General Discussion

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)

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

Reply to MineralMan (Original post)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 10:12 AM

Mar 2015

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

148 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hillary's Email: How to deal with deleting selected items in a large amount of email. [View all] MineralMan Mar 2015 OP

If she just had separate work and personal email accounts MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #1

Naw... 99Forever Mar 2015 #2

If she had separate accounts, she'd still have had to decide to classify pnwmom Mar 2015 #91

Finally someone gets it. Right on pnwmom! rgbecker Mar 2015 #115

Actually it is the sender of the email that makes the decision ManiacJoe Mar 2015 #126

Yes, and I was talking about her actions when she send emails. n/t pnwmom Mar 2015 #134

And what then happens if an email gets sent to the wrong account? Thor_MN Mar 2015 #140

True, but she opted for convenience. Which was legal. JaneyVee Mar 2015 #3

And shows good judgement, amiright? MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #5

It makes no difference to anyone except people who hate Hillary. DanTex Mar 2015 #6

True. One must first believe there was nefarious intent. JaneyVee Mar 2015 #8

That's exactly correct. FarPoint Mar 2015 #9

Incompetence and malfeasance only matter for people we hate MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #12

It's neither incompetence nor malfeasance. DanTex Mar 2015 #20

it's not incompetence Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #52

It's not malfeasance either. It's a choice of how to arrange emails. DanTex Mar 2015 #56

BINGO. And we ALL know how Manny feels about Hillary Clinton...or any other Democrat, reallly. eom BlueCaliDem Mar 2015 #59

Well if we're talking performance she comes out even worse Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #66

Hmm. But isn't it odd that the Hillary-haters are so obsessed with the email nonsense. DanTex Mar 2015 #69

I see the opposite Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #80

Interesting. So now it's Hillary's fault that Russia invaded Ukraine. DanTex Mar 2015 #86

Come on now Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #89

I think she did fine as SoS. Libya, and elsewhere. DanTex Mar 2015 #95

Let me provide you some information Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #98

Libya was nothing like Iraq. DanTex Mar 2015 #124

Whose record are you willing to discuss? Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #111

Anybody's Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #112

RW talking points, gotcha Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #113

If you're supporting someone as a primary opponent, MineralMan Mar 2015 #117

My vote is open to the best candidate Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #120

Pick one. MineralMan Mar 2015 #121

We'll see who's running Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #122

It was not provided in digital format because they wouldn't accept anything but paper. LiberalFighter Mar 2015 #136

Flip it the other way around. Igel Mar 2015 #46

This is not evidence of bad judgement. DanTex Mar 2015 #53

It's relevant to how she arranges her campaign and her potential presidency MBS Mar 2015 #97

How she arranges **her** e-mail is irrelevant. Ms. Toad Mar 2015 #129

I am afraid too many Hillary supporters have blinders on awake Mar 2015 #48

OK, maybe she misplayed it politically. But probably not. It will go away and nobody will care. DanTex Mar 2015 #57

Non-issue is another way of saying put your blinders back on awake Mar 2015 #68

What blinders? It's a non-issue. It hasn't affected polls. DanTex Mar 2015 #72

I do not trust polls that are a year and a half away from the election awake Mar 2015 #83

Of course you don't trust polls. They reflect political reality, which is not your friend here. DanTex Mar 2015 #88

The question is not the polls today the question is winning in 2016 awake Mar 2015 #96

We agree on that. DanTex Mar 2015 #125

With "blinders" you mean, people who aren't hawk-eyed focused on every tiny BlueCaliDem Mar 2015 #62

By blinders I mean not seeing the down side to stonewalling questions awake Mar 2015 #77

I don't think it matters either way. JaneyVee Mar 2015 #7

In 2009, a single phone could support two email accounts. nt MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #13

So? I could have dozens of email accounts, and could MineralMan Mar 2015 #27

And again, MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #30

See, again, you have no idea about my business operations. MineralMan Mar 2015 #33

Remind me, who was it that brought up *your* email accounts as an example? MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #35

I did, and you are trying to get me to make more than general MineralMan Mar 2015 #38

You wrote that ALL businesses have a legal obligation to retain their emails MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #42

I suggest Google. I am not your servant. MineralMan Mar 2015 #45

LOL! I cannot believe what people will say instead of just admitting they are wrong! Rex Mar 2015 #143

So I'm not hallucinating. MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #147

You want to hear something funny, Manny? MineralMan Mar 2015 #101

Glad I could help MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #146

Forget an apology, how about simply admitting to being wrong? Rex Mar 2015 #148

Good judgment if the aim was to actually preserve emails pnwmom Mar 2015 #94

But she didn't do that, which was OK at the time. MineralMan Mar 2015 #15

Do you have a legal obligation to retain work email? MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #17

All businesses do. And I do retain them, for the recommended period. MineralMan Mar 2015 #21

There's a legal obligation to retain all business emails? MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #23

What it "seems" like to you is irrelevant, frankly. MineralMan Mar 2015 #26

Ok, so how would *you* reconcile having to run an algorithm MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #31

Manny, I do not know how Hillary Clinton's private email server MineralMan Mar 2015 #47

I've never heard of businesses being legally required to save emails riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #123

That's because it is total bullshit. I can't believe some of the garbage I am reading. Rex Mar 2015 #142

No, if she had separate accounts she would have had to decide for each and every mail pnwmom Mar 2015 #90

It is a very different task to decide one e-mail at a time Ms. Toad Mar 2015 #133

You mean make new folders and *gasp* label them? MY GOD MAN! Rex Mar 2015 #127

It would had required two separate phones. LiberalFighter Mar 2015 #137

Would that be such a big deal? nt MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #139

Exactly. No one personally read 60,000+ emails. It was an automated purge job. randome Mar 2015 #4

Half a dozen lawyers and staff can do it in about two weeks. Tops. leveymg Mar 2015 #10

This isn't a discovery situation. nt stevenleser Mar 2015 #102

Exactly. This is a record-keeping question. MineralMan Mar 2015 #105

That's why the whole thing should have been turned over Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #11

Right now, it looks like she committed error upon error to evade revealing her official messages. leveymg Mar 2015 #16

Does it look like that? I don't know that it does, frankly. MineralMan Mar 2015 #24

I said, that's what it looks like. When and if her server is examined, assuming half the email leveymg Mar 2015 #32

You'll judge Hillary Clinton as you will judge her. MineralMan Mar 2015 #34

No, it doesn't. Not at all. nt stevenleser Mar 2015 #103

Can we take it, Steven, that's all you have to say? nt leveymg Mar 2015 #106

Spot on. nt MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #145

That explanation pretty much shows all the criticsm for what it is, nonsense. greatlaurel Mar 2015 #14

Thanks. Having written many such review and sorting algorithms MineralMan Mar 2015 #18

having done actual e-discovery processing Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #22

You are correct. Actually, in really big cases, discovery and disclosure review are outsourced leveymg Mar 2015 #36

So true, the OP is pure BS. nt Logical Mar 2015 #43

Good thing this is not an e-discovery situation. nt stevenleser Mar 2015 #104

it will be Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #109

Hillary's lawyers seem to have applied an inverted sort of e-discovery solution. leveymg Mar 2015 #110

Your posts are always interesting and the computer posts are written so people like me learn a lot. greatlaurel Mar 2015 #25

My pleasure. MineralMan Mar 2015 #28

We haven't seen the full set of algorithms, just the examples given in the TIME article. leveymg Mar 2015 #19

Again, we have no information regarding the extent or MineralMan Mar 2015 #29

Don't assume that. You have no idea what my work experience includes. leveymg Mar 2015 #37

OK. Then you understand the process. MineralMan Mar 2015 #39

Do you, in any professional way? leveymg Mar 2015 #41

I think you are way overestimating your algorithms. And not sure why. nt Logical Mar 2015 #64

Not my algorithms. I had nothing to do with designing MineralMan Mar 2015 #71

"None of us knows the details" but you are SURE it worked better than people. LOL, OK, brilliant!! Logical Mar 2015 #75

No. I'm sure that effectively prepared data comparison algorithms MineralMan Mar 2015 #81

You are the one that made the claim that it was way more accurate than people...... Logical Mar 2015 #87

How could I "shut up" any discussion? MineralMan Mar 2015 #93

you can exclude documents deliberately with keyword choice Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #54

Oh, dear. Again, you're making assumptions based on zero information. MineralMan Mar 2015 #58

The Clinton Foundation is highly relevant and she herself made it so Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #74

See, I'm not trying to defend anything or anyone. MineralMan Mar 2015 #78

or "Boeing" antigop Mar 2015 #79

yikes Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #84

or "Lockheed Martin" or "Google" or "MasterCard" or "Dow Chemical" antigop Mar 2015 #85

You are going to need electric shock paddles to keep this "scandal" alive. greatlaurel Mar 2015 #40

I think they were waiting for an opportune moment to leak this. leveymg Mar 2015 #44

HRC is coming out of this like a champ. The GOP has gone down in flames in the past two weeks. greatlaurel Mar 2015 #49

So what do you know about Mr. Baron's political affiliations? nt greatlaurel Mar 2015 #51

Mr. Baron isn't the presumptive candidate for President. leveymg Mar 2015 #55

You should provide the information since you are using him as an important source. greatlaurel Mar 2015 #63

How am I relying on him, in particular? n/t leveymg Mar 2015 #67

Do not fool your self this is very much alive awake Mar 2015 #92

Algorithms are automated. Igel Mar 2015 #50

You know, I didn't mention anything other than how such a review MineralMan Mar 2015 #61

Why did any of it NEED to be deleted? n/t hughee99 Mar 2015 #60

People delete emails every day. Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2015 #70

Deleted emails aren't automatically "gone" from the server, nor do most people send or receive hughee99 Mar 2015 #76

She deleted personal emails. Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2015 #82

She deleted email that she determined to be not relevant to the national archives. hughee99 Mar 2015 #107

Just like everyone else. MineralMan Mar 2015 #108

I'm not arguing she did anything illegal, but I am arguing that she, and others who did this hughee99 Mar 2015 #114

Perhaps. Government email servers are lousy, in general, and were worse MineralMan Mar 2015 #116

You think the "government couldn't run an email system in 2008" defense is viable? hughee99 Mar 2015 #118

What I think is irrelevant. I have nothing to do with government email services. MineralMan Mar 2015 #119

I have limited email space at work Generic Other Mar 2015 #65

Yes, well, I'm sure the system used on Clinton's private email server MineralMan Mar 2015 #73

Honestly now Sick_of_TP Mar 2015 #99

Her private emails do not have to be made public at all. MineralMan Mar 2015 #100

Standard electronic discovery techniques are far more suited than what has been described. Ms. Toad Mar 2015 #128

As I have said, I do not know what process was used. MineralMan Mar 2015 #130

What I have seen described is a single filter, Ms. Toad Mar 2015 #131

Again, no details have been released. We have Hillary's MineralMan Mar 2015 #132

HRC will spend how much on lawyers? quadrature Mar 2015 #135

SORT BY NAME function. Everything to/from Chelsea immediately gets deleted. Hekate Mar 2015 #138

That's not quite how they did their review. morningfog Mar 2015 #141

No, it's not. RiverLover Mar 2015 #144