This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:2c0:4881:1a20:d919:1a02:3df1:5b11 (talk) at 21:08, 11 May 2022 (→Standards: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:08, 11 May 2022 by 2601:2c0:4881:1a20:d919:1a02:3df1:5b11 (talk) (→Standards: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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. |
|
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.
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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
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)
FBI discovers even MORE hidden Hillary Clinton emails
In November 2019, Judicial Watch reported that the FBI had uncovered more Hillary Clinton emails that were not fully investigated at the time when the director James Comey exonerated her.
- he Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) recently sent additional documents as part of the ongoing inter-agency consultation process in connection with other FOIA litigation. is working to determine whether that set of documents includes any responsive, non-duplicative agency records that have not already been processed. will promptly update and the Court once that initial review is complete. 174.158.157.41 (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Judicial Watch is not a reliable source of information. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- It was reported during a TV broadcast on Fox News by Sara Carter Federal investigators have told a court that they found "additional Clinton emails that potentially had not been previously released."174.158.157.41 (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Fox News is not a reliable source of information either. The investigation is closed. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sara Carter is also not reliable. JW asserts the FBI asked State if the "documents" are responsive and non-duplicative of what was already known. So let's wait and see what State says. soibangla (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- This has no weight until multiple RS cover it. So far only unreliable sources have done so. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- It was reported during a TV broadcast on Fox News by Sara Carter Federal investigators have told a court that they found "additional Clinton emails that potentially had not been previously released."174.158.157.41 (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Judicial Watch is not a reliable source of information. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- he Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) recently sent additional documents as part of the ongoing inter-agency consultation process in connection with other FOIA litigation. is working to determine whether that set of documents includes any responsive, non-duplicative agency records that have not already been processed. will promptly update and the Court once that initial review is complete. 174.158.157.41 (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2019 (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)
Valerie Jarrett
How can you write a lengthy article on this subject and not mention Valerie Jarrett? The March 2, 2015 New York Times article that brought this matter to public attention is dealt with in an awfully low key way, just another item in the tick-tock. Allan Rice (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Allan Rice, that's NY Post you linked to, not NY Times. And it's all speculation and unverified info. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- The Post is just a right of center newspaper. Perhaps readers are interested in the story of how and why this matter got into the mainstream media. You certainly can't figure it out from the way the article is currently written. Allan Rice (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- Allan Rice, the NY Post is definitely a right-wing source. Thanoscar21talk, contribs 15:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- The Post is just a right of center newspaper. Perhaps readers are interested in the story of how and why this matter got into the mainstream media. You certainly can't figure it out from the way the article is currently written. Allan Rice (talk) 02:07, 30 May 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)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Computing articles
- Low-importance Computing articles
- B-Class Computer networking articles
- Low-importance Computer networking articles
- B-Class Computer networking articles of Low-importance
- All Computer networking articles
- B-Class Computer Security articles
- Mid-importance Computer Security articles
- B-Class Computer Security articles of Mid-importance
- All Computer Security articles
- All Computing articles
- B-Class Internet articles
- Low-importance Internet articles
- WikiProject Internet articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- High-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- B-Class FBI articles
- Mid-importance FBI articles
- WikiProject FBI articles
- B-Class United States presidential elections articles
- Mid-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- B-Class United States Government articles
- Mid-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press