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. |
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 |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Wikipedia, 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. |
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia, when the party supported by the Wikipedia-dogma (i.e. the Democrat) sins, obfuscate! (i.e. lie!) 108.29.35.120 ( talk) 06:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
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.
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)
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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 15 § Midyear Exam until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
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. |
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 |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Wikipedia, 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. |
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia, when the party supported by the Wikipedia-dogma (i.e. the Democrat) sins, obfuscate! (i.e. lie!) 108.29.35.120 ( talk) 06:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
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.
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)
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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 15 § Midyear Exam until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)