Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Crooked Hillary

Hi, Emir of Wikipedia. I understand why you have removed the nickname. I added it as the nickname was used in relation to the email controversy. I believe that this therefore may be more appropriate on the Hillary Clinton article itself, and on this page with some more context e.g something along the lines of US president Donald Trump used the 'Crooked Hillary' nickname in relation to the email controversy as it is a prominent nickname used by a very prominent (even if not well respected) person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.26.20 (talk) 10:10, January 5, 2018‎

It belongs at List of nicknames used by Donald Trump, not here, as it is a vile personal attack and this page is covered by BLP. We also have List of nicknames used by George W. Bush, and I imagine even the ones that aren't personal attacks aren't used on most of the subjects' biographies. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Muboshgu. Firstly thank you for all your contributions and congratulations on becoming an admin - well deserved. I made the edit as this is a widely used nickname which appears to accurately cover the very suspect nature of Clinton's actions. Whilst I appreciate it is not suitable without context, I feel this is appropriate somewhere else on this article and the Hillary Clinton article in context such as what I proposed above due to the common usage and high prominence. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You cited this source, which is an opinion piece and which doesn't support the claim that "Crooked Hillary" is specifically a reference to the email controversy. It probably refers to multiple scandals or to the Clinton Foundation, as The Week columnist suggests. If you can find multiple reliable sources which support your claim that this relevant to the email scandal, the content should go to the body of the article. Then, and only then, the content may or may not be summarised in the lead section.

I would suggest that, before making any further edits about this material in the article, you make a proposal on this talk page to seek consensus. Politrukki (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Saying "sometimes referred to as Crooked Hillary" is weasel wording because it does not tell us who refers to her as Crooked Hillary. And you would also have to explain its relevance to this topic, which appears to be nothing. It's the type of phrasing more fitting to an editorial than a neutral article. TFD (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Nobody uses this nickname but Trump; it is not "widely used". It could go in the article List of nicknames used by Donald Trump abut nowhere else. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not suitable here. It is also not specifically related to the email controversy. While each one of the nicknames he creates to attack others has a "first instance" use, often that instance and later uses are not specific, but are literally INSTANTLY created as a gut reaction attack, without much thought, only as a means to undermine an opposer. It's a cheap trick. I will note that there are some nicknames which have been carefully chosen with some forethought. We only know this because others have been there in the planning stages. There is a long history to this. It's part of his training by Roy Cohn, to always counter attack much stronger, to accuse your opponent of that which you are doing, and to never admit a defeat, and in fact to always call a defeat a win. Cohn was a master of dirty fighting. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This nickname was used by Clinton's presidential rival repeatedly, primarily in relation to the emails. This is mentioned in the source which has just been added. This complies with BLP as it is not defamatory, it is well sourced and it is more than prominent and relevant enough to appear in this article. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way I have put the content back for now as I am confident that this meets all the relevant policies and guidelines, in particular BLP as I have found a good, detailed source. However, if you disagree we can discuss further on this talk page. I would like to note I was accused of 'disruptive editing and vandalism' on my talk page, which is complete nonsense. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. He first used the term in reference to her close connections with special interests.[1] Republicans have been accusing her of being crooked since Whitewater. TFD (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

True, he has used the nickname in part for that reason. Hillary has been called 'crooked' as you say for decades. I believe trump more specifically used (and still uses from time to time) his nickname in relation to the emails. At the very least, it is a large part of why Trump repeatedly used the nickname, as stated in the source. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous user 141.241.26.20 added this edit back in again even though consensus is against including it because of WP:REL, so I removed it. And for the record I also agree with the users above that it's irrelevant and out of line with other articles. I count 4 different warnings on 141.241.26.20's user talk page over the past 6 weeks or so, including 2 DS. Weaselfie (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Far too many quotations

We are supposed to use them very sparingly, especially on political articles. There are too many sentences consisting solely of quotations. This is an encyclopedia, not the news. To be included an attempt must be made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. We need to summarise content into first voice. The FBI investigation section is filled with sentences that just repeat what was said about things. No, no, very bad. All over the article is sentence after sentence saying this person said something. This is wrong and against our policies for a number of reasons. We are also not supposed to include propaganda of any kind. Copying and pasting what was said about things is being lazy. According to our policy, routine news reporting on things like announcements do not qualify for inclusion. Please summarise into Wikipedia voice. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Rename page to Hillary Clinton email scandal

This really needs to be rename to a scandal. Controversy implies a disagreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongey (talk • contribs) 01:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. I also strongly suspect that this is an issue that was resolved in the ancient times of 2015. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no way we are going to agree to that. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggest renaming to "Endless partisan hearings at massive taxpayer expense by Republicans for no fucking reason scandal" -- Scjessey (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Here you go britannica , it is SCANDAL https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hillary-Rodham-Clinton#ref326152
• TWICE as many scholarly articles referencing it as a SCANDAL vs controversy https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C26&as_ylo=2017&as_vis=1&q=clinton++%22email+scandal%22&btnG=

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C26&as_ylo=2017&as_vis=1&q=clinton++%22email+controversy%22&btnG=

• All of the papers referred to it as SCANDAL before end of March 2015/early April 2015 (after Clintons press conference on the email SCANDAL). It was re-branded by campaign.

Please comment , don't revert this is crazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongey (talk • contribs)

Agree, it should be titled ScandalPhmoreno (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

But you think it's okay to say that Fusion GPS was trying to "smear Trump" and use Breitbart as a source. 04:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. "Scandal" is non-neutral, implying that there really was wrongdoing. That is controversial: was there or wasn't there? I could possibly accept some word other than "controversy", but not "scandal". --MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

How about a "matter"? — JFG ^talk 04:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – It's only a scandal when you pay a porn star. — JFG ^talk 04:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• FYI: In a review of the history I found two actual discussions about the name: June 2015 (apparently the article was called “Hillary Clinton's email system” at that time) and August 2015. It was moved to “controversy” in July 2015 and has been there ever since (except for a brief scuffle about whether there should be a hyphen in the word email). I didn’t find any extended discussion or objection to the "controversy" name since 2015. --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Both scandal (see CNN, "Timeline of Hillary Clinton's email scandal") and controversy (see CBS, "What you may have forgotten about the Hillary Clinton email controversy") are used in reliable sources, but the most common term is "Hillary Clinton['s] emails" (see BBC, "Hillary Clinton emails - what's it all about?". I suggest "Hillary Clinton's emails." TFD (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty good and neutral suggestion. Care to open a move request? — JFG ^talk 12:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I would support that. On a related note, I love that but her emails is a redirect that exists. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that redirect. I bothers me when a redirect points to a target article where the redirect itself is never mentioned or used. So I just added a paragraph to this article about "but her emails!" --MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

And we seem to have Build a giant wall, but not Build that wall. Sad! — JFG ^talk 12:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:NPOV. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:POVNAMING says If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately, the "scandal" naming is only frequently mentioned in unreliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

FBI says hacking attempts by "at least 5" foreign powers detected

OK, so I added three sections based on previous newsreports, explicitly naming PRC (China), Israeli hackers, and the Russkies. No consensus needed for such applicable contributions to existing paragraph, however, oddly, reverted 4 times then article protection imposed. There were references cited, and I move to have aforementioned re-upped. Cheers126.3.28.147 (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Because what you're trying to add is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH ("it has been widely acknowledged"... etc.) And the FBI says she was not hacked. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

hacking attempts by "at least 5" foreign powers detected is supported only by a breathless report by Bret Baier six days before the election, which he retracted two days later with an apology, and no one else ever reported it. soibangla (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Bret Baier is not I, nor was his POV nor research mine. If you doubt the sources, note it, but don`t jump-the-gun or half-execute by imposing uneeded protections. There are SEVERAL other sources which a qualified wikipedian (not I) could access to ensure steady improvement, minus (4) the false-flags.126.3.28.147 (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I think your edit warring over such a thinly sourced (and that's generous) matter more than justified my protection of the article. (I'm honestly impressed that we made it four months without needing to protect this article.) – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, good call, Moboshgu. I'm surprised too. I guess this has just been out of the headlines for the past four months. As the election approaches we will probably need additional protection. --MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

And this is why we don't put poorly-sourced information into the article: Turns out it isn't true. FBI rejects fringe report, promoted by Trump, that China hacked Hillary Clinton's emails, FBI official disputes Trump's claim that Hillary Clinton server hacked by China, FBI contradicts Trump claim that China hacked Clinton’s private email server. Not the first time that Trump has proclaimed something he heard on Fox News, only to be contradicted by his own administration. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

How were emails marked as classified in the headers communicated?

The article notes that none of the emails on the private server were marked as classified in the headers. Was there some form of secure communication (text, voice, video, ...) that didn't involve the private server, that could have included any emails marked as classified in the header (perhaps handled by staff with top secret clearance), or other top secret communication, such as the raid on the Osama bin Laden compound? If a separate method (other than the private server) was used for secure communication, should that be mentioned in this article, even if only the existence of such communications can be acknowledged, without explaining how such communications are/were implemented (since they are classified)? Rcgldr (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll have to find a link for this, but in one of James Comey's testimonies there is a report stating that "Because Clinton preferred to read documents on paper rather than on a screen, emails and other files were often printed out and provided to her either at her office or home, where they were delivered in a diplomatic pouch by a security agent." The "other files" would include classified documents, which are handled more securely than classified emails. Rcgldr (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

What is Really Missing from the Article

It is beyond dispute that she contravened 18 USC 793. All anybody has to do is look that up, realize it doesn't even mention intent, and recognize that it was violated. Another reality is that important politicians are not going to be charged the same way some insignificant clerk would be, and that is why the faux investigation of Hillary allowed her to skate free despite everybody knowing that 18 USC 793 had been violated. The article should get into this issue of two tiers of "justice" because we all know that she was not constrained to follow the law and that it was her political prospects (could have become president) which immunized her from the need to follow the law. As to intent, a person obviously has to have intent to set up a private server, and then to delete 33,000 emails under congressional subpoena, and then to BleachBit the server. The article should cover these points, all of which are factual and very well reported. The fact that Wikipedia tilts toward the Left is probably the reason these facts have not been included, but the article should be fair, neutral, and include them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

all of which are factual and very well reported — so you should have no problem adding the content in a way that withstands scrutiny. I encourage you to do so. soibangla (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal from google auto-suggestions

Can we add the fact that "hillary clinton email" does not appear on google auto-suggestions as opposed to searches of other politicians followed by the word "email"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.131.54 (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it does, but you would need a reliable source that comments on this. TFD (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Do the 31,000 deleted "personal" emails still exist?

I cannot tell from the article whether the 31,000 "personal" emails that Hillary deleted still exist somewhere. The article seems to indicate that they existed in the cloud backup that Datto possessed, but I can't find any indication of whether the FBI did or did not find them in the hardware that Datto turned over to the FBI. Republicans argue that an impartial 3rd party should review all these emails and judge whether or not they were truly private. But I cannot tell from the current article whether this would be possible or not. Shouldn't this loose end be tied up? Do the 31,000 emails still exist or don't they? It feels like this article is incomplete if it does not answer this question. --Westwind273 (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Good point Westwind273. Certainly, the article is incomplete in this regard. It is vague and possibly intentionally concealing. But we can only use reliable source info as defined by wiki, which may not tell the entire truth - hence the term "Fake News" 174.158.119.69 (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Westwind273, hope this helps. soibangla (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is very outdated. Of those subpoenaed emails (~33000, not ~31000) she destroyed, ~5000 were restored and some even released under FOIA (see list https://www.judicialwatch.org/tag/00687/ ) and FBI still tries to restore all of them (in 2020 even) and Clinton still tries to stop it (last her attempt https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/jw-v-state-hrc-depo-mandamus-01242/ from 5 days ago on 83 pages https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-lawyers-for-hillary-clinton-ask-appeals-court-to-overturn-order-for-her/ ). From https://www.judicialwatch.org/tom-fittons-weekly-update/fbi-finds-new-clinton-emails/ "The production of documents in this case was to have been concluded with the FBI’s recovery of approximately 5,000 of the 33,000 government emails Clinton took and tried to destroy, but, as you see, this case is still in progress." 2A00:1FA0:422C:50EB:C58A:E35E:CCA2:79D4 (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Judicial Watch habitually misrepresents this matter, among many others. I recommend not believing what they tell you unless corroborated by a reliable source. soibangla (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I am reading directly from lawsuits and H.R.C. "petitions". Judicial Watch is not a source. 2A00:1FA0:422C:50EB:C58A:E35E:CCA2:79D4 (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

But they are not reliable sources either and as primary sources have no weight anyway. TFD (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Judicial Watch has just been added as a source and should be removed immediately. I can't do it on my cellphone.

Once an email is sent it exists in at least two, and often more, places. Deleting it from the sending PC only eliminates that copy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

FBI discovers even MORE hidden Hillary Clinton emails

In November 2019, Judicial Watch reported that the FBI had uncovered more Hillary Clinton emails that were not fully investigated at the time when the director James Comey exonerated her.

[T]he Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) recently sent [the State Department] additional documents as part of the ongoing inter-agency consultation process in connection with other FOIA litigation. [The State Department] is working to determine whether that set of documents includes any responsive, non-duplicative agency records that have not already been processed. [The State Department] will promptly update [Judicial Watch] and the Court once that initial review is complete. 174.158.157.41 (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Judicial Watch is not a reliable source of information. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

It was reported during a TV broadcast on Fox News by Sara Carter Federal investigators have told a court that they found "additional Clinton emails that potentially had not been previously released."174.158.157.41 (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Fox News is not a reliable source of information either. The investigation is closed.[2] – Muboshgu (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Sara Carter is also not reliable. JW asserts the FBI asked State if the "documents" are responsive and non-duplicative of what was already known. So let's wait and see what State says. soibangla (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

This has no weight until multiple RS cover it. So far only unreliable sources have done so. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Valerie Jarrett

How can you write a lengthy article on this subject and not mention Valerie Jarrett?[3] The March 2, 2015 New York Times article that brought this matter to public attention is dealt with in an awfully low key way, just another item in the tick-tock. Allan Rice (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Allan Rice, that's NY Post you linked to, not NY Times. And it's all speculation and unverified info. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The Post is just a right of center newspaper. Perhaps readers are interested in the story of how and why this matter got into the mainstream media. You certainly can't figure it out from the way the article is currently written. Allan Rice (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Allan Rice, the NY Post is definitely a right-wing source. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 15:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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

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