Jump to content

Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

RfC on inclusion of meeting between AG and Bill Clinton

While there is some criticism of the exact text, most people believe this is an important part of the email controversy and so should be included in this article. Strength of argument is hard to measure here as the underlying policy (NOTDIARY/NOTNEWS) is in the eye of the beholder though I think the include case is better made. As such, there is consensus to have this text, or something similar to it, in the article. I'll leave it to others to include the text in an appropriate place. Hobit (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

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

  1. ^ "Lynch to Accept F.B.I. Recommendations in Clinton Email Inquiry, Official Says - NYT". NYT. July 1, 2016.
  2. ^ "Attorney General Loretta Lynch Calls It 'Perfectly Reasonable' to Question Bill Clinton Meeting". ABC News. July 1, 2016.
  3. ^ "Loretta Lynch, Bill Clinton meeting raises eyebrows". USA Today. June 30, 2016.

Survey

  • Include The facts are that the head of the organization conducting a criminal investigation (discussed in this article) of Hillary met privately on her plane with Hillary's husband. The explanation given by those involved is that Bill happened to discover that Lynch was flying through the Phoenix airport (i.e. Bill's security team is in communication with Lynch's security team and that this information was passed along by chance.), and requested a meeting with Lynch. Lynch agreed to the meeting and says the discussion was "primarily social" and focused on their grandkids. The incident has been discussed widely by reliable sources and commented on multiple times by both Lynch and the White House. Relevance and significance here are indisputable.CFredkin (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Include The text isn't perfect – it should be mentioned that Lynch subsequently acknowledged the meeting was a mistake in judgment on her part – but something along these lines should be present in the article. Any time a high government official is investigated by the same government, it is always relevant as to what measures for the judicial independence of that investigation are taken or not taken. This applies to any official, any administration, any party, any country – it is always relevant. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Include. This is a non-routine national news story. Multiple facets of the events are directly applicable to this article, including the unprecedented access to the Attorney General five days before Hillary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI as part of their ongoing investigation. We are still in the midst of days of news coverage including Lynch's subsequent statements of regret over the meeting and optics, the White House response, Hillary Clinton's response, and bipartisan commentary and condemnations of the meeting and optics.

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."

  • The copy as drafted uses WP:RS, does not engage in speculation, ascribe motivations, or suffer similar defects. The events have generated extensive and linked public comments from Lynch on how she will dispose of the investigatation. While there may be room for additional CEs (in particular, Lynch's statement re Bill Clinton initiating the surprise meeting), the immediate focus should be on the easy issue of achieving general consensus. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Abstain. It does seem to be a big story now, but (I don't understand how it can fit into the article without sounding weird, since it seems trivial by any rational standard. Does Wikipedia recognize the idea that a story can go viral without really being important? Bill Clinton up to his old tricks, I see.) MikeR613 (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Include. The incident has received a huge amount of coverage in high quality sources, so is obviously notable. However, I wouldn't be against shortening it just a bit to avoid WP:UNDUE issues, only if it can be made more concise without sacrificing prose quality. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude It was a chance meeting between two powerful figures in U.S. politics, where they discussed their grandchildren (we have no reason to doubt this). It was bad optics and bad timing, and it got coverage over the course of a news cycle. But, it will have no impact on this matter going forward. The page only mentions Lynch at present to say she will accept the recommendations of the FBI, which itself is kind of obvious and doesn't strike me as necessary. Point is, she's not involved in the investigation. The Sky Harbor Airport meeting appears to me to fail the ten-year test, with the possible exception of some WP:FRINGE theorists who think that Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch would actually discuss how to avoid charges on Hillary in such a blatant, high-profile way. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This RfC is premature and probably invalid anyway as a measure of ongoing consensus on a WP:NOT#NEWS item that is rapidly evolving, and fading, as the RfC is taking place. The article's section on the FBI investigation will substantially change now the investigation has concluded. The flap over this meeting, at most, will probably be a curiosity or a footnote. We should have discussed this like any other issue instead of being so trigger-happy on starting RfCs. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: please see discussion in section above.CFredkin (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude at least for now. In one year no one will remember that this meeting took place, not to speak of the 10-year test. If additional information surfaces that makes the encounter more notable then by all means it should be included. Especially now that the FBI's press conference on the email issue has taken place, I believe we should wait to see if there are any further developments before including this. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude - Mainly per WP:NOTDIARY. There are plenty of available sources, but this incidental meeting is simply not significant and there's no indication that it would have enduring encyclopedic value. Once this email controversy passes, minutiae such as this should be trimmed and the article reduced to a more concise summary.- MrX 17:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude - not news, not diary. Doesn't pass the 10 yr test.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Include. The title of the article includes the word controversy. The whole circumstance here with the email situation IS controversial, to be sure. The meeting between AG Lynch and Bill Clinton merely 4 days before HRC was questioned by the FBI and 1week prior to the FBI decision is certainly noteworthy, especially given the potential conflict of interest among the two parties. As I sit here at my lunch break there is a panel on cable channel Newstalk8 (impartial network) discussing the propriety of this meeting. This AFTER the Comey press conference a bit ago. Since it is part of the endgame of a significant part of the controversy, to suggest it will be forgotten in 1 year or even 10 years is either unrealistic or wishful thinking at best. Part of the backdrop of this whole affair that reasonable future readers will want to know is if the US system of Justice operated fairly and impartially. As written, the material proposed assigns no opinion to that, but to omit it from the final sequence of events in and of itself smacks of Wikipedia bias. Dnforney (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Absolutely Include. Because it lead to AG Lynch announcing she'd accept the recommendation of the federal prosecutors and FBI rather than her herself deciding what to do with the case. A key factor if Comey had recommended indictment.199.112.128.15 (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Include. It led to Lynch announcing she'd accept the recommendation of the federal prosecutors and FBI rather than she herself deciding what to do with the case. A key factor since Comey recommended no indictment. IHTS (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Include this is VERY deep into WP:WELLKNOWN. It was widely covered, universally criticized, including by both sides of the aisle in congress, it caused Lynch, Hillary, and Bill (via spokesperson) to release statements about the impropriety of the meeting. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Do not include. It seems that the only purpose of including this text is to prove/imply that the meeting "led to AG Lynch announcing she'd accept the recommendation...", as noted by two participants above (although there is no proof). Making such implications is not the purpose of encyclopedia, although it is exactly what newspapers do. This is not a newspaper. My very best wishes (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Question. For what specific reason should this content not be included? Doesn't fail notability. Or NPOV. I see no reason in the RfC for any editor to accept or reject it. It's well-sourced content. What's the real issue here? Doc talk 06:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
A criminal indictment in this case would never happen, regardless to the meeting. Do you have any doubts about this? Therefore, it is wrong to describe the meeting as the reason for the indictment to never happen. In fact, this meeting did not change anything at all and was simply a minor episode, even though it has been widely covered in press for the moment for political reasons. Hence "not news" apply. My very best wishes (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
That's cute. The unabashed pro-Hillary crowd calls it "not news". It's news, just not "positive" news. Include. Doc talk 12:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I was talking about WP:Not news. My very best wishes (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. ...I know. Doc talk 07:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Text above suppose to be included in this section. Consider how this is going to look like. This meeting of secondary importance will dominate whole section that is currently concise, factual and clear. This is classic WP:Undue. My very best wishes (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
"Classic" undue? I doubt that... Doc talk 14:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Include The declaration as to whether the issue of this meeting becomes consequential or not as a matter of history is premature. We cannot know what history will become. The decision whether this is subjective or not is highly subjective similarly. We cannot conduct ourselves in a way that is possibly partisan one way or another. Many believe that this is consequential additionally, this could evolve to more. It should be noted that the spouse of Bill Clinton, candidate Hillary Clinton, offered the continuation of her job. Thus the tarmac meeting takes on a new meaning. This point should also be made in the article text. Dogru144 (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what the text suggested in this RfC implies: this meeting was a bribery and everything Lynch said about the meeting was a lie. This is a speculative conjecture made in some newspapers. Should we do the same in WP? I think not because we are not newspaper.My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Include - it cannot be classified as recentism as her actions raised ethical questions which simply don't go away. Atsme📞📧 15:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • If by "ethical questions which simply don't go away" you're referring to the ongoing convention and the statement by Paul Manafort, I challenge that. If this were to lead to an actual ethics investigation rather than sore losers upset that the FBI won't "LOCK HER UP!", that'd be different. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Pick whatever RS you like, there are plenty out there to satisfy PAGs. Our job is not to judge whether or not she is guilty, rather it is to provide information to our readers about notable occurrences per WP:V and WP:RS. We are also not required to cite only neutral sources whereas we are required to present the information per NPOV. Atsme📞📧 17:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Can you find a reliable source that isn't simply quoting Paul Manafort or another Republican with an agenda? Simply repeating their claims, in the midst of the convention, doesn't establish that this isn't going away. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
It is highly likely that every comment ever stated or written will reflect traces of that individual's POV, and its also highly likely that we all aren't going to agree with them. That's when our PAGs come into play. All that WP requires is what BLP states regarding controversial statements or statements likely to be challenged, specifically that they should be cited to whoever made the statement using an inline citation to a RS. Just because you don't agree with that person's politics doesn't make their statements unacceptable, nor should they be excluded from an article. You might want to do a quick refresh of the relative PAGs which is something I do on a regular basis, although I haven't been able to retain the exact wording and links to be able to quote them verbatim but I'm working on it. Atsme📞📧 19:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Include The only question should be how can this not be included? The Attorney General has a private meeting with the husband of a woman who is under her investigation, and Clinton may become the AG's boss, and it is reported everywhere from the New York Times[1] to the Los Angeles Times[2]. Yeah, they may have "discussed their grandchildren", but the AG and ex-president are to blame for any speculation. Now, it will be in Wikipedia. KamelTebaast 05:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/us/politics/meeting-between-bill-clinton-and-loretta-lynch-provokes-political-furor.html?_r=0
  2. ^ http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trailguide-updates-attorney-general-loretta-lynch-defends-1467311246-htmlstory.html
The discussion above 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.

Where's the relevant information?

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)

I'm not really sure what you are looking for here. Thanks to the efforts of right-leaning editors, this article presents the entire "fauxtroversy" in excruciating detail. To my knowledge, nothing has been missed. Please be more specific. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
There are no damages to the REAL public interest (as opposed to the UNREAL public interest?). The relevant information is in the article, supported by 235 reliable sources.- MrX 13:42, 24 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)

WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Clinton's signature appears on document saying she received training on how to handle classified material, but she claims she never had such training

http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2004146/ 71.182.241.137 (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Need a better source and a good argument that this isn't WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Wrong or broken reference

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)

The link is dead. I've tried searching it in the archiving sites but couldn't find the article. I've tagged it though. MediaKill13 (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

newsweek article as comparison

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)

UW Dawgs Understandably, you have confabulated several edits that ultimately merged into one citation and reference. One intervening edit by another user (who endorsed having the material in this article – but only once – corrupted the reference; and I corrected that. The current statements and structure are fine with me. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Apparently there was some kind of editing going on. You removed, and now I have restored, Newsweek reported that 22 million e-mails, including critical ones making decisions to enter into the Iraq War, were allegedly "lost" from the administration of George W. Bush[1] 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
You removed this because?
Newsweek reported that 22 million e-mails, including critical ones making decisions to enter into the Iraq War, were allegedly "lost" from the administration of George W. Bush[1]
Different source, statement and perspective. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
But what does the edit have to do with Clinton's email controversy?CFredkin (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Read the first three paragraphs of the Newsweek article, which explicitly compares the two (both as to scope, method, and investigations or lack thereof). [Copyrighted material redacted] 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
It's the selective attention and outrage, paid to Clinton while Bush's was ignored. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Burleigh, Nina (September 12, 2016). "U.S.: The George W. Bush White House 'Lost" 22 Million E-mails". Newsweek. Retrieved September 13, 2016.
I wouldn't support including Bush simply to say tit-for-tat that his administration's scandal was vastly more extensive, but rather as part of establishing context regarding the US executive branch and its relationship with secrecy, records, and conflicts of interest. It might even be useful to go beyond a single US presidential administration and describe the overall treatment by the US and perhaps other governments, agencies, corporations, etc., with corporate email accounts and usage policies. Establishing context is useful in Wikipedia for any article on any subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Muboshgu & Wikidemon are both correct. This is not just about "politics" and "paybacks." It is about context and standards, however. That is what the Newsweek article says, and it does it in a concrete way in a WP:RS. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I do not understand this edit by User:UW Dawgs which REMOVED the reference altogether, and then said "agree w/ Muboshgu's placement as clearly better." This makes no sense. There is no "placement" of this reference or its content at all.
16:55, 13 September 2016‎ User:UW Dawgs (talk | contribs)‎ . . (138,101 bytes) (-610)‎ . . ((edit conflict) per Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy#newsweek article as comparison, agree w/ Muboshgu's placement as clearly better)
I think that there was an edit conflict (which confused me too). But which side are you on? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
OK. I remove my objection.CFredkin (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
No thematic objection to the citation from yesterday's story. Someone should offer language to show how this will be more gracefully integrated with the two existing statements, already on point. I think the proposed Iraq war callout narrowly is absurd, given the article's focus on ~6 years of the and 22M emails, while also covering both the PRA and historical context of multiple Presidents beginning with Reagan. The more relevant and direct comparison is made re the litigation/discovery process, the server being maintained outside of the government (RNC in this case), and deletion via disabling auto-archive (inclusion of each of those elements is unnecessary as we already link to that full article). Use the quote parameter in the citation to include secondary context if helpful. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Paul Combetta (Hillary's computer specialist)

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)

On the face of it, where somebody learned how to delete emails does not seem particularly relevant to anything. Do you have a content proposal? - Wikidemon (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The interesting bit here is Spoliation but I think its too soon to go there now. If this gets further legs though, that may certainly change. ResultingConstant (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Wikidemon and ResultingConstant for the advice. I will wait until this story has legs. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Obama pseudonym

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)

Right, it seems trivial. What would be a reason for including that? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Verbatime quote duplication - FBI Investigation para. 9

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)

What the 'c' stands for

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)

Do editors need special permission to cite outside sources?

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)

The issue here is that this falls under WP:SELFPUB. Clinton's items also do, but as a party to the dispute, statements about her own POV are inherently reliable for her POV (but they should be attributed to her, not stated as facts). ResultingConstant (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I completely agree. The Thompson site fails WP:RS, and adding it to the list of external links doesn't improve the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Justice department criticizes Comey's decision

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)

I see that a paragraph has been added with the timeline of the discovery and the FBI's rationale for revealing the information now. If we are going to say anything about the Justice Department advice, it should go in that paragraph as part of the discussion that preceded the letter. At this point I'm not sure the Justice comments need to be there, just soliciting comments about it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
There are many that either approve or disapprove of the letter to Congress. I haven't seen any that discuss the substance or address the controversy. They seem tangential criticism. I don't see how applause or criticism is relevant. It's likely short lived as the investigation will extend beyond the period that generates it. --DHeyward (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
It is more correct to say that according to a department spokesman, senior officials advised him not to make the existence of the emails public. It is not clear whether that was political or legal advice, but the department did not criticize his decision. TFD (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Nick Merrill is listed by Whois as the owner of hrcoffice.com

This article states hrcoffice.com is registered to Eric Hoteham.95.229.236.178 (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't find where in the article this information is given. Could you point us to it? --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Minor typo in the "Jason Leopold " section: "resposive" for... "respoNsive"?

T 85.166.160.7 (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for pointing that out. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 3 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

  • No please no more -gate titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No This term is not used much by Reliable Sources and apparently is not a common search term here. The pageview log shows that Emailgate (the redirect) is rarely viewed - less than 100 views per day, compared to tens of thousands of views for this article (Hillary Clinton email controversy). A look at the history shows that the article was actually titled "Emailgate" originally, but was moved to this title per talk page consensus.[6] And it seems that Wikipedia does not generally use these catchy "-gate" titles; for comparison, Bridgegate is commonly used by Reliable Sources, but our article is titled Fort Lee lane closure scandal. We should leave the article here, with Emailgate as a redirect, as it is now. --MelanieN (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Hell no Almost nobody uses this ghastly term. The existing title, while somewhat less neutral than it should be, is supported by the content. I absolutely detest seeing "-gate" added to anything, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No Basically what Scjessey said. PackMecEng (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No Its a reasonable redirect to here, but should not be the primary title. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Followup

@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:

  1. Eichenwald, Kurt (3 March 2015). "Why Hillary Clinton's 'Emailgate' Is a Fake Scandal". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 10 March 2015.
  2. Zurcher, Anthony (11 March 2015). "Hillary Clinton's 'emailgate' diced and sliced". BBC News. Archived from the original on 12 March 2015.
  3. Hartmann, Margaret (21 August 2015). "Could Hillary Clinton Face Criminal Charges Over Emailgate?". New York. Archived from the original on 3 November 2016.

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:

  1. "Michael Flynn weighs in on Hillary Clinton email controversy". Fox News. 6 April 2015.
  2. Douglas Cox (July 27, 2015). "Hillary Clinton email controversy: How serious is it?". CNN.

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)

Note that two of those sources put "Emailgate" in quotes; only New York Magazine uses it as if it was a normal, accepted word. Anyhow, I think we are looking at Wikipedia accepted title style here. Check out this list; almost any "gate" you click on has a descriptive article title, not a "gate" title. Many don't even have a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Also with Trump recently having his own "Emailgate" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_email_controversy it could get confusing if that is the articles title. PackMecEng (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

October 28 "reopening" of the case

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)

The letter says very little. It doesn't tell what this "other" case is that turned up the emails, us what the emails are, who they're from, who they're to, or that the investigation will be "reopened". Media are running wild with the story, as expected. Headlines say "reopening", but headlines aren't written by the reporters. The articles themselves are avoiding the word "reopening". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with the way it is now. The word "reopening" though is inappropriate, even if some headlines went with that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I see that you (Moboshgu) removed "opening" and I am now OK with that. In fact I notice that some news stories have altered their headlines to remove "reopening". I do think we need a sentence in the lede; let's work out what it should say. --MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. And let's get it there quickly, before people start adding lurid claims to the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
How about this: "On October 28, 2016 Comey told Congress that the FBI has started looking into newly discovered e-mails from an unrelated case that may be pertinent to the investigation."--MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
That seems neutral, accurate, unobjectionable. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
VM? You OK with this? --MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, looks good, though I have a feeling we'll have to change it as new info comes out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I added it. I think we're good for now. --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Seems ok. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:47, 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)

Hey, this is way off topic and I apologize, but I can't resist sharing this (spoof) news story from Andy Borowitz: [8] --MelanieN (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Unimpeachable sourcing. [9]. I added ref to lead not mentioning that he is the source of the illicit texts they are investigating. --DHeyward (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The edit to the lead made it appear that Comey had specifically said the emails that have been found were related to the Weiner case. Comey's letter did not go this far. I corrected the lead and placed the Weiner/Abedin reference in the body of the article. NameIsRon (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. The NY Times said it was "Law enforcement" and they published it as factual. Connection to Huma Abedin makes it worthy for the lead and it's notable enough to be mentioned in the first paragraph of the NY TImes story on it. "unrelated case" gives a false impression when we have a source that spells out exactly what case it is. --DHeyward (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Come on, could somebody please revert or self-revert this?[10] We're in the middle of a discussion, and in the meanwhile, making hay out of new evidence from an unrelated case goes too far. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:29, 29 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.

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)

We can't use your original research in this article and Wikipedia is not the place to promote personal theories. This talk page is for discussing improvement to the article using reliable sources.- MrX 11:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello Elvey! I remember you from a discussion on MetaWiki. Your observation about Clinton's server being hacked is NOT original research. The article mentions that several former CIA directors and a former Department of Defense secretary have already made public statements that support what you said, see here, rather than Comey's findings in the (initial) email investigation.--FeralOink (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources for "Mishandling and the sources of classified information"

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.)

  • Without reference, it is WP:SYNTH. Also, "not surprising" is not encyclopedic wording.

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 />

  • Chains are not the same as emails. Each chain contains multiple emails. Clinton was not a participant in 70 of the email CHAINS. That does NOT mean that Clinton did not write most of the classified information, as the length of the email chains (the number of emails in each) isn't specified. For example, if the 11 chains in which she did participate, by writing content, were lengthy, but most of the other 70 chains were not, then it would be incorrect to claim that Clinton was responsible for a small amount of the total classified information.

Forwarding and replying explains many if not all of the classified e-mails sent from Clinton’s server.

  • Needs source

--FeralOink (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I was unable to find any sourcing for the "not surprising" sentences you flagged, and I have deleted them.--MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, MelanieN!--FeralOink (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of entire "Conclusions of the investigation" section

I removed an entire section that only had primary sources. Wikipedia editors can't interpret primary sources for inclusion in the article. They can be cited next to a secondary source that relied on them. Otherwise it's all synth. WP doesn't decide which facts, testimony or quotes are notable for articles, secondary sources do that. --DHeyward (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I reverted your removal. Removing the entire section was unwarranted, a massive change that made the article less informative and less valuable. Consensus will be required to remove it. (As the DS have been explained to me: removal of longstanding content constitutes an "edit"; if that "edit" is reverted, that indicates the removal was controversial; and consensus is needed before doing it again.) You are welcome to defend your decision here, but I think most people will say to find additional sources - certainly not to delete the entire section. --MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I actually think DHeyward's edit is reasonable. It's OK to use primary sources, but we should not have so much material based only on primary sources. The context and weight should be shaped by secondary sources.- MrX 16:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
So you think we should rewrite the section. Fine. But should we be completely without any information on the subject in the article until we do that? In some ways that is the most important section in the article. Are we really doing our readers any favor by leaving it blank? --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Note that ResultingConstant has responded to the objections above by adding secondary sources. That is what we should be doing here. Not ripping out all the information and leaving nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
That's a valid point. Scalpels and retractors usually work better than hatchets and machetes.- MrX 16:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have a short summary of the statements made by the FBI director. However, calling the criticism and opinions he stated regarding Clinton a "conclusion" of the FBI investigation is misleading, one of the risks of using primary or low-quality and news-centric secondary sources. Simply, investigations don't conclude like this. From what I have been reading it is unusual, and not normal procedure in any way, that the head of an investigation makes a public statement giving opinions about things that are not within the ambit of criminal law. Comey was heavily criticized for this, and analysts describe it as a blunder. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I consider it a matter of the highest urgency that we have SOMETHING in that section, not a blank. I have other things to do this afternoon, but if people think the "primary sources" issue is suddenly critically important (after not being bothered by it for months), I will free up the time and write a new section. But I can't start until later today. In the meantime we have tens of thousands of people per day coming to this article for information. I really think we should restore the longstanding information until we replace it with a secondary-sourced passage. I'm not going to restore it myself per DS. But I wish someone would, with the understanding that it will be temporary. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I see that User: ResultingConstant has already restored this and started improving it! Thank you! MelanieN alt (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Was there a glitch in the matrix? Didn't you already reply to this above (16:41) noticing that I restored? ResultingConstant (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I guess so. Anyhow, thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

July 2016 - Investigation concludes

  • I hadn’t looked at this article before today and only got here because of the current FBI controversy. I’ve only been doing "serious" Wikipedia editing for half a year and can’t claim expert status, but this entire paragraph appears to be in violation of a number of rules. The title is misleading: There was only one conclusion, i.e., the recommendation "that no charges are appropriate in this case". Most of the text is a play-by-play recap of a CNN video (original research violation), including a long quote from CNN’s transcript (copyright violation). This is stuff for a newspaper article and for CNN’s website, but I don’t think it is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Also, since there are two "conclusion" sections (see next under) they should be merged. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:26, 5 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)

Hope you don't mind, I have combined your previous comment and this comment into one section, since they are about changes to the article and not about the deletion of a section. Please change the section heading here as necessary to make clear exactly which section(s) you are talking about. Are there two "conclusions" sections? Right now the "conclusions" are pulled out into a separate first section, rather than included in the "timeline" section; are you suggesting the conclusions should be integrated into the timeline? We can discuss that.
To reply to your second comment: IMO it makes no sense to say that Comey is a "non-neutral point of view". And it makes no sense to say "original research," which refers to something an editor puts in without any source. Comey himself, and the reporting about what he said, is the source, so this is not "original research" invented by a Wikipedia editor. As for neutrality: Comey is the head of the FBI. Of course he is an acceptable source - THE authoritative source - for what the FBI is doing or what it has concluded. What is he supposed to do, say "this is what my agency concluded but I don't necessarily agree or disagree with it"? We are not implying that he is neutral with regard to Clinton, but he is certainly neutral as a reporter of what the FBI says. We can and should add independent references (as has mostly been done already). And we can add something about the controversy over whether he should have said anything publicly. But there is no reason to delete the existing material. --MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph about the DOJ disagreement with his decision and the controversy over his public announcement. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Regarding the transcript of the Hurd-Comey exchange: that is not a copyright violation; it is a brief excerpt with credit given to the source, which is acceptable usage. If you think it should be removed per WP:UNDUE I wouldn't object, but I do think it sheds light on and clarifies what he said in his public statement. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
P.S. You are not the first who has disputed the word "conclusions" as opposed to "conclusion". To avoid this I have changed the title to "Results of the investigation". --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I see that the first "conclusion" section has been renamed, but I still object to the whole thing. The first FBI investigation concluded with the FBI’s recommendation that no charges be filed. The Q&A session before the House Oversight Committee doesn’t belong there at all (maybe "Responses and Analysis"?), and giving that much space to it - no matter where in the article - makes it look as though Wikipedia is taking sides. I would suggest keeping "July 2016 - Investigation concludes", maybe adding some content from "Results", and removing "Results" and the "Timeline" title.
Original research: I interprete non-neutral point of view to include editors interpreting original documents as in Comey’s long statement. It hasn’t been filtered by reliable secondary sources and thus merely presents one editor’s point of view of what the document says. When the info is coming from secondary sources, their interpretation may be conflicting but in total you get a neutral, i.e., balanced, view. As I said, I don't claim to be the big WP expert, so that may be my misinterpretation.
I won't be able to do any more posting today. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit on Nov 6, 2016 - moving and rearrangement

I went for it and made the changes I suggested yesterday, as a basis for discussion or for keeps.

  • I removed the "Timeline" subtitle and combined the remaining "results/conclusions" section and the conclusion section in the timeline. I went through the primary and secondary source and changed the summary to reflect Comey’s statement more accurately IMO. I would have preferred to delete the details altogether, but didn’t for the time being; some editors would probably object. I do think that we’d need a lot more details to make the text neutral; the article would be better without them.
Well, I restored some of the "details" that you deleted in doing the move. I agreed with removing the transcript and Comey's additional explanation about comparable cases. But some of the "detail" was highly important to understanding the FBI's conclusions and was part of Comey's July report. If you want to take out some of what I restored, let's discuss it here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I can live with it. I wasn't all that comfortable having to "parse" an original text in semantically challenged bureaucrat speak in the first place (for instance, what does he mean by "security culture of the State Department in general" - now, when Clinton was Secretary of State, ever?) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The House Oversight Committee hearing was not part of the FBI investigation (the FBI is an executive agency and doesn’t report to the House), so I moved the text to a new section and shortened it considerably. The hearing was a partisan affair by members of the GOP trying to get Comey to say what they wanted to hear and Comey not saying it. The text contained too much detail about things not found, numbers of emails that aren’t useful out of context, remarks about "security culture of the State Department in general", unrelated investigations, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Smear campaign

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)

Agreed. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I doubt if you can find any such assertion from a reliable, independent (not partisan, not opinion) source. --MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
If you have some sources collected could you post them here so everyone can review and evaluate which ones would be best to use? 74tyhegf (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Didn't you get the memo? Comey said that there was insufficient evidence to charge Clinton and the Clinton campaign is now praising him (again). TFD (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
They're not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
As far as we know, no one forced her to set up a private server or delete those e-mails. It's not a "smear campaign"; it may be a self-fulfilling prophecy? I think this topic is a moot point.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
David Axelrod tweeted, "Now Ds who were savaging Comey a few days ago will praise him & GOPers who were behind him will turn on him again." It could be a lot of the rank and file aren't falling into line yet, but I don't see any party leaders attacking him lately. Harry Reid has said nothing.
Zigzag20s, if Clinton's assistant had told the FBI about the emails she was storing on Anthony Weiner's laptop, the FBI would have examined them with the other emails. (Or borrowed Clinton's hammer.)
TFD (talk) 17:57, 7 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)

What is unusual here is that the AG would normally choose to decide whether charges would be laid but in this case delegated that role to Comey after she met with Clinton's husband to discuss "a great deal about grandchildren, it was primarily social about our travels and he mentioned golf he played in Phoenix." Usually it is sufficient for a prosecutor to explain that there is insufficient evidence, but in this case it was also necessary to explain the law as Comey understood it. Everyone of course knew that Clinton kept state department emails on a private server. It was unclear to the public whether that was criminal. TFD (talk)

email marked secret

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 is the source that says that an why would it be "One+" rather than a determinate number?- MrX 11:40, 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)

The information was classified as secret. But the email itself was unmarked wasn't it? ResultingConstant (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
We should go ahead and remove the "dubious" marking here, Comey is clearly quoted stating this in the FactCheck.org article. 12.208.4.65 (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Encryption_and_security

^ Please change the line

On March 29, 2009, a "digital certificate" was obtained which would have permitted encryption.

to

On March 29, 2009, a digital certificate was obtained which would have permitted encryption.

The quotes are unnecessary. There's nothing weird about a digital certificate. 128.12.254.132 (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The quotation is a phrase cited from the given ref. — Andy W. (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Just because the author of the source chooses to word it that way doesn't mean it's the proper way to refer to it on Wikipedia. For instance, take a look at another Washington Post article written by a different individual:
For one simple reason: the clintonemail.com server apparently didn’t have the digital certificate needed to encrypt communications until late March 2009 — more than two months after the server was up and running, and after Secretary Clinton's swearing-in on January 22.
Colloquial use of the term doesn't warrant quotes. 128.12.254.132 (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay — Andy W. (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Andy M. Wang Looks like the requested change was made then? Adding a  Done for clarity here. — JFG talk 08:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

HELLO, OUT THERE

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)

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:

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

  1. ^ http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emailgate-312784

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

  1. ^ 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
  2. ^ 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.cbsnews.com/news/james-comey-claimed-hillary-clinton-grossly-negligent-in-handling-emails-in-early-drafts-of-assessment/
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/358982-early-comey-memo-accused-clinton-of-gross-negligence-on-emails
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)

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:

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)

References

  1. ^ Justice Department reopens Hillary Clinton email investigation, Washington Examiner
  2. ^ Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again, The Daily Beast
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy/Archive_10&oldid=1083938441"