk on TV.

No matter how small, they would have used it over and over and over again against her. Personally, I totally agree with her getting rid of it all!!!!.......

[MineralMan]

100. Her private emails do not have to be made public at all.

There's no such requirement. Actually, even her State Department emails do not necessarily have to be made public. They might be, but then again they might not be released to the public. An FOI request might be made for them, but she wouldn't be the one to decide what was made public, even in that case.

But private emails? Nobody has to make those public under any circumstances. Anyone who says otherwise is simply incorrect.

[Ms. Toad]

128. Standard electronic discovery techniques are far more suited than what has been described.

It starts with what has been described, but it doesn't' end there.

Once you do the first sort, you review (human review) a representative sample of what has been retrieved (both on the government and the personal side). If, in that sample, you find mis-sorted items you refine the filters and resort. Repeat until you are not finding mis-sorted items in your representative samples.

THEN - you still preserve the entire server. You do not delete records which contain potentially relevant information until it is clear that there is no more need to potentially review the correspondence because something which is expected to be there isn't.

I agree, the sorting needed to be done electronically - but not with a single sort, and not destroying the ones designated personal after that single sort.

[MineralMan]

130. As I have said, I do not know what process was used.

I have no way to know. Very little information was provided about that process. I did not address that in my post. As far as I am aware, it has not been described in any detail at all.

[Ms. Toad]

131. What I have seen described is a single filter,

using a collection of search terms, with everything not containing those terms destroyed without review.

And even if it was a search as I have described, tossing the personal results is not appropriate.

[MineralMan]

132. Again, no details have been released. We have Hillary's

Press conference, and that's about it. A very simplistic explanation. I doubt that Clinton really knows the process that was used. The presser was lowest common denominator stuff. Perhaps we'll learn more in time. I don't know.

[quadrature]

135. HRC will spend how much on lawyers?

because she refused to carry two
handheld devices?

seems difficult to believe

[Hekate]

138. SORT BY NAME function. Everything to/from Chelsea immediately gets deleted.

Everything to/from the yoga instructor immediately gets deleted.

People make out like it's rocket science and something nefarious MUST be going on.

Either the observer trusts Hillary or they don't. Either the observer trusts the MSM and GOP to be honest brokers or they don't.

Weirdly, a surprising number of those who don't trust the GOP and MSM on any given day have been drawn into this theater of the absurd and sit there in a classic willing suspension of disbelief on behalf of those two brokers of political reality.

[morningfog]

141. That's not quite how they did their review.

They first pulled any emails from/to .gov accounts. Good start. Then they pulled any emails to select foreign dignitaries, heads of state, secretaries of states and ambassadors from the US. A good next step.

Then they keyword searched a short list of terms of the remaining emails, such as Benghazi and Libya. That leaves a great deal that could have been State business but deleted. The critical point is that, in the end, all we have is Hillary's word. That is simply not good enough.

[RiverLover]

144. No, it's not.

Great post. Thank you for saying this. Its the simple truth though some misguided people ignore the fact & call it a smear.

...According to Hillary Clinton, all government business related emails have been reverted to the State Department. Whether that is true or not is a conclusion she has robbed history of the ability to make.

In other words, she didn’t just exercise shady judgment for the sake of convenience, she disrespected American history and its rules for preserving information on behalf of journalists, academics, historians and the American and global public.

http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/03/14/lets-talk-about-hillary-clinton-and-the-historical-record/