Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy

Blaine
This is an obscure reference that doesn't even warrant inclusion in the body, let alone the lead, and the edit doesn't even mention why comparisons are evoked. And even if it did, it's still trivia. It should be removed. soibangla (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , the lead is a summary of the body. Everything in the lead is in the body. You can't just stick something there, and in this case it's being objected to. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

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) 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)

Dershowitz
Just heard D. on his Dershow- podcast say, that it was not at all clear that Hilary Clinton destroyed her e-mails (not his exact words). Is this true, is there reasonable doubt? --Ralfdetlef (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "the FBI recovered more than 17,000 emails that had been deleted or otherwise not turned over to the State Department, and many of them were work-related, the FBI has said."
 * She admitted to deleting emails, FBI said they recovered some of the deleted ones, Trump questioned why they were deleted. No, there is no reasonable doubt that there were many deleted emails. DashDashUnderscore (talk) 12:11, 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:
 * 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)
 * 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)

"Midyear Exam" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midyear_Exam&redirect=no 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 until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)