Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:12, 28 December 2022 editSoibangla (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users26,481 edits →Contradictory Information ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:00, 15 March 2023 edit undoSteel1943 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors197,156 edits Notification: listing of Midyear Exam at WP:Redirects for discussion.Tag: Twinkle Next edit →
Line 93:		Line 93:
	:The headers are plainly visible to say "hey, stupid! CLASSIFIED!" The fact headers weren't there suggests someone else screwed up. ] (]) 14:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)		:The headers are plainly visible to say "hey, stupid! CLASSIFIED!" The fact headers weren't there suggests someone else screwed up. ] (]) 14:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
	Regarding the 110 classified emails, Comey did not say they were documents, which would have classified headers on them, but rather ''information''. We know of one email discussion relating to a CIA drone strike in Pakistan that was independently reported in the NYT, but the CIA considers its drone program top secret, even though everyone knows about it. As the "owning agency," if the CIA says it's classified, that's just the way it is, and they don't declassify things even if it's on the front page of the NYT. People who once worked in the classified world, and others, have said for decades that the American classification is too broad and places people at risk of prosecution for handling information they could have no idea was classified. They could go to prison for repeating something they read in the NYT. Fortunately this doesn't happen often, but the risk is always looming, and the demands to "lock her up" is a textbook case of it because of her high profile. ] (]) 15:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC) ] (]) 17:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)		Regarding the 110 classified emails, Comey did not say they were documents, which would have classified headers on them, but rather ''information''. We know of one email discussion relating to a CIA drone strike in Pakistan that was independently reported in the NYT, but the CIA considers its drone program top secret, even though everyone knows about it. As the "owning agency," if the CIA says it's classified, that's just the way it is, and they don't declassify things even if it's on the front page of the NYT. People who once worked in the classified world, and others, have said for decades that the American classification is too broad and places people at risk of prosecution for handling information they could have no idea was classified. They could go to prison for repeating something they read in the NYT. Fortunately this doesn't happen often, but the risk is always looming, and the demands to "lock her up" is a textbook case of it because of her high profile. ] (]) 15:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC) ] (]) 17:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
			== "]" listed at ] ==
			]
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 15#Midyear Exam}} until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 18:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:00, 15 March 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hillary Clinton email controversy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 21 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Computing: Networking / Security Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject Computer Security (assessed as Mid-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Template:WikiProject Hillary Clinton

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: FBI / Presidential elections / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject FBI (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Jeff Guo (October 25, 2016). "Something's terribly wrong with the Internet and Misplaced Pages might be able to fix it". Washington Post. Retrieved October 25, 2016. It's downright startling, then, to observe what happens behind the scenes at Misplaced Pages. Go to any article and visit the "talk" tab. More often than not, you'll find a somewhat orderly debate, even on contentious topics like Hillary Clinton's e-mails or Donald Trump's sexual abuse allegations.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contents of the Eric Hoteham page were merged into Hillary Clinton email controversy on 20 May 2015. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2021 and 1 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jeffrie w.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Judicial Watch subpoena to Google for Clinton emails (Google should produce them by May 13)

She used CarterHeavyIndustries@gmail.com (gmail user name is case insensitive those idiots in Jucial Watch do not know that, LOL) https://www.google.com/search?q=CarterHeavyIndustries%40gmail.com 2A00:1370:812C:9562:4C22:3085:2D74:9E11 (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

She is going to be asked under oath on 2th June!!! Yeah! 94.29.3.116 (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

So, in recording of the in DC curcuit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3OoVnWT0oU it is said on 38:52 that google produced 260 work related (October-December 2010) and NOT PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED BY CLINTON herself or ident. later by FBI in 5000 emails! FBI was wrong. Wow. CarterHeavyIndustries that is. 2A00:1370:812C:ADF2:BC21:B8EF:E68D:7B48 (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, how did that turn out? lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.232.146 (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Bad, but it was not about gmail. That one is going to be hillarious. I also send an email to her. Will Google produce those (when they will produce real mail, not just metadata) as well? Wow)) 213.87.157.209 (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Blaine

This is an obscure reference that doesn't even warrant inclusion in the body, let alone the lead, and the edit doesn't even mention why comparisons are evoked. And even if it did, it's still trivia. It should be removed. soibangla (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Total random nerd, the lead is a summary of the body. Everything in the lead is in the body. You can't just stick something there, and in this case it's being objected to. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Standards

"Criminal intent, the historical standard for pursuing prosecutions"...

I don't care if you found a source to claim this, does wikipedia have like a "come on" tag? I am disputing this based on the many many times I've heard "establishing intent is not necessary" to describe the arrest and prosecution of somebody who isn't a millionaire politician. That claim should not be presented as realistic, established fact. 2601:2C0:4881:1A20:D919:1A02:3DF1:5B11 (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

This sentence refers to the need to estabish criminal intent in regards to prosecuting in this particular circumstance, not broadly for all laws.

For instance, the Espionage Act 18USC793(f) says "Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States..." DashDashUnderscore (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

While the statute related to Clinton does mention intent, its only in one of the clauses. The problem with prosecutorial discretion requiring intent, is that it effectively erases the portions of the statute that do not require intent. ResultingConstant (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

In criminal law, criminal intention, or mens rea must be proved unless a statute says otherwise, i.e., that it is a strict liability offense. So under 18 USC 793(f), the prosecutor must also prove intention to gather the documents, although the Act does not specifically state that. TFD (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Dershowitz

Just heard D. on his Dershow- podcast say, that it was not at all clear that Hilary Clinton destroyed her e-mails (not his exact words). Is this true, is there reasonable doubt? --Ralfdetlef (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

"the FBI recovered more than 17,000 emails that had been deleted or otherwise not turned over to the State Department, and many of them were work-related, the FBI has said."

She admitted to deleting emails, FBI said they recovered some of the deleted ones, Trump questioned why they were deleted. No, there is no reasonable doubt that there were many deleted emails. DashDashUnderscore (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Contradictory Information

Are we going to talk about the fact that the source for the following statement in the article:

After a years-long FBI investigation, it was determined that Clinton's server did not contain any information or emails that were marked classified.

States the following: “From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.” 64.189.17.204 (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The first statement might be wrong (because I think there were 3 emails that were marked with line markings), but it is not contradicted by the second statement, which is talking about unmarked classified information. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think at a minimum, the combination of the two statements should be worded better because as it's worded now, it's confusing at best and misleading at worst. Since it's in the news again, I think it's critical that these statements should be rewritten. 64.189.17.14 (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

In response to the original point that there's contradictory information in here:

Well, yeah.

As everyone knows, FBI Directory Comey expicitly said in the press conference: "Three emails were found to be marked as classified."

So the question is, why does this "encyclopedic" entry then say ( a half dozen or more times): "None" of the HRC server emails were "marked classified"? And the answer is , on Misplaced Pages, when the party supported by the Misplaced Pages-dogma (i.e. the Democrat) sins, obfuscate! (i.e. lie!) 108.29.35.120 (talk) 06:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I have added clearly marked in the lead because:

Three emails, out of 30,000, were found to be marked as classified, although they lacked classified headers and were only marked with a small "c" in parentheses, described as "portion markings" by Comey. He added it was possible Clinton was not "technically sophisticated" enough to understand what the three classified markings meant which is consistent with Clinton's claim that she wasn't aware of the meaning of such markings.

The headers are plainly visible to say "hey, stupid! CLASSIFIED!" The fact headers weren't there suggests someone else screwed up. soibangla (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the 110 classified emails, Comey did not say they were documents, which would have classified headers on them, but rather information. We know of one email discussion relating to a CIA drone strike in Pakistan that was independently reported in the NYT, but the CIA considers its drone program top secret, even though everyone knows about it. As the "owning agency," if the CIA says it's classified, that's just the way it is, and they don't declassify things even if it's on the front page of the NYT. People who once worked in the classified world, and others, have said for decades that the American classification is too broad and places people at risk of prosecution for handling information they could have no idea was classified. They could go to prison for repeating something they read in the NYT. Fortunately this doesn't happen often, but the risk is always looming, and the demands to "lock her up" is a textbook case of it because of her high profile. soibangla (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC) soibangla (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

"Midyear Exam" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Midyear Exam has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 15 § Midyear Exam until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Categories: