Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy

Standards

"Criminal intent, the historical standard for pursuing prosecutions"...

I don't care if you found a source to claim this, does wikipedia have like a "come on" tag? I am disputing this based on the many many times I've heard "establishing intent is not necessary" to describe the arrest and prosecution of somebody who isn't a millionaire politician. That claim should not be presented as realistic, established fact. 2601:2C0:4881:1A20:D919:1A02:3DF1:5B11 (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

This sentence refers to the need to estabish criminal intent in regards to prosecuting in this particular circumstance, not broadly for all laws.

For instance, the Espionage Act 18USC793(f) [1] says "Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States..." DashDashUnderscore (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

While the statute related to Clinton does mention intent, its only in one of the clauses. The problem with prosecutorial discretion requiring intent, is that it effectively erases the portions of the statute that do not require intent. ResultingConstant (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

In criminal law, criminal intention, or mens rea must be proved unless a statute says otherwise, i.e., that it is a strict liability offense. So under 18 USC 793(f)[1], the prosecutor must also prove intention to gather the documents, although the Act does not specifically state that. TFD (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Contradictory Information

Are we going to talk about the fact that the source for the following statement in the article:

After a years-long FBI investigation, it was determined that Clinton's server did not contain any information or emails that were marked classified.

States the following: “From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.” 64.189.17.204 (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The first statement might be wrong (because I think there were 3 emails that were marked with line markings), but it is not contradicted by the second statement, which is talking about unmarked classified information. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think at a minimum, the combination of the two statements should be worded better because as it's worded now, it's confusing at best and misleading at worst. Since it's in the news again, I think it's critical that these statements should be rewritten. 64.189.17.14 (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

In response to the original point that there's contradictory information in here:

Well, yeah.

As everyone knows, FBI Directory Comey expicitly said in the press conference: "Three emails were found to be marked as classified."

So the question is, why does this "encyclopedic" entry then say ( a half dozen or more times): "None" of the HRC server emails were "marked classified"? And the answer is , on Wikipedia, when the party supported by the Wikipedia-dogma (i.e. the Democrat) sins, obfuscate! (i.e. lie!) 108.29.35.120 (talk) 06:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I have added clearly marked in the lead because:

Three emails, out of 30,000, were found to be marked as classified, although they lacked classified headers and were only marked with a small "c" in parentheses, described as "portion markings" by Comey. He added it was possible Clinton was not "technically sophisticated" enough to understand what the three classified markings meant which is consistent with Clinton's claim that she wasn't aware of the meaning of such markings.

The headers are plainly visible to say "hey, stupid! CLASSIFIED!" The fact headers weren't there suggests someone else screwed up. soibangla (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the 110 classified emails, Comey did not say they were documents, which would have classified headers on them, but rather information. We know of one email discussion relating to a CIA drone strike in Pakistan that was independently reported in the NYT, but the CIA considers its drone program top secret, even though everyone knows about it. As the "owning agency," if the CIA says it's classified, that's just the way it is, and they don't declassify things even if it's on the front page of the NYT. People who once worked in the classified world, and others, have said for decades that the American classification is too broad and places people at risk of prosecution for handling information they could have no idea was classified. They could go to prison for repeating something they read in the NYT. Fortunately this doesn't happen often, but the risk is always looming, and the demands to "lock her up" is a textbook case of it because of her high profile. soibangla (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC) soibangla (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

"Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information."

This literally came from Comey's statement. It not that there was none, it was documented that there was a few that were marked. Zev40587 (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

"Midyear Exam" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Midyear Exam has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 15 § Midyear Exam until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

mocking and sarcasm

Jack Sebastian, the source says neither[2], and we cannot independently conclude "no reasonable person would assume that was anything but sarcasm,"[3] as Trump commonly uses the "joking/not joking" technique to keep people guessing. "sarcastically" should be removed. soibangla (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

First off, he 'isn't keeping people guessing'. When the fellow suggested that people inject bleach into themselves in order to fight COVID, he noted that he was being sarcastic1. No one should actually assume that the man wanted people to inject bleach into their veins. There is ample evidence for when Trump explicitly notes that he uses sarcasm when talking about people he dislikes.

Yes, Wikipedia operates solely on citation, usually. However, citation isn't a lemming march, nor is it a suicide pact. When reading a citation's source, editors must exercise a critical ear, so as to understand the true meaning of a quote. In this matter, Trump wasn't actually praising the attorney; most reasonable people should be able to figure that out.

Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

you are making an entirely subjective judgment that is unsourced. this is Wikipedia, not Facebook. soibangla (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess you are right, Soibangla. I will adjust the text to more properly reflect the source. Since you seem to believe that drawing inference from a direct statement is unprofessional, I've cut the bit about Trump 'admiring' the lawyer; it exists nowhere in the cited article. I've also taken the liberty of pointing out - in quotes, of course, how Trump made it a central theme of his campaign. Thanks for the heads up, even couched as it was in a dickish comment. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

dickish, you say? soibangla (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, were you needing a dictionary as well? We're done here. -Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"noted"

an editor wrote that Trump "noted" a Clinton attorney "had taken the blame for the missing emails."

can anyone find any evidence a Clinton attorney did that? no, they cannot, because it did not happen. the name David E. Kendall might be helpful in seeking evidence.

Trump did not note this happened, he claimed it happened, like the many other false things he claims.

consequently this content is incorrect and UNDUE and I previously removed it, whereupon the editor called me "dickish" and restored the edit, so I stepped away to avoid a conflict before I removed it again weeks later, and it should now be removed once again.

I should add that saying "noted" effectively confirms in wikivoice that the claim is true, when it is not, which could be deemed slander by falsely alleging someone acted criminally by, say, obstructing justice. and removing "noted" in favor of "claimed" renders the edit even less DUE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=1243997933

soibangla (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)