This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following content be included in this article:
In late June 2016, it was reported that Bill Clinton met privately with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on her private plane on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. Officials indicated that the 30 minute meeting took place when Clinton became aware that Lynch's plane was on the same tarmac at the airport. When the meeting became public, Lynch stated that it was "primarily social" and "there was no discussion of any matter pending for the department or any matter pending for any other body". Lynch was criticized for her involvement in the meeting and was called on by some critics to recuse herself from involvement in the FBI's investigation of the email case. In response, she stated "The F.B.I. is investigating whether Mrs. Clinton, her aides or anyone else broke the law by setting up a private email server for her to use as secretary of state," but "the case will be resolved by the same team that has been working on it from the beginning" and "I will be accepting their recommendations." [1] [2] [3] CFredkin ( talk) 20:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
References
These events and surrounding facts are being extensively covered by national media, including:
Sample of ongoing coverage via NYT.com as source
|
---|
Context: Attorney General Loretta Lynch is head of the United States Department of Justice. The FBI is the "principal investigative arm of the U.S. Department of Justice". The FBI is currently investigating the use of a non-goverment email server by Hillary Clinton and some of her staff (this article, broadly). "An airport encounter this week between Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton has welled into a political storm" "At the White House, Mr. Earnest was asked repeatedly about the propriety of the meeting. He defended what he said was Ms. Lynch’s long record of independence as a federal prosecutor. But he stopped short of saying the administration viewed the meeting as appropriate." "Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, conceding that her airport meeting with former President Bill Clinton this week had cast a shadow over the federal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s personal email account" "David Axelrod, the former senior adviser to Mr. Obama, said on Twitter that ... it was “foolish to create such optics.” Ms. Lynch acknowledged on Friday that the 20 to 30-minute meeting with Mr. Clinton “has now cast a shadow over how this case will be perceived.” "But on Monday, the practice brought a world of political problems for Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Clinton had just finished a stop on a seven-state, 10-event fund-raising swing for his wife’s campaign when he was boarding a private charter at the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport." "Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, told CNN that the meeting sent “the wrong signal” for both participants." "The reaction to the meeting was so politically fraught that Ms. Lynch is expected on Friday to announce that she will rely on the recommendations of career prosecutors and the F.B.I for the outcome of the email investigation." "Former President Bill Clinton would keep a low public profile, granting few interviews and avoiding any moves that could create headaches for his wife, like his recent meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch during the F.B.I.’s investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email practices." |
References
Relevant information about Clinton's action is what are the damages of this action to the public interests, and I mean the REAL public interests. This relevant information is totally missing from the article, but instead the article is filled with propaganda fluff designed to distract the people from the relevant information. The entire article should be replaced with a small article identifying the damages to the public interests. Rtdrury ( talk) 19:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
It is in the public interest to have public officials who don't lie and don't break the law. 71.182.241.137 ( talk) 05:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2004146/ 71.182.241.137 ( talk) 05:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The reference link #242 " Michael Biesecker, GOP Files More Lawsuits Seeking Hillary Clinton Records, Associated Press (March 15, 2016)." seems to be linking to an ABC news website about the elections " http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Election" and I am not sure how to find this link or correct this. Yoe Dude ( talk) 18:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
An editor advocates including (via multiple edits [1], [2], [3]) some Newsweek content to the Hillary Clinton email controversy#Comparisons and media coverage section. The general content appears to already exist in two other locations within that section. Please engage in the WP:BRD cycle, rather than WP:DE. UW Dawgs ( talk) 16:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
References
Combetta may have used Reddit to get tips on how to delete her emails, as reported by News & World Report and The Hill. Yoshiman6464 ( talk) 01:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I rolled back edits that mentioned Obama emailed Clinton under a pseudonym. This doesn't seem at all significant, and with such little coverage it would appear to violate WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey ( talk) 20:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Randomer here. The Ninth paragraph of the 'FBI Investigation' sub-header reads:
In a Meet the Press interview, Clinton said, “Let me repeat what I have repeated for many months now, I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified." On July 2, 2016, Clinton stated: “Let me repeat what I have repeated for many months now, I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified"
Just for readability, could we condense this to a single sentence referencing that it was said verbatim on two different dates? Sorry, not most accustomed to wiki guidelines
109.150.58.51 ( talk) 15:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I read that the 'c' stands for CONFIDENTIAL, not CLASSIFIED. Don't know if that matters or not, but CNN refuted Donald Trump for the mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanDanielst ( talk • contribs) 13:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
So a thorough, lengthy, intricately detailed source, dedicated solely to the Hillary Clinton email controversy, namely The Thompson Timeline, compiled by Stanford alumnus Paul Thompson, the well-known author of the famous The Terror Timeline is not allowed even in the list of External Links after the article - while biased links from Mrs. Clinton's own campaign website and her own Department can be listed without a hitch? Isn't it bad enough that the article itself (and the Main Article) treat the cover-up as merely an act of incompetence? JLMadrigal @ 13:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Should we add a sentence to the article, saying that the Justice Department strongly discouraged Comey from sending this letter and warned that his doing so would represent a break with longstanding policy? "Senior Justice Department officials did not move to stop him from sending the letter, officials said, but they did everything short of it, pointing to policies against talking about current criminal investigations or being seen as meddling in elections." [4] "Justice officials warned FBI that Comey’s decision to update Congress was not consistent with department policy" [5] -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
This article states hrcoffice.com is registered to Eric Hoteham. 95.229.236.178 ( talk) 13:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
T 85.166.160.7 ( talk) 02:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 14:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton email controversy → Emailgate – multiple sources show this term is notable and it would be a much shorter and simpler page title. It also seems more neutral too because the controversy is about more than just Hillary Clinton it is also about her aides, the FBI, and now apparently Anthony Weiner, so a wider scope name makes sense. Ranze ( talk) 08:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Steel1943: shouldn't something like this be given more than 6 hours discussion before closure? I don't think you allowed enough input on such an important issue to declare it doesn't have a snowball's chance of passing. This seems to have been treated as a vote without weighing the input, some of which is of questionable quality, as follows:
@ In ictu oculi: a personal distaste for gate titles does not seem grounds to object to them, if they are called this in reliable sources.
@ MelanieN: "not used much" and @ Scjessey: "almost nobody" (which @ PackMecEng: supported) I believe your claims are not consistent with 3 sources already present on the page which I'll duplicate here:
While the first two are both in March, the third is in August, showing that "emailgate" is a sustained term across nearly 6 months for this.
@ ResultingConstant: why should HCEC be the primary title? I only see two sources which use this phrase:
Why should the longer phrase used April/July by Fox/CNN take priority over the simpler phrase used March/August by Newsweek/BBC/NYmag? Ranze ( talk) 21:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The FBI director announced today that they are continuing their investigation in the light of newly discovered emails in an unrelated case. I believe that should be in the lede and I added this sentence: "On October 28, 2016 Comey told Congress that the FBI was re-opening its investigation to assess newly discovered e-mails in an unrelated case that may be pertinent to the investigation". Volunteer Marek removed it, saying Comey didn't actually say "reopening" and we should wait before adding it. I had been using a reliable source that used the term "reopening" [7], but I see that most other sources seem to be avoiding that term or talking around it, so I am open on whether or not to say "reopening". But I do believe this information is pertinent enough to this article to be included in the lede - as well as in the "FBI investigation" section where it has been added. What do others think? -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
WEINER!!!!!! The emails are from the investigation of Weiner sexting an underage girl. Goddamn. – Muboshgu ( talk) 19:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I just saw this discussion after making changes to the article headings, specifically adding "reopening". I was hesitant, for the same reasons that the discussion above describes, as I am not certain if "reopened" is the correct term. Even if that is incorrect, I would still ask that my revised heading nesting be retained, as it is confusing to talk about the case being closed in July 2016, yet the History sub-section contains new content about the investigation as of October 2016. Please don't just revert my changes, as I also removed the tag requesting that the article be updated for events as of October 2016, since there is now adequate content for that time period.-- FeralOink ( talk) 11:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
There's direct evidence Clinton's server was hacked. No '
probably' about it. I did a little digging and found some hard evidence it had been successfully hacked. Email me if you're interested. Above link says, The "F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said on Tuesday that his investigators had no “direct evidence” that Hillary Clinton’s email account had been “successfully hacked,”
but I just discovered evidence that shows that the FBI agents did a shitty job investigating. --
Elvey(
t•
c)
03:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
There is unsourced information and WP:SYNTH in this section. The reference, FBI-Report is not adequately specific, as it links to a single webpage on the FBI vault sub-domain, and that webpage contains links to four lengthy documents, so there is no way to determine where the sections referenced actually are located without going through all the pages in all documents.
The following three excerpts (see italicized portion only) need sources, or to be deleted:
The Report also notes that “FBI and USIC classification reviews identified 81 e-mail chains ... that were classified from the CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET levels at the time the e-mails were drafted on UNCLASSIFIED systems and sent to or from Clinton's personal server.”<ref name=FBI-Report /> In other words, all of the classified email chains “were drafted on unclassified systems,” including the ones that came from the CIA, DOD, FBI, NGA, and NSA. This is not surprising, since only unclassified servers can send e-mail to other unclassified servers such as Clinton’s personal server. (Classified servers do not communicate with unclassified servers.)
Of the 81 classified email chains the report notes that 8 were Top Secret, 37 were Secret and 36 were Confidential. Of these, “The FBI investigation determined Clinton contributed to discussions” in 4 Confidential, 3 Secret and 4 Top Secret e-mail chains.<ref name=FBI-Report />This indicates Clinton did not author most of the classified information (the information in 70 out of 81 emails). And the Report does not indicate that she authored any of it. Instead it notes that the “Investigation identified 67 instances where Clinton forwarded [classified] e-mails.”<ref name=FBI-Report />
Forwarding and replying explains many if not all of the classified e-mails sent from Clinton’s server.
-- FeralOink ( talk) 12:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Continuing from previous section: This is more original research (the source is Comey’s statement), i.e., non-neutral point of view. IMO the first two paragraphs need to be removed or replaced by content from reliable sources. In that case, it should also be pointed out that according to reliable sources Comey exceeded his authority and failed to follow Justice Department rules when he made those announcements and statements. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I went for it and made the changes I suggested yesterday, as a basis for discussion or for keeps.
Shouldn't the article mention at least some of the large number of respected sources that have found the whole thing to be a ginned-up conspiracy theory using innuendo to smear Clinton? Mydogtrouble ( talk) 20:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the "whole thing is a smear campaign" narrative fits the facts or sources. However, there is plenty already in the article to suggest it is overblown, politicized, and largely a campaign issue. In hindsight, perhaps that will become more apparent. It is also important to tie this to the long-running Benghazi hearings from which it arose. Comey's legacy is an issue for another day. If he resigns over this or faces ongoing criticism that might be worth describing here. I think it's also helpful to describe just how unusual it is in the post-Hoover era for an FBI director, or any investigator, to publicly announce what is going on with the case, and particularly to opine about the propriety of non-criminal conduct.- Wikidemon ( talk) 18:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
One+ of the emails was classified as secret at the time it was sent. It would be marked not (c), but (s). -- Elvey( t• c) 03:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
WHERE ARE THE EMAILS ON DONALD TRUMP FROM POUTIN. YOU NEED TO RELEASE EVERYTHING AND PUBLISH THE INFORMATION ON DONALD TRUMP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.157.20 ( talk) 05:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hillary Clinton email controversy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
/info/en/?search=Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Encryption_and_security
^ Please change the line
to
The quotes are unnecessary. There's nothing weird about a digital certificate. 128.12.254.132 ( talk) 03:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Anyone know anything about this:
"Of the 13 mobile devices determined by the FBI to be associated with the clinton.com email address and requested by the Department of Justice (DOJ), none were provided. DOJ made the request to Clinton legal counsel Williams & Connolly on February 9, 2016 and received a reply back on February 22 that they could not locate any of the devices. The FBI was thus unable to investigate the contents of them. Of five iPads the FBI identified as associated with Clinton, just three were obtained by the agency according to the FBI documentation." [1]
Is it notable enough and where to insert? Thanks, Quis separabit? 19:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Pinocchios
Politfact doesn't use this rating system, the Washington Post does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAMAS Newton ( talk • contribs) 02:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
First section mentioning "retroactively marked classified" is misleading.
The first paragraph contains the statement, "Those official communications included thousands of emails that would retroactively be marked classified by the State Department." This is misleading. Evidently, the person inserting this statement (which is unsourced, BTW) is trying to excuse Clinton's practices, or he is unfamiliar with United States classified-information law and policy, or both. Further, there is an ambiguity about the meaning of the term "classified": It can mean that the document has actually been studied and assigned to a specific level of security, or it can merely mean that it contains information which the person who created it knew or should have known was at some level of secrecy. A person could fall back on the first definition, claim that the emails (individually) were never actually studied by official staff to determine their classification level. But that is misleading, because it implies that the person who created those emails was not obliged to handle them according to U.S. Classified information laws. Hillary Clinton signed the appropriate documents acknowledging her obligations in regards to handling classified information, and that obliged her to make sure that anything she sends (or even receives) is handled properly. She knew that the system she allowed this information to be on wasn't satisfying the legal requirements for classified information, and that includes both definitions above. A person who signs such an agreement is obliged to ensure that any classifiable information is properly kept, and is further obliged to notice and report violations of such practices. A person with a security clearance who, hypothetically, notices a document in the gutter which happens to be a classifiable document knows that he must collect and secure that document, and report the circumstances of its finding to appropriate people in the chain of command. Similarly, Hillary Clinton became legally obliged to report and secure anything classifiable sent to her (or using her system) the moment it arrived, even if she was not actually aware of it. (it might have been sent by one person, and received by another, without it being routed to her.) Since her email server wasn't approved by the appropriate classified-document authorities, keeping any such information on that server was an obvious violation of secrecy law. Unfortunately, the news reports about this server and her emails do not explain these facts and laws to the public. Therefore, that statement in the first paragraph should remove the term "retroactively", or at least change the wording to remove the misleading implication. 71.222.50.217 ( talk) 21:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Fox news undue?
I'm concerned over the removal of the section on the Fox News false claims that Clinton would likely face indictment, as WP:UNDUE weight. Undue weight means that we should present all views on a subject, weighted according to their prevalence in reliable sources. The content under dispute was major national news, being reported by USA Today, LA Times, NPR, CNN, Business Insider, The Atlantic, and thousands of other lesser news sources. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- If the initial reporting by Fox News was not significant enough to mention in the article, then neither is the retraction. TFD ( talk) 15:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- It would gave been undue weight to include the initial report. But the retraction was widely reported in many independent reliable secondary sources. So I don't think it is undue weight to discuss it here. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 15:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- The removal seems good to me. If Fox News published an inaccurate report which it then corrected, I'm not sure anything of significance is lost from its removal. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 21:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Hillary Clinton email controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151001023951/http://gawker.com/5991563/hacked-emails-show-hillary-clinton-was-receiving-advice-at-a-private-email-account-from-banned-obama-hating-former-staffer to http://gawker.com/5991563/hacked-emails-show-hillary-clinton-was-receiving-advice-at-a-private-email-account-from-banned-obama-hating-former-staffer
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31806907
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emailgate-312784
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/hillary-clinton-legal-emailgate.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150811004955/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/17bb3935546b422ba4246e934e00d8d7/clinton-records-judge-sets-schedule-release-ap to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/17bb3935546b422ba4246e934e00d8d7/clinton-records-judge-sets-schedule-release-ap
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160404032537/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b219d2da39454b799b653187d6ab2831/judge-dismisses-pair-lawsuits-arising-clinton-emails to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b219d2da39454b799b653187d6ab2831/judge-dismisses-pair-lawsuits-arising-clinton-emails
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
{{ source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
References
No mention of Jason Chaffetz
This is a significant omission from this entry:
"On October 28, 2016, Comey informed Congress..." This passage is inaccurate in that it omits the fact that Comey informed via a letter. The letter was only to congress and was made public by Chaffetz. This fact and Chaffetz' role in the matter should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.107.19 ( talk) 18:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Judicial Watch
It seems to me that it's misleading to only refer to Judicial Watch as only a non-partisan group. They filed 18 lawsuits under the Bill Clinton administration (only 3 under GWB) and are referred to on their wiki page as conservative, but it's omitted here and their ideological stance (let alone their history) seems quite pertinent, since this article is about his wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.63.20.102 ( talk) 17:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- non-partisan has a specific legal meaning. Many organizations which are obviously leaning one way or the other are still non-partisan. ResultingConstant ( talk) 18:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Reference Comment [22]
"Initial awareness As early as 2009, officials with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) expressed concerns over possible violations of normal federal government record-keeping procedures at the Department of State under Secretary Clinton.[22]"
The referenced link does not support the statement of the sentence. I was not able to find anything that described NARA's concerns of record-keeping procedures in the reference. Is there a different source site that can replace this one?
- It looks like this is an issue that as parts of the article were rewritten and moved around, references were merged. The original ref backing this statement was [11] which said
The alarm bells sounded fairly early in Clinton’s tenure at Foggy Bottom. In a November 2009 email, written when Clinton had not yet completed her first year on the job, NARA archivist David Langbart wrote to his colleague, Michael Kurtz, about a “huge issue on which there has been little progress” – namely, the proper preservation of “high-level memos” generated by employees at “S/ES.” That is the abbreviation for the office of the secretary of state within the State Department’s Executive Secretariat.ResultingConstant ( talk) 18:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)"retroactively"?
The lede says that some of the emails were retroactively marked as classified. I'm wondering if the word "retroactively" makes any sense. After all, it's impossible to mark an email as classified before it is written, correct? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 15:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- "Reclassified" after the original transmission. Maybe? 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- The information in the document was classified from the beginning, but the document itself was not marked as classified (at the time it was written). So they were marked as classified much later. this is as opposed to deciding that the information should be classified going forward. One way to tell the difference is the dates. On the documents which were retroactively marked, the date of classification on the document is the date the document was written, and not the date the marking happened. ResultingConstant ( talk) 11:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
FBI investigation
In August 2017, according to information from the United States Office of the Special Counsel, it was revealed that then FBI director James Comey sometime in the early spring 2016, had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton, long before FBI agents finished their work and prior to interviewing 17 people in connection with the case, including Clinton. Comey also circulated the draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership. Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicated "Conclusion first, fact-gathering second.. That's no way to run an investigation." [1] Let us eat lettuce ( talk) 19:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Let us eat lettuce - I see similar mention in a piece from New York Post, and mention that a federal judge had ordered the FBI to provide details about how the COmey investigation was conducted -- although it also seems dubious in claims that the missing emails are available. Markbassett ( talk) 00:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- The piece in the New York Post is a column by a controversial writer. A later article by the reporter in Newsweek presents a clearer picture. [12] It doesn't seem significant at the moment. Sometimes letters are drafted before decisions are made. Probably best to wait a few days to see if it becomes important. TFD ( talk) 03:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Republican senator Lindsey Graham, who chairs a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, wants to bring James Comey back to testify on Capitol Hill, citing concerns about his statements on the conclusion of the Hillary Clinton email case. “He needs to come back to committee,” Graham said. [2] Let us eat lettuce ( talk) 15:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ Max Kutner | Newsweek, James Comey Prepared Statement ‘Exonerating’ Hillary Clinton Before Emails Investigation Ended, http://www.newsweek.com/james-comey-clinton-emails-investigation-grassley-658122 , August 31, 2017
- ^ Fox News, Graham wants to haul back Comey to testify on Clinton email case, says 'I smell a rat', http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/07/graham-wants-to-haul-back-comey-to-testify-on-clinton-email-case-says-smell-rat.html , September 7, 2017
grossly negligent
need to update!!!
"grossly negligent" is a term originally used by FBI to describe Hillary Clinton. gross negligence has legal ramifications. Let us eat lettuce ( talk) 22:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Umm, where in the article are you talking about? Comey said "extremely careless." -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/6/fbi-deemed-hillary-clinton-grossly-negligent-email/ Let us eat lettuce ( talk) 23:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- OIC. New information, just released today. Comey used the term in early drafts, but not in the final statement. So it was never actually "used by the FBI" and thus does not have "legal ramifications"; they decided against using it. We could probably find a way to mention this somewhere but it's not earth shaking. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- well if Comey was pressured into this revision, due to the tarmac meeting involving Bill Clinton, possibly it deserves more attention. Was the change politically influenced? Let us eat lettuce ( talk) 23:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Speculation/Original Research. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Although we allow quotes, we do not allow unattributed copying, so I've just removed something from User:Let us eat lettuce. I've removed more copyvio by the editor at another article. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hillary Clinton email controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924220619/http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/19/idUSnMKWv47gXa+1c2+MKW20150619 to https://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/19/idUSnMKWv47gXa+1c2+MKW20150619
- Added
{{ dead link}}
tag to http://www.thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160311140652/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
{{ source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Re-opened investigation
News announced today. Fox ran some commentary. I think they said the case was re-opened in December, but it has just now been confirmed. New investigation will examine people who exchanged emails with Clinton's server. Also examining immunity granted. Deserves a new section, if anybody is willing to work on it. Phmoreno ( talk) 03:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think we should wait and see. If only Fox has reported on it then they may have only heard of it from a "source", and therefore it might not be true. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 12:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- The story was carried by several news outlets and is a headline this morning. [1] [2] In the Fox News segment I was referring to I believe it was one of the committee members saying the investigation was reopened in December. The Fox story is useful for additional confirmation and the date. Phmoreno ( talk) 12:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- The first source just links back to the second, so it is in reality just one source. I do however think that it could be worth another section. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 12:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- We will have to return to this and document it. In fact, several articles related to the Russia interference and investigation will end up needing "Pushback" sections to deal with the enlarging attempts to obstruct justice by impeding the investigation. As Rachel Maddow said last night (the whole show was labeled "Pushback"), we should not be surprised by the pushback, but by the success it is getting. That's truly scary. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 21:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC) (Removed some off-topic content. BullRangifer ( talk) 05:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC))
@ BullRangifer: Are you at the right place? What do Maddow or Obama have to do with anything? Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 22:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- I removed it. Not really appropriate here. I had just copied the whole thing from somewhere else. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 05:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following content be included in this article:
In late June 2016, it was reported that Bill Clinton met privately with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on her private plane on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. Officials indicated that the 30 minute meeting took place when Clinton became aware that Lynch's plane was on the same tarmac at the airport. When the meeting became public, Lynch stated that it was "primarily social" and "there was no discussion of any matter pending for the department or any matter pending for any other body". Lynch was criticized for her involvement in the meeting and was called on by some critics to recuse herself from involvement in the FBI's investigation of the email case. In response, she stated "The F.B.I. is investigating whether Mrs. Clinton, her aides or anyone else broke the law by setting up a private email server for her to use as secretary of state," but "the case will be resolved by the same team that has been working on it from the beginning" and "I will be accepting their recommendations." [1] [2] [3] CFredkin ( talk) 20:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
References
These events and surrounding facts are being extensively covered by national media, including:
Sample of ongoing coverage via NYT.com as source
|
---|
Context: Attorney General Loretta Lynch is head of the United States Department of Justice. The FBI is the "principal investigative arm of the U.S. Department of Justice". The FBI is currently investigating the use of a non-goverment email server by Hillary Clinton and some of her staff (this article, broadly). "An airport encounter this week between Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton has welled into a political storm" "At the White House, Mr. Earnest was asked repeatedly about the propriety of the meeting. He defended what he said was Ms. Lynch’s long record of independence as a federal prosecutor. But he stopped short of saying the administration viewed the meeting as appropriate." "Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, conceding that her airport meeting with former President Bill Clinton this week had cast a shadow over the federal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s personal email account" "David Axelrod, the former senior adviser to Mr. Obama, said on Twitter that ... it was “foolish to create such optics.” Ms. Lynch acknowledged on Friday that the 20 to 30-minute meeting with Mr. Clinton “has now cast a shadow over how this case will be perceived.” "But on Monday, the practice brought a world of political problems for Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Clinton had just finished a stop on a seven-state, 10-event fund-raising swing for his wife’s campaign when he was boarding a private charter at the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport." "Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, told CNN that the meeting sent “the wrong signal” for both participants." "The reaction to the meeting was so politically fraught that Ms. Lynch is expected on Friday to announce that she will rely on the recommendations of career prosecutors and the F.B.I for the outcome of the email investigation." "Former President Bill Clinton would keep a low public profile, granting few interviews and avoiding any moves that could create headaches for his wife, like his recent meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch during the F.B.I.’s investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email practices." |
References
Relevant information about Clinton's action is what are the damages of this action to the public interests, and I mean the REAL public interests. This relevant information is totally missing from the article, but instead the article is filled with propaganda fluff designed to distract the people from the relevant information. The entire article should be replaced with a small article identifying the damages to the public interests. Rtdrury ( talk) 19:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
It is in the public interest to have public officials who don't lie and don't break the law. 71.182.241.137 ( talk) 05:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2004146/ 71.182.241.137 ( talk) 05:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The reference link #242 " Michael Biesecker, GOP Files More Lawsuits Seeking Hillary Clinton Records, Associated Press (March 15, 2016)." seems to be linking to an ABC news website about the elections " http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Election" and I am not sure how to find this link or correct this. Yoe Dude ( talk) 18:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
An editor advocates including (via multiple edits [1], [2], [3]) some Newsweek content to the Hillary Clinton email controversy#Comparisons and media coverage section. The general content appears to already exist in two other locations within that section. Please engage in the WP:BRD cycle, rather than WP:DE. UW Dawgs ( talk) 16:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
References
Combetta may have used Reddit to get tips on how to delete her emails, as reported by News & World Report and The Hill. Yoshiman6464 ( talk) 01:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I rolled back edits that mentioned Obama emailed Clinton under a pseudonym. This doesn't seem at all significant, and with such little coverage it would appear to violate WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey ( talk) 20:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Randomer here. The Ninth paragraph of the 'FBI Investigation' sub-header reads:
In a Meet the Press interview, Clinton said, “Let me repeat what I have repeated for many months now, I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified." On July 2, 2016, Clinton stated: “Let me repeat what I have repeated for many months now, I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified"
Just for readability, could we condense this to a single sentence referencing that it was said verbatim on two different dates? Sorry, not most accustomed to wiki guidelines
109.150.58.51 ( talk) 15:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I read that the 'c' stands for CONFIDENTIAL, not CLASSIFIED. Don't know if that matters or not, but CNN refuted Donald Trump for the mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanDanielst ( talk • contribs) 13:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
So a thorough, lengthy, intricately detailed source, dedicated solely to the Hillary Clinton email controversy, namely The Thompson Timeline, compiled by Stanford alumnus Paul Thompson, the well-known author of the famous The Terror Timeline is not allowed even in the list of External Links after the article - while biased links from Mrs. Clinton's own campaign website and her own Department can be listed without a hitch? Isn't it bad enough that the article itself (and the Main Article) treat the cover-up as merely an act of incompetence? JLMadrigal @ 13:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Should we add a sentence to the article, saying that the Justice Department strongly discouraged Comey from sending this letter and warned that his doing so would represent a break with longstanding policy? "Senior Justice Department officials did not move to stop him from sending the letter, officials said, but they did everything short of it, pointing to policies against talking about current criminal investigations or being seen as meddling in elections." [4] "Justice officials warned FBI that Comey’s decision to update Congress was not consistent with department policy" [5] -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
This article states hrcoffice.com is registered to Eric Hoteham. 95.229.236.178 ( talk) 13:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
T 85.166.160.7 ( talk) 02:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 14:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton email controversy → Emailgate – multiple sources show this term is notable and it would be a much shorter and simpler page title. It also seems more neutral too because the controversy is about more than just Hillary Clinton it is also about her aides, the FBI, and now apparently Anthony Weiner, so a wider scope name makes sense. Ranze ( talk) 08:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Steel1943: shouldn't something like this be given more than 6 hours discussion before closure? I don't think you allowed enough input on such an important issue to declare it doesn't have a snowball's chance of passing. This seems to have been treated as a vote without weighing the input, some of which is of questionable quality, as follows:
@ In ictu oculi: a personal distaste for gate titles does not seem grounds to object to them, if they are called this in reliable sources.
@ MelanieN: "not used much" and @ Scjessey: "almost nobody" (which @ PackMecEng: supported) I believe your claims are not consistent with 3 sources already present on the page which I'll duplicate here:
While the first two are both in March, the third is in August, showing that "emailgate" is a sustained term across nearly 6 months for this.
@ ResultingConstant: why should HCEC be the primary title? I only see two sources which use this phrase:
Why should the longer phrase used April/July by Fox/CNN take priority over the simpler phrase used March/August by Newsweek/BBC/NYmag? Ranze ( talk) 21:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The FBI director announced today that they are continuing their investigation in the light of newly discovered emails in an unrelated case. I believe that should be in the lede and I added this sentence: "On October 28, 2016 Comey told Congress that the FBI was re-opening its investigation to assess newly discovered e-mails in an unrelated case that may be pertinent to the investigation". Volunteer Marek removed it, saying Comey didn't actually say "reopening" and we should wait before adding it. I had been using a reliable source that used the term "reopening" [7], but I see that most other sources seem to be avoiding that term or talking around it, so I am open on whether or not to say "reopening". But I do believe this information is pertinent enough to this article to be included in the lede - as well as in the "FBI investigation" section where it has been added. What do others think? -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
WEINER!!!!!! The emails are from the investigation of Weiner sexting an underage girl. Goddamn. – Muboshgu ( talk) 19:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I just saw this discussion after making changes to the article headings, specifically adding "reopening". I was hesitant, for the same reasons that the discussion above describes, as I am not certain if "reopened" is the correct term. Even if that is incorrect, I would still ask that my revised heading nesting be retained, as it is confusing to talk about the case being closed in July 2016, yet the History sub-section contains new content about the investigation as of October 2016. Please don't just revert my changes, as I also removed the tag requesting that the article be updated for events as of October 2016, since there is now adequate content for that time period.-- FeralOink ( talk) 11:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
There's direct evidence Clinton's server was hacked. No '
probably' about it. I did a little digging and found some hard evidence it had been successfully hacked. Email me if you're interested. Above link says, The "F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said on Tuesday that his investigators had no “direct evidence” that Hillary Clinton’s email account had been “successfully hacked,”
but I just discovered evidence that shows that the FBI agents did a shitty job investigating. --
Elvey(
t•
c)
03:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
There is unsourced information and WP:SYNTH in this section. The reference, FBI-Report is not adequately specific, as it links to a single webpage on the FBI vault sub-domain, and that webpage contains links to four lengthy documents, so there is no way to determine where the sections referenced actually are located without going through all the pages in all documents.
The following three excerpts (see italicized portion only) need sources, or to be deleted:
The Report also notes that “FBI and USIC classification reviews identified 81 e-mail chains ... that were classified from the CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET levels at the time the e-mails were drafted on UNCLASSIFIED systems and sent to or from Clinton's personal server.”<ref name=FBI-Report /> In other words, all of the classified email chains “were drafted on unclassified systems,” including the ones that came from the CIA, DOD, FBI, NGA, and NSA. This is not surprising, since only unclassified servers can send e-mail to other unclassified servers such as Clinton’s personal server. (Classified servers do not communicate with unclassified servers.)
Of the 81 classified email chains the report notes that 8 were Top Secret, 37 were Secret and 36 were Confidential. Of these, “The FBI investigation determined Clinton contributed to discussions” in 4 Confidential, 3 Secret and 4 Top Secret e-mail chains.<ref name=FBI-Report />This indicates Clinton did not author most of the classified information (the information in 70 out of 81 emails). And the Report does not indicate that she authored any of it. Instead it notes that the “Investigation identified 67 instances where Clinton forwarded [classified] e-mails.”<ref name=FBI-Report />
Forwarding and replying explains many if not all of the classified e-mails sent from Clinton’s server.
-- FeralOink ( talk) 12:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Continuing from previous section: This is more original research (the source is Comey’s statement), i.e., non-neutral point of view. IMO the first two paragraphs need to be removed or replaced by content from reliable sources. In that case, it should also be pointed out that according to reliable sources Comey exceeded his authority and failed to follow Justice Department rules when he made those announcements and statements. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I went for it and made the changes I suggested yesterday, as a basis for discussion or for keeps.
Shouldn't the article mention at least some of the large number of respected sources that have found the whole thing to be a ginned-up conspiracy theory using innuendo to smear Clinton? Mydogtrouble ( talk) 20:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the "whole thing is a smear campaign" narrative fits the facts or sources. However, there is plenty already in the article to suggest it is overblown, politicized, and largely a campaign issue. In hindsight, perhaps that will become more apparent. It is also important to tie this to the long-running Benghazi hearings from which it arose. Comey's legacy is an issue for another day. If he resigns over this or faces ongoing criticism that might be worth describing here. I think it's also helpful to describe just how unusual it is in the post-Hoover era for an FBI director, or any investigator, to publicly announce what is going on with the case, and particularly to opine about the propriety of non-criminal conduct.- Wikidemon ( talk) 18:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
One+ of the emails was classified as secret at the time it was sent. It would be marked not (c), but (s). -- Elvey( t• c) 03:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
WHERE ARE THE EMAILS ON DONALD TRUMP FROM POUTIN. YOU NEED TO RELEASE EVERYTHING AND PUBLISH THE INFORMATION ON DONALD TRUMP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.157.20 ( talk) 05:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hillary Clinton email controversy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
/info/en/?search=Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Encryption_and_security
^ Please change the line
to
The quotes are unnecessary. There's nothing weird about a digital certificate. 128.12.254.132 ( talk) 03:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Anyone know anything about this:
"Of the 13 mobile devices determined by the FBI to be associated with the clinton.com email address and requested by the Department of Justice (DOJ), none were provided. DOJ made the request to Clinton legal counsel Williams & Connolly on February 9, 2016 and received a reply back on February 22 that they could not locate any of the devices. The FBI was thus unable to investigate the contents of them. Of five iPads the FBI identified as associated with Clinton, just three were obtained by the agency according to the FBI documentation." [1]
Is it notable enough and where to insert? Thanks, Quis separabit? 19:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Pinocchios
Politfact doesn't use this rating system, the Washington Post does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAMAS Newton ( talk • contribs) 02:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
First section mentioning "retroactively marked classified" is misleading.
The first paragraph contains the statement, "Those official communications included thousands of emails that would retroactively be marked classified by the State Department." This is misleading. Evidently, the person inserting this statement (which is unsourced, BTW) is trying to excuse Clinton's practices, or he is unfamiliar with United States classified-information law and policy, or both. Further, there is an ambiguity about the meaning of the term "classified": It can mean that the document has actually been studied and assigned to a specific level of security, or it can merely mean that it contains information which the person who created it knew or should have known was at some level of secrecy. A person could fall back on the first definition, claim that the emails (individually) were never actually studied by official staff to determine their classification level. But that is misleading, because it implies that the person who created those emails was not obliged to handle them according to U.S. Classified information laws. Hillary Clinton signed the appropriate documents acknowledging her obligations in regards to handling classified information, and that obliged her to make sure that anything she sends (or even receives) is handled properly. She knew that the system she allowed this information to be on wasn't satisfying the legal requirements for classified information, and that includes both definitions above. A person who signs such an agreement is obliged to ensure that any classifiable information is properly kept, and is further obliged to notice and report violations of such practices. A person with a security clearance who, hypothetically, notices a document in the gutter which happens to be a classifiable document knows that he must collect and secure that document, and report the circumstances of its finding to appropriate people in the chain of command. Similarly, Hillary Clinton became legally obliged to report and secure anything classifiable sent to her (or using her system) the moment it arrived, even if she was not actually aware of it. (it might have been sent by one person, and received by another, without it being routed to her.) Since her email server wasn't approved by the appropriate classified-document authorities, keeping any such information on that server was an obvious violation of secrecy law. Unfortunately, the news reports about this server and her emails do not explain these facts and laws to the public. Therefore, that statement in the first paragraph should remove the term "retroactively", or at least change the wording to remove the misleading implication. 71.222.50.217 ( talk) 21:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Fox news undue?
I'm concerned over the removal of the section on the Fox News false claims that Clinton would likely face indictment, as WP:UNDUE weight. Undue weight means that we should present all views on a subject, weighted according to their prevalence in reliable sources. The content under dispute was major national news, being reported by USA Today, LA Times, NPR, CNN, Business Insider, The Atlantic, and thousands of other lesser news sources. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- If the initial reporting by Fox News was not significant enough to mention in the article, then neither is the retraction. TFD ( talk) 15:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- It would gave been undue weight to include the initial report. But the retraction was widely reported in many independent reliable secondary sources. So I don't think it is undue weight to discuss it here. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 15:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- The removal seems good to me. If Fox News published an inaccurate report which it then corrected, I'm not sure anything of significance is lost from its removal. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 21:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Hillary Clinton email controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151001023951/http://gawker.com/5991563/hacked-emails-show-hillary-clinton-was-receiving-advice-at-a-private-email-account-from-banned-obama-hating-former-staffer to http://gawker.com/5991563/hacked-emails-show-hillary-clinton-was-receiving-advice-at-a-private-email-account-from-banned-obama-hating-former-staffer
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31806907
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emailgate-312784
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/hillary-clinton-legal-emailgate.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150811004955/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/17bb3935546b422ba4246e934e00d8d7/clinton-records-judge-sets-schedule-release-ap to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/17bb3935546b422ba4246e934e00d8d7/clinton-records-judge-sets-schedule-release-ap
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160404032537/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b219d2da39454b799b653187d6ab2831/judge-dismisses-pair-lawsuits-arising-clinton-emails to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b219d2da39454b799b653187d6ab2831/judge-dismisses-pair-lawsuits-arising-clinton-emails
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
{{ source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
References
No mention of Jason Chaffetz
This is a significant omission from this entry:
"On October 28, 2016, Comey informed Congress..." This passage is inaccurate in that it omits the fact that Comey informed via a letter. The letter was only to congress and was made public by Chaffetz. This fact and Chaffetz' role in the matter should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.107.19 ( talk) 18:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Judicial Watch
It seems to me that it's misleading to only refer to Judicial Watch as only a non-partisan group. They filed 18 lawsuits under the Bill Clinton administration (only 3 under GWB) and are referred to on their wiki page as conservative, but it's omitted here and their ideological stance (let alone their history) seems quite pertinent, since this article is about his wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.63.20.102 ( talk) 17:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- non-partisan has a specific legal meaning. Many organizations which are obviously leaning one way or the other are still non-partisan. ResultingConstant ( talk) 18:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Reference Comment [22]
"Initial awareness As early as 2009, officials with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) expressed concerns over possible violations of normal federal government record-keeping procedures at the Department of State under Secretary Clinton.[22]"
The referenced link does not support the statement of the sentence. I was not able to find anything that described NARA's concerns of record-keeping procedures in the reference. Is there a different source site that can replace this one?
- It looks like this is an issue that as parts of the article were rewritten and moved around, references were merged. The original ref backing this statement was [11] which said
The alarm bells sounded fairly early in Clinton’s tenure at Foggy Bottom. In a November 2009 email, written when Clinton had not yet completed her first year on the job, NARA archivist David Langbart wrote to his colleague, Michael Kurtz, about a “huge issue on which there has been little progress” – namely, the proper preservation of “high-level memos” generated by employees at “S/ES.” That is the abbreviation for the office of the secretary of state within the State Department’s Executive Secretariat.ResultingConstant ( talk) 18:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)"retroactively"?
The lede says that some of the emails were retroactively marked as classified. I'm wondering if the word "retroactively" makes any sense. After all, it's impossible to mark an email as classified before it is written, correct? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 15:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- "Reclassified" after the original transmission. Maybe? 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- The information in the document was classified from the beginning, but the document itself was not marked as classified (at the time it was written). So they were marked as classified much later. this is as opposed to deciding that the information should be classified going forward. One way to tell the difference is the dates. On the documents which were retroactively marked, the date of classification on the document is the date the document was written, and not the date the marking happened. ResultingConstant ( talk) 11:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
FBI investigation
In August 2017, according to information from the United States Office of the Special Counsel, it was revealed that then FBI director James Comey sometime in the early spring 2016, had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton, long before FBI agents finished their work and prior to interviewing 17 people in connection with the case, including Clinton. Comey also circulated the draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership. Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicated "Conclusion first, fact-gathering second.. That's no way to run an investigation." [1] Let us eat lettuce ( talk) 19:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Let us eat lettuce - I see similar mention in a piece from New York Post, and mention that a federal judge had ordered the FBI to provide details about how the COmey investigation was conducted -- although it also seems dubious in claims that the missing emails are available. Markbassett ( talk) 00:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- The piece in the New York Post is a column by a controversial writer. A later article by the reporter in Newsweek presents a clearer picture. [12] It doesn't seem significant at the moment. Sometimes letters are drafted before decisions are made. Probably best to wait a few days to see if it becomes important. TFD ( talk) 03:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Republican senator Lindsey Graham, who chairs a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, wants to bring James Comey back to testify on Capitol Hill, citing concerns about his statements on the conclusion of the Hillary Clinton email case. “He needs to come back to committee,” Graham said. [2] Let us eat lettuce ( talk) 15:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ Max Kutner | Newsweek, James Comey Prepared Statement ‘Exonerating’ Hillary Clinton Before Emails Investigation Ended, http://www.newsweek.com/james-comey-clinton-emails-investigation-grassley-658122 , August 31, 2017
- ^ Fox News, Graham wants to haul back Comey to testify on Clinton email case, says 'I smell a rat', http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/07/graham-wants-to-haul-back-comey-to-testify-on-clinton-email-case-says-smell-rat.html , September 7, 2017
grossly negligent
need to update!!!
"grossly negligent" is a term originally used by FBI to describe Hillary Clinton. gross negligence has legal ramifications. Let us eat lettuce ( talk) 22:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Umm, where in the article are you talking about? Comey said "extremely careless." -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/6/fbi-deemed-hillary-clinton-grossly-negligent-email/ Let us eat lettuce ( talk) 23:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- OIC. New information, just released today. Comey used the term in early drafts, but not in the final statement. So it was never actually "used by the FBI" and thus does not have "legal ramifications"; they decided against using it. We could probably find a way to mention this somewhere but it's not earth shaking. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- well if Comey was pressured into this revision, due to the tarmac meeting involving Bill Clinton, possibly it deserves more attention. Was the change politically influenced? Let us eat lettuce ( talk) 23:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Speculation/Original Research. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Although we allow quotes, we do not allow unattributed copying, so I've just removed something from User:Let us eat lettuce. I've removed more copyvio by the editor at another article. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hillary Clinton email controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924220619/http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/19/idUSnMKWv47gXa+1c2+MKW20150619 to https://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/19/idUSnMKWv47gXa+1c2+MKW20150619
- Added
{{ dead link}}
tag to http://www.thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160311140652/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
{{ source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Re-opened investigation
News announced today. Fox ran some commentary. I think they said the case was re-opened in December, but it has just now been confirmed. New investigation will examine people who exchanged emails with Clinton's server. Also examining immunity granted. Deserves a new section, if anybody is willing to work on it. Phmoreno ( talk) 03:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think we should wait and see. If only Fox has reported on it then they may have only heard of it from a "source", and therefore it might not be true. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 12:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- The story was carried by several news outlets and is a headline this morning. [1] [2] In the Fox News segment I was referring to I believe it was one of the committee members saying the investigation was reopened in December. The Fox story is useful for additional confirmation and the date. Phmoreno ( talk) 12:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- The first source just links back to the second, so it is in reality just one source. I do however think that it could be worth another section. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 12:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- We will have to return to this and document it. In fact, several articles related to the Russia interference and investigation will end up needing "Pushback" sections to deal with the enlarging attempts to obstruct justice by impeding the investigation. As Rachel Maddow said last night (the whole show was labeled "Pushback"), we should not be surprised by the pushback, but by the success it is getting. That's truly scary. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 21:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC) (Removed some off-topic content. BullRangifer ( talk) 05:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC))
@ BullRangifer: Are you at the right place? What do Maddow or Obama have to do with anything? Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 22:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- I removed it. Not really appropriate here. I had just copied the whole thing from somewhere else. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 05:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)