Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy/Archive 8

Washington Post opinion piece
I support Wikidemon's removal of an editorial opinion per WP:BLP and have reverted its restoration pending discussion here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC) Can you please quote a policy or guideline on that? I ask sincerely, because opinion pieces and editorials seem like poor sources generally, and yet I've seen them used in a lot of other articles about living people. Thanks. I notice that WP:OR says this in a footnote (emphasis added): Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, investigative reports, trial/litigation in any country (including material — which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial — published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial), editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; ancient works, even if they cite earlier lost writings; tomb plaques; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos and television programs.But primary sources are allowable if used properly, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. This entire article is primary source according to wiki rules. WP:RSBREAKING Gaijin42 (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP says, "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources." So the WaPo editorial might be okay if we make sure that any contrary but comparable opinion is included?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Contrary opinions should be included according to WP:WEIGHT. RS have almost universally said Clinton is in the wrong in the context of this report.  WaPo is notoriously liberal, and is well known as a pro-Clinton paper. The fact that they said this is Nixon going to China. Not to mention the dozens and dozens of other sources that are also very firmly criticizing her for this the revelations of this report. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How about juxtaposing that WaPo stuff with the indictment predictions that we discussed earlier. That way the BLP subject gets not just unpleasantness, and readers get a way to learn about the statutes involved.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * An opinion piece would conceivably be allowable as a matter of editorial discretion, but for WP:BLP concerns, which more or less kill that idea. A news editorial board opining that somebody's actions are "inexcusable" or launching a crime-like accusation that they acted with "willful disregard", is simply not allowable unless proven. If it were allowable per BLP and other rules, then as a matter of discretion I would exclude this on POV and WEIGHT grounds. Certainly, being a more significant news outlet than say the Des Moines Register, and not known for advocacy journalism like Fox News, an opinion endorsed by the Washington Post's official editorial board caries a lot more weight than most. Still, it is one of many papers, institutions, officials, and others, not actually an expert or involved in the matter, making sports calls from the sidelines. I just don't see how it is particularly helpful, and given the incendiary language it adds more noise than signal. That's if it passed BLP, but it doesn't. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there must be dozens of opinion pieces cited and quoted in the Trump articles, calling him fascist, authoritarian, nativist, racist, xenophobic, fringy, et cetera. And I'm sure they were all inserted with "extreme caution", right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What has that got to do with this? Stuff going on at the Trump article has nothing whatsoever to do with stuff going on here. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If editors there are sloppy, biased, unencyclopedic, and so on, then they should shape up. We shouldn't lower standards here by following in kind, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, Anythingyouwant, unlike this specific opinion regarding Clinton those "isms" regarding Trump are generally accepted as descriptions rather than opinions by most of the mainstream, and they go to something that is rather central to his notability, at least the notability of his current presidential campaign. Racism is a trait a person can have that, as controversial as it is, can be objectively described. The quality of being inexcusable is not a trait, it is a value judgment. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If it were all mainstream then they would be citing neutral reliable sources. Anyway, it will take time to drain the swamp in the Trump articles, and creating a swamp here wouldn't be the best solution.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

, You are apparently making up BLP policies that don't exist. Please quote me the part that says that well sourced, mainstream criticism of public figures is prohibited under BLP Gaijin42 (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're experienced enough around here to know better than trying to prove a point with rhetorical questions like that, no? The policies at hand, rather fundamental, are WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS. I can trust you to do your own research and interpretation on those. Give it up, please. This is not even a close decision. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm not even sure why this is such a big deal. There are plenty of actual facts to cover without needing to also cover opinion, especially when that opinion appears to be somewhat of a cynical grab for clicks and newspaper readership. It seems like the mainstream media is mostly blowing its stack over the emails because they are grateful for having something other than Trump to talk about for a change. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am experienced enough around here. I know those policies very well. WP:RS and WP:V are beyond satisfied here. WP:BLP says nothing that supports a blanket statement like "An opinion piece would conceivably be allowable as a matter of editorial discretion, but for WP:BLP concerns, which more or less kill that idea". In fact numerous parts of BLP say the exact opposite. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I said. BLP policy, which I am not making up, is exactly why we can't consider adding an editorial opinion like this calling a person's actions willful disregard, inexcusable, and so on. If you want find the quote "well sourced, mainstream criticism of public figures is prohibited" you can look for that yourself. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

"Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure"
Having recently encountered coverage of an open letter from former intelligence officials, which made some pretty tough charges against HRC, some of which I thought deserved mention, I eschewed coverage by breitbart, Fox, NY Post, and other sources known for leaning right, and chose to cite a leftist, antiglobalist website which quoted the letter in its entirety. This got me reverted with the comment, "rm opinion from anti-American website run by Holocaust denier". Yet, the letter is quoted verbatim, and the disputed material has its origin in a CBS story from January, in which it was pointed out that, when Jake Sullivan was having difficulty securely faxing her some classified info, she sent a reply saying "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." ( http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-clinton-emails-several-marked-classified/ ) I only chose to cite globalresearch.ca over CBS because it offered a concise quote which couldn't be attacked as OR.

Obviously I knew this topic would be contentious, but was still a bit startled at how savagely one of my fellow leftish editors would attack the (leftist) website which posted it, when there's really no doubt about the integrity of the data, which was simply printed verbatim, and calling it the "opinion" of the maligned website is rubbish.

In short, would people please be careful with their jerking political knees? I don't doubt that there are plenty of editors tyring to bring political slants to the article, and having worked on many such articles myself, I know how frustrating it can be to fight that. But you still need to remember that unpleasant facts may exist, and not every messenger who delivers them deserves to be shot. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a meaningless opinion of little value, put forward by former officials, many of whom are political opponents. And calling Global Research "leftist" is extraordinary, by the way. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Globalresearch doesn't like Bernie Sanders because he's not socialist enough. http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-real-american-leftists-should-not-vote-for-bernie-sanders/5504075 I'd call that leftist.  The source of the letter was a group of intelligence officials who banded together to combat what they felt was needless and deceptive agression towards Iraq, under GW Bush.  Most were whistleblowers who resigned during the Bush administration, over torture, mass surveillance, or intelligence failures leading up to 9/11.  Of the 17, only Larry Johnson is clearly a Republican. See Veteran_Intelligence_Professionals_for_Sanity Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this open letter from VIPS is a good source for speculation about whether Clinton broke the law. That should be determined by authorities officially investigating the matter. Also, WP:DUEWEIGHT applies.- MrX 11:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for saying it better and more succinctly than I did! -- Scjessey (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Plenty of sources discuss the "nonpaper" thing. We don't need this one. Also agree what this email really means and if it was a problem or not is subject to interpretation, and the definitive interpretation is one we are still waiting for. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Immediately after the reversion, I took a long look at VIPS and concluded that they weren't the sort of source which warranted inclusion in this article, which is why I made no effort to reinsert the material. I merely wanted to point out the very dubious reasons given for the reversion, which framed the topic as if it were a shitstorm based on nothing but politics, like birtherism or Benghazi, where rightist political bias could be the only motive for my edit, though I've donated to ~20 Democratic candidates this year.  I didn't like it when more conservative editors used weak excuses to revert me, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=693291865&oldid=693290893, and I don't like it any better when a bluer editor does the same thing.  Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

polls
Two national polls were recently run regarding this controversy. Perhaps a small mention in the "reactions" section would be appropriate.

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2016/50_say_clinton_should_keep_running_even_if_indicted
 * https://morningconsult.com/2016/06/01/hillary-clinton-emails-poll-results/
 * This would seem to be more relevant to the campaign article, wouldn't it? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree - both these poll results were (partially) focused on the email controversy. Why shouldn't they be here? - (Crazy how partisan the results are; everyone filters everything through their own opinions.) MikeR613 (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur with Mike. The questions were directly asking about the controversy. That certainly has an effect on the campaign, so I could see the results being discussed in both articles. After all. a hypothetical indictment or conviction would certainly also have a massive effect on the campaign, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be covered here would it?Gaijin42 (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Polls are a poor, indirect way of covering any subject, and ought to be used carefully and sparingly, only in cases where it makes any difference. Right now we're in the middle of an event, and we have pollsters taking the momentary temperature about things. In the long run, if it can be shown that Clinton's popularity or support in the election declined because of this, that point might be worth covering in both the campaign article and this one. That sort of thing ought to be sourced to an authoritative analysis of the poll and what it means, not the polling organization's own piece promoting interest in their own poll. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirects
I would hope I'm not alone in that I don't think it's at all professional that "Nothingburger" redirects to this article. Even Hillary concedes her setup was a mistake. It certainly isn't a "nothingburger" and that Wikipedia would agree to associate the two as though one is synonymous with the other, is unacceptable. I believe the fourteen other redirects are appropriate and legitimate. Dnforney (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I created the redirect as a plausible search term. Various Clinton supporters have used the term in their columns. For the records I agree that this is not a nothingburger. The existence of the redirect does not imply synonymous usage, merely a way to get to this article. In particular see WP:RNEUTRAL and a similar prior discussion on one of the other redirects. Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_21 Gaijin42 (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * With respect, I'm not so sure it's as plausible as you might think. Who would search for "nothingburger" to learn of this scandal/controversy?  Why wouldn't they get the Whitewater Controversy or any number of other things?  I understand that many Clinton supporters might use the term, but is that truly how they would associate a search for this controversy? Realistically, they shouldn't.  And if they do, it wouldn't hurt me if they were disappointed.  I DO think redirects imply synonymous usage, or at least some direct relationship, by the way - at least in most cases.  Just my .02.  Cheers!  Dnforney (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Has Nothingburger been used to describe whitewater? If so, I would not object to converting the redirect to a disambig. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, this is hardly definitive, but I've certainly heard it (Whitewater) described that way by Clinton supporters. Here is a recent May 25 WaPo article where Whitewater was called a nothingburger.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/25/gop-strategist-trumps-attacks-on-clinton-over-whitewater-are-lunacy/ No intention on my part to make this more of an issue than it is.  Dnforney (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothingburger has been used in lots of contexts unrelated to Clinton. I would support redirecting to a synonym, like Tempest in a teapot, or Brouhaha.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The redirect should be deleted per WP:NEO. "Nothingburger" has been a widely used neologism for decades, and is only recently being used in the context of this overblown fauxtroversy. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting/funny argument between those who are offended that anyone should call it a nothingburger, and those who think it is one. While both disagree with the redirect... Only Gaijin seems to support it as a "plausible search term"; I assume that means that he wants anyone who makes the mistake of googling nothingburger to get this web page thrown at them to set them straight. I also don't think anyone would search that way; Clinton Email works just fine. MikeR613 (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, I applaud the new re-direct. Apropos. Ha!  Dnforney (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Democratic response
The section on Bernie Sanders' comments at the debate perpetuate a common misrepresentation of his position by selective quotation. He was not defending Clinton's conduct, but criticizing the media for focusing on the emails instead of using the debate time for discussing issues which affect Americans' day to day lives. I suggest this be amended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.42.113.4 (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that the article itself makes this clear, so I'm not sure what you think should be done. (IMHO, in practice, this is the closest thing to a defense that people are making for Clinton these days anyhow: she's guilty but it's trivial, let's move on. That's what she needs people to say.) MikeR613 (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This page should say that the media and Clinton used attacks on trump to divert the major news on Pagliano 5th Amendment use. Attacks on top trump were the lead articles on yahoo.com and aol.com and CNN.com CBS.com on June 2. Buried down the page was Pagliano on Yahoo's website. Yahoo's CEO has had repeated private meetings with Obama at the White House. Who knows what for. The details of the meetings were not released. Yahoo is the 2nd most popular internet news portal in the U.S. It was first and it fell behind CNN at the beginning of 2016? The CEO is a supporter of Hillary Clinton. Obama was the person who selected the chair of the Democrat National Committee, who has come under attack by Bernie Sanders. Full Discloser: I stopped being a registered Democrat because of Democrats support of felons( undocumented people) and because of their trade agreements with Mexico and China.Economic experts say millions of jobs were lost because of the agreements and wages are falling because of the agreements. My family is generations of Democrats. I was raised Democrat. FDR and LBJ style. In my family, Its Blasphemous for me to vote for any person who is not Democrat. Now i vote independent. 2 June 2016

@MikeR613, censorship is not allowed on Wikipedia. You are suggesting censoring news by saying let's move on. And your "IMHO" opinion is not welcomed here. Please read the rules before posting. The fact remains she deleted 30,000 emails, and knowingly destroyed classified documents without permission. That is a crime. And the justice department has not made its final decision. The director of the FBI wants Mrs. Clinton prosecuted. Obama has put pressure on the FBI to not press charges. It's in the news. ... MikeR613:"she's guilty but it's trivial, let's move on.",
 * Please sign your comments. Please read what I wrote more carefully, as I did not say what you think. MikeR613 (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Article Outline and Readability
It's my humble opinion this article has matured to the point where I believe it's in need of a serious makeover. All of the relevant facts and references (thus far) are in place, but it I find it extremely jumbled and repetitive and its bolted and stitched together a bit like Frankenstein. It's very hard to read! It isn't organized well enough, in my opinion, where the layperson can come in and easily understand it at all. I can be much more specific, but I thought I would broach the idea first because I know I am speaking of high level changes, and I'm not sure how best to do that. To start with, though, I think there needs to be some sort of timeline of events that I should think would start in 2008. I also think there should be a tight summary of the alleged/possible violations of federal laws and the basis for that thought. Regarding the latter, this whole controversy is a big 'so what' without it. Yet I can't any of that in this article. Not in one place, anyways. I also believe many write ups within the current outline are more repetitive than necessary. So I'll just start with that and welcome thoughts, ideas, or invective. After all, maybe it's just me? Dnforney (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article needs some major restructuring, but I think chronological is not the way to go. That is likely to keep things just as unreadable and fragmented as they are now. I would rather see more topical arrangement . Many of these sections already exist, but the information is also scattered into sections about process (lawsuits, investigations, etc). the sections I'm refering to are things like "private server", "classified info", "server security" etc Gaijin42 (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It's something to stew on. We always talk about being encyclopedic, and I always wonder what that really means.  I take it to mean being informative, unbiased, and organized and concise with the information.  I think this article lacks in being organized and concise.  I acknowledge I proposed two things (1) improved organization of the article, and (2) more concise content.  On the first matter, I really REALLY don't like the organization of this article at all, but I understand from whence it came -- I've been following it for a year or more now, so I get it.  It's a hodgepodge of events and political perspective and, in my opinion, an overabundance of highly nuanced details.  Having said that, it makes no logical sense at all to me.  On the second matter of more concise content, a timeline and a summary of the legal matters would help crystallize and characterize the substance of this article...those are content issues, not organizational issues.  So.  Those are MY thoughts.  I do agree with Gaijin42, though, that the overall organization of the article should be topical.  If there is agreement, which isn't yet known, are there ideas on how to reorganize content and proceed? Dnforney (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If I were to write this article from scratch, I would use an outline like this below (I've added my own thoughts and comments to indicate what I believe to be salient and germane content). I believe it would ultimately render the existing article in a much more reader-friendly and understandable organization and format. I also believe all of the existing article content could fit into this outline. Again, just my .02.  Thoughts?

Hillary Clinton Email Controversy:

I. Intro/Summary - what happened and why it all matters.

- It was learned two years after she left office she'd been exclusively using private email as Sec'y of State. Benghazi Committee and NYT.

- Her initial presser at UN on the matter was awkward and defensive. Her talking points were (name them)

- She'd been considered a shoo-in as the Dem nominee with little opposition up until this public discovery. It quickly became a major political issue and had ethical overtones of trustworthiness, being above the law, potential of compromising national security and yet one more bag added to the Clinton 'baggage cart' after many previous investigations into their affairs.

- Benghazi and the Benghazi Committee

II. Background

- Benghazi, Benghazi Committee, and the private email use discovery.

- Run-up to the 2016 US Presidential elections. She was seen as the successor and Obama heir-apparent.

- How was the arrangement discovered?

- HRC and her staff's response to State Dept requests to turn over her email -- 31,000 emails unilaterally determined to be personal in nature deleted in December 2014. HRC says deletion of emails is consistent with what other federal workforce members do, a 'yes, but...' Since her email records were not backed-up on a government system it would be impossible to substantiate her claim. -- HRC repeated talking point of her turning over these emails is a show of transparency beyond that of any preceding Sec'y of State.

III. Implications of exclusive use of private email and server by the US Secretary of State (i.e. why is it even an issue?)

- Questions of how she ran the State Dept workforce without a gov't email account. Did she ever communicate to all employees? Could all employees communicate with her?

- What was the impact to the State Department's ability to respond to FOIA requests?

- Did this arrangement potentially compromise classified information? -- Compromise due to hacking her system. Guccifer. Others? -- Compromise on the part of HRC or her staff? How could that even happen whether malicious or not?

- Did this arrangement contribute in any way to happenings in Benghazi?

- was this arrangement unique or was there precedent? -- Bush 43 email controversy -- Colin Powell as Sec'y of State -- Kenyan Ambassador during HRC tenure

- What was the purpose of the arrangement? -- HRC claimed (and presently does) convenience. -- Likelihood of other reasons? And what would they be? Many believe HRC claims are dubious. -- Reports of 'shady' operations and management of the Clinton Foundation. Could HRC and 42 have been in collusion to enrich the Foundation or themselves?

- Which legal statues could apply apply and why? -- Federal Records Act of 1950 -- Espionage Act of _____ -- Others? (Giuliani always had a laundry list)

IV. The Physical Email Server System

- HRC use of email as a US Senator

- 2008 HRC campaign and leveraging her husband's server

- Establishing email communications as Secretary of State - What became of the system after departure as Sec'y of State? -- Blue River Networks and Datto, Inc.

V. Impact of the controversy to the 2016 US Presidential Campaign

- State Dept and IC IG findings result in FBI involvement, issue becomes more serious. -- HRC and staff relinquish server and thumb drives to the FBI -- Blue River Networks and Datto said to be cooperating with the FBI -- HRC' walks back' on previous statement of not giving up her server

- HRC Benghazi Committee testimony of October 2015 -- Most media portray as HRC 'victory' -- Fox highlights difference, based on email evidence, the difference in content between what HRC communicated to Chelsea and the Egyptian Foreign Minister and what was told to the American public in the same timeframe (Sunday talk shows suggest anti-Muslim YouTube movie protests)

- DOJ announces Pagliano being given immunity. Some outlets perceive serious implications.

- FBI Director states their work is an 'investigation' - HRC must 'walk back' another talking point.

- State Dept IG report is issued (more info below) - HRC 'walks back' the 'it was allowed/permitted' talking point

VI. Official US Government Findings and Actions

- State Dept and IC IG's determination of classified information within HRC emails provided to State Department. Involves FBI.

- FOIA Lawsuits (from the current article) -- Judicial Watch. Summary of situation to present, including Cheryl Mills deposition findings and Pagliano pleading 5th Amendment rights. -- Other lawsuits and their summaries and any findings

- DOJ Immunity for Pagliano

- State Department Inspector General Report and summary of findings (detailed description and findings, unlike brief mention above) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnforney (talk • contribs) 21:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

- FBI Investigation findings (not available yet)

VII. HRC Email Timeline

- Helps a reader make sense of chronology of the controversy.

Dnforney (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

State department audit released
This is a major development. Probably requires its own section, and a review of the rest of the article to replace outdated or incorrect information.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842429/ESP-16-03-Final.pdf

Here is a convenient link to dozens of RS covering this development https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4l052h/megathread_state_department_email_audit_re/d3j61qq

A few of the more important points from the State department audit :
 * Clinton [and her aides - as opposed to the previous SoSs MikeR613 (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC) ] refused to be interviewed as part of the State Department investigation
 * At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act."
 * As previously noted, OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton’s personal system.
 * According to the other S/ES-IRM staff member who raised concerns about the server, the Director stated that the mission of S/ES-IRM is to support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.
 * In another incident occurring on May 13, 2011, two of Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff discussed via email the Secretary’s concern that someone was “hacking into her email” after she received an email with a suspicious link. Several hours later, Secretary Clinton received an email from the personal account of then-Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs that also had a link to a suspect website. The next morning, Secretary Clinton replied to the email with the following message to the Under Secretary: “Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!” Department policy requires employees to report cybersecurity incidents to IRM security officials when any improper cyber-security practice comes to their attention. 12 FAM 592.4 (January 10, 2007). Notification is required when a user suspects compromise of, among other things, a personally owned device containing personally identifiable information. 12 FAM 682.2-6 (August 4, 2008). However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department
 * On January 9, 2011, the non-Departmental advisor to President Clinton who provided technical support to the Clinton email system notified the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations that he had to shut down the server because he believed “someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to.” Later that day, the advisor again wrote to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, “We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min.” On January 10, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations emailed the Chief of Staff and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Planning and instructed them not to email the Secretary “anything sensitive” and stated that she could “explain more in person.

AP
 * Despite guidelines to the contrary and never seeking approval, Clinton used mobile devices to conduct official business on her personal email account and private server. She never sought approval from senior information officers, who would have refused the request because of security risks, the audit said
 * The inspector general's 78-page analysis, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, cites "longstanding, systemic weaknesses" related to the agency's communications. These started before Clinton's appointment as secretary of state, but her failures were singled out as more serious.

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I see this diverging slightly from the existing, general chronological flow which is starting to break. Related topics of staff members Abedin, Sullivan, and Mills use/non-use of the server and their recent/imminent testimony may be appropriate for this section without turning it into a coatrack, but do belong somewhere. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and started a subsubsection for it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The conclusion to the report (page 42) is a single paragraph that says the State Department did not follow guidelines during the tenure of several Secretaries of State. Most of the rest of the report addresses State Department problems not specific to Hillary Clinton, and there are no allegations of anything illegal by anyone at all. It's important that coverage of this is not blown up out of all proportion, as seems to have already happened in this thread. Since this is controversial material, I will be expecting all content to be proposed here first, with the usual consensus-seeking process. For the record, I have no objection to the new additions in the form they are in as I write this comment, and I think you have all done very well thus far. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not clear whether this is an exoneration or condemnation of Clinton, or what the implications are. The political operatives are spinning this as they spin everything else. However, it is some new information of moderate importance. It's rather bewildering to me to figure out what it's all about, but it would help to distill this all down to what matters, using the 10 year test — ten years form now, what will readers of this article need to know about this particular report. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Moderate importance? Are you serious?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon is quite correct. This really is a mundane report about outdated procedures and best practices. Consider how this would've been received if Hillary Clinton was not running for president at the moment. It would've had 24 hours of coverage at best, and it wouldn't have been on the front page of a single newspaper. At its very worst, the report criticizes Clinton (and others) for not following department guidelines. Big effing deal. But because Clinton is running for president, this is front page news - although it is has already been drowned out by the latest Trump inanity. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Except for the fact that it 100% contradicts Hillary's (repeated) public assertions. She said "I did absolutely nothing wrong.  This was absolutely permitted.  I didn't break any rules.  I didn't need to ask for permission.  Other Secretaries did the same thing.   Etc.  Etc.  Etc."  Not to mention, she blames this whole "scandal" on the Republicans.  So: (A) the report contradicts her false statements (i.e., her lies).  And (B) it comes from an independent non-partisan group.  But, yeah, that's "moderately" important.  Yeah, OK.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, Hillary has told us time and time again that she is "happy to sit down and speak with the FBI and to be transparent, etc.". Yet, she leaves out the fact that she and all of her aides refused to sit down and meet with the Inspector General when the IG did his investigation.  (All of the other former Secretaries of State did, however.)   Yeah, that's "moderately" important.  LOL.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * She didn't break any "rules" though. She didn't follow guidelines. That's functionally equivalent to the difference between Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And please don't defame the subject with terms like "lies". -- Scjessey (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * She most certainly did break the rules. That's the point of the entire report.  And the rules were promulgated in order to comply with federal law.  So, don't try to minimize it, as if they were simply "guidelines" (akin to Wikipedia, no less).  And, yes, what she did was "lie".  That's exactly the correct word.  What wound would you use?  She "mis-spoke" or some other nonsense? Open your eyes.  She lied.  Repeatedly, no less.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That it led to incarceration? 😱*Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The section on the IG report is quite inadequate thus far, leaving out pretty much all of Gaijin's bullet points. These are actual parts of the report and damaging, and I can't see the reason to leave them out just because the summary uses weasel words. It is very easy to find multiple MSM articles that say the same: NYT, WaPo, WSJ, NBC, ABC, etc. It's not just right wing spin, all the main media outlets are blazing right now.--MikeR613 (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I second that view -- wikipedia needs to present the facts listed above from the report given the level of spin going on in the news -- average people literally cannot understand what is going on and they need to have facts from the report, not downplaying to keep a presidential candidate protected. Any average government worker would be out of a job right now having done this, with fines and possible jail time.  All of the rules on the privacy and security of federal communications include the possibility of fines and jail time for violations.  It should not seem outlandish that someone who violates the rules could be indicted. GreenIn2010 (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with MikeR613 and GreenIn2010. Indeed.  I agree.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To the extent the bulleted points can be sourced to reliable secondary sources instead of the report itself, I think more of it can be included in this Wikipedia article with no problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Those bullet points are all out there in all the RS's, yes. The Washington Post is a good, reliable source.  And they have many articles dissecting all of this.  Including all of the bullet points listed above.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I insist any additions are only made in the proper weight. It's understandable that some of you are extremely excited to put negative stuff about Clinton into the article, but please bear in mind this is an internal report that doesn't actually indicate any wrongdoing, and certainly nothing illegal. This is small potatoes compared to the FBI probe, and I would argue there is already too much unnecessary detail. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It's also the case that you are extremely excited to keep negative stuff out about Clinton. You state: " ... this is an internal report that doesn't actually indicate any wrongdoing, and certainly nothing illegal".  Really? What report did you read?  That's exactly what the report said.  Stop the rhetoric and the "spin".  Just stop it.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hrm, I wasn't aware that "no wrongdoing" was a synonym for "she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act." and "Hillary Clinton broke government rules". Its amazing how reliable sources are consistently on the other side of the argument than you in this topic area. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Amen.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All I am interested in doing is making sure the article reflects a neutral point of view. Clearly, conservatively-minded editors are camped out here in an effort to use Wikipedia to discredit the subject. I've seen this before and I'll see it again. You have all ignored the report's conclusion (page 42 of the PDF) which summarizes the matter, and chosen instead to cherry pick to reinforce your preferred narrative. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources appear to disagree with you regarding which parts of the report are important. WP:WEIGHT says we follow them, not you. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources like Forbes appear to offer some much-needed perspective that is otherwise being ignored by the conservative editors here. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Scjessey - Aren't you the editor who claimed, quote: " ... but please bear in mind this is an internal report that doesn't actually indicate any wrongdoing ..."?  That is 100% false and undermines any credibility you might have had.  And indicates a clear bias.   Not sure how you said that with a straight face.  That's exactly what the report concludes.  Exactly.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why Wikipedia needs level-headed, neutral editors. Otherwise the project would be no better than Conservapedia or Infowars. You've totally bought into a right wing narrative that portrays the report in the worst possible terms for Clinton, and ignored the myriad reliable sources noting the report does not say Clinton did anything illegal. In fact, it essentially confirms the worst she did is violate the spirit of the law in ignoring certain guidelines and best practices. The polarization of the nation in the last 15 years has brought us to the point where too many editors, like yourself, see things only in black or white. The best Wikipedia editors live in the grey areas, where the nuance and subtlety can be found. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Scjessey ... Number 1: You very conveniently ignored my question. So, I will repeat it.  (Of course, not expecting to get an answer from you.  Or, a straight answer, that is.)  The question was: Aren't you the editor who claimed, quote: " ... but please bear in mind this is an internal report that doesn't actually indicate any wrongdoing ..."?.  Number 2:  You embarrass yourself when you say such ridiculous things.  Number 3:  You are part of the problem, here.  Not the solution.  Number 4:  And yet, with preposterous and biased statements like that, you claim that Wikipedia needs level-headed and neutral editors.  Once again, you are the problem, not the solution.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You can answer your own rhetorical question. The editing history of this page is available for all to see. Please don't badger other editors with it. Do you have a content proposal or argument to make here? Having not participated in this particular piece of drama, I'm having a tough time trying to figure out what content matter is being proposed and what the points are pro and con. It seems to do with how much weight to give to the latest State Department report and how to describe it, no? The report says what it says, I haven't read it but as a government legal document is a primary source. Hence, we count on reliable third party sources to describe it. Most of those sources suffer from bias concerns, being opinion or advocacy pieces, a focus on political fallout and the horse race of politics, or news-of-the-day recentivism, but with enough sources out there there are surely some that report more directly on what the report says and how it is relevant to the controversy. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I was not aware that Wapo, NYT, Salon, HuffPo, MotherJones, CNN, etc were part of the Right Wing. It appears that that vast right wing conspiracy has expanded to include the liberal media, as well as multiple Obama appointees.   Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Those are diverse publications. The more reliable (Washington Post, New York Times) and neutral (CNN, I would not call it super-reliable, but it's middle-of-the-road in political leanings) will indeed try to remain neutral and stick to the facts. Others (Salon, MotherJones, Slate, etc., depending on the specific author and piece) less so, obviously not because they are right wing but because they have their own agendas, sometimes against Clinton for being too conservative or because they favor Sanders or some cause that she opposes. I would not be the first to observe that Trump supporters and Bernie Sanders supporters have become strange bedfellows in opposing Clinton, and adopting each other's talking points. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

° An editor has tagged the article because the lead does not mention this recent IG report. So, I will insert a brief mention of the IG report into the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

° I added the fact of Clinton's non-cooperation with the investigation, and a few words to make it clearer that the AP's statement about Colin Powell was a rebuttal to Fallon's statement. [I actually think that the AP's statement maybe should be higher up, in the section that first mentions Powell. This is, after all, an article about Hillary Clinton; Powell and the other SoSs are only relevant in that they are being compared to her. Their mention up above should be followed immediately by the fact that the report itself rebutted the comparison.]-MikeR613 (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

°The efforts to protect Clinton's actions on here by her army of supporters, Correct the Record, etc., will be so overwhelming that I'm not going to even make an effort to anything here. Any employee of the federal government would have lost her job, been fined and prosecuted already. Clinton defenders don't care that the average American thinks that everything Hillary did is exactly what Colin Powell did and this article will only work to muddle that more. Anyone who knows the relevance of privacy and security of federal records understands the absurdity of those saying "but it's not illegal". The only question is how far the DOJ will bend over after the indictment recommendations come out, and the IG Report is just the warm up. GreenIn2010 (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * GreenIn2010 - I agree with all that you said. This article has many Clinton supporters (editors) who want to (and try to) whitewash the entire incident.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you're so fussed here. There _could_ be an army of supporters, but so far I have seen the article moving in the direction of simple accuracy. And after all there are a whole lot of left-leaning publications that have been attacking Clinton over it; this isn't just left/right. MikeR613 (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you think its improving. While the first paragraph of the page is good, the IG report section is still lacking.  As the Report states,  "OIG acknowledges significant differences in the facts and circumstances surrounding each of these (Clinton, Powell, Gration) cases." Powell used "a personal email account from a commercial Internet provider, which he accessed on a 'private line' in his Department office. . .  a secure State Department machine …used for secure material, and…a laptop [used] for email." Additionally, it states, " The current CIO and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, who were Department employees during Secretary Powell’s tenure, also were both aware of the Secretary’s use of a personal email account and recall numerous discussions with senior staff throughout the Department about how to implement the Secretary’s intent to provide all employees with Internet connectivity."
 * The situation with Powell was worlds apart from a private server in a home off-site from the Department, but the current paragraph on the OIG report makes no meaningful differentiation. Clinton's media machine is working overtime to make it seem that there was no difference from what Powell did and what she did. In Reporting On Hillary Clinton, Media Get Facts Wrong On Colin Powell's Private Email Use: Report Found Powell Also Used Private Email On An “Exclusive Basis” The job of wikipedia is to report the facts, and that shouldn't be rocket science given that the report lays these out.  Conflation with Powell is Clinton campaigns only hope right now, so look to see who is opposing putting facts out on the differences. GreenIn2010 (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, (some of) the distinctions with Powell are made, but they are made further down in response to Fallon's statement. They really belong up where the comparison is originally made, and should be filled out, and then the Fallon section should just refer back to them. I'm not sure the best way to do it, but maybe someone wants to try. MikeR613 (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not "fussed". I am just pointing out simple facts.  For example: one editor's claim is that the recent IG Report "does not conclude any wrongdoing", when that is exactly what the IG Report concluded.  Many editors have tried (and continue to try) to whitewash the article.  I did a lot of work on this article, way back when.  And I am just coming back, after many months away.  And I see that the usual suspects are still up to their old tricks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, welcome to Wikipedia; that's what it's like on controversial issues. I am just happy that (temporarily, at least) the article gives a fair reflection of the facts, at a time when a lot of people must be using it to get background on the controversy. MikeR613 (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Not so welcome. Accusing editors of being "Clinton supportesr" and whitewashing the article is a WP:AGF violation, and not proper here. It stalls the discussion and will turn people off on considering what point you might be making. Please concentrate on content. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * (1) The IG Report very clearly and very definitively outlines wrongdoing by Clinton. (2) An editor claimed: " ... but please bear in mind this is an internal report that doesn't actually indicate any wrongdoing ...".  (3)  Yes, I would indeed call that white-washing.  What exactly would you call it?   What's the proper word in your vocabulary for that?  Please enlighten me.  (4)  Yes, I could easily conclude that that statement comes from a Clinton supporter.  What exactly would you conclude?  (5)  How and why would one assume good faith under those circumstances?  Please be specific.  Yes, we can assume good faith all we want.  That does not mean that another editor may not rebut that presumption (by their conduct and actions, etc.).  So, "assume good faith" is exactly that: assume it until you have been given reasons that rebut the presumption.  And what do you say to that?  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I would attempt to adhere to the rules and norms of the site, which is that you don't use the talk page to make broadside accusations against other editors individually or collectively. This is a place to discuss proposed changes and improvements to the article, not to resolve peeves. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with Wikidemon - there is too much accusation on this talk page, and to no purpose. The page is getting better, and there haven't been edit wars that require more direct interference with editors. Keep making edits that improve it. MikeR613 (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with this sentiment. I haven't been commenting for a while because (a) the article is reasonably stable, and (b) there's little to be gained from trying to reason with some of the more extreme editors camped out here. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Scjessey - Translation: You made the comment that the IG Report does not conclude any wrongdoing.  I asked you to defend or explain that statement.  (A statement that I peronsally consider preposterous, as would 99.99% of the population.)  You really can't come up with any valid defense without looking foolish (or while keepng a straight face).  So, you avoid the question by saying "there is little to gain" or some other meaningless rhetoric.  Bottom line: we got your number.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Per the definition, Clinton has not done any wrongdoing. Please try to be more neutral in future. I know it is hard for you, but try anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Great! I will propose that we add this into the article!  Thanks!  Let's see how that consensus goes!  I will start a thread below to get consensus on your great idea!  Thanks again!   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

°I've added a couple of phrases in the first paragraph of the section, to make the point that pretty much everything in that section is a direct contradiction to what Clinton and her aides had been saying all along till then. It belongs not just because it's true, but because it's news: numerous articles have mentioned this fact, and for many people this fact alone is at least as important as any of the IG findings - Clinton lied to them. I wasn't sure of the best reference; there's an amazing video from Morning Joe and Mika where she is just flipping out, mainly about this one issue of being lied to (http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/mika-it-feels-like-clinton-is-lying-straight-out-693313091808). Don't know if it's better to piece it together from regular news sources or if there's a good single reference. MikeR613 (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC) Would http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/05/29/hillary_clintons_emails_lying_in_plain_sight_130703.html be a good reliable reference? It focuses on this particular point. MikeR613 (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I added the reference; someone can fix it if it's not good. MikeR613 (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that Neutrality has replaced the link with a more reliable one from AP. MikeR613 (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Another section that should be updated is Clinton responses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Clinton.27s_response). It doesn't include responses after the IG report was issued, and her responses (and Fallon's) changed. Also, there should be some kind of note that the responses till now are not consistent with the IG report. MikeR613 (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Reversion

 * Now look here, Wikidemon: the phrase you removed is correct, and I originally had a link that supported all of it. Not even sure why you don't like Neutrality's reference. Or you could support it with a reference to the original report. It isn't acceptable to remove the phrase, which is supported by various references. If you don't like this reference, find one or more that do the job. MikeR613 (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is more than acceptable, it is demanded by WP:V and possibly WP:BLP. Speaking of unacceptable, you shouldn't be restoring disputed additions to the page. Where in the source is the statement supported that "each of these findings was in contradiction to what Clinton and her aides had been saying consistently up to that point." I checked the source carefully, and not only did it not say that each of the findings was in contradiction with what Clinton and her aids had been saying consistently to that point, it did not say that any of them were. We can go through them one by one if you wish. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We could go down that route, but I think some simple rewording can easily satisfy WP:V

Analysis by AP, FactCheck, and Politifact identified multiple discrepancies/inconsistencies/misstatements/contradictions when comparing Clinton's prior assertions to the findings in the IG report. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gaijin, for fixing this. Note that my original addition had a reference "needs reference". Which I think is a standard way to deal with statements known to be true but not yet properly referenced. As opposed to removing them. Our goal should be to give the reader the best information available. Wikidemon, if you have some reason to think that the statement was inaccurate, as opposed to poorly referenced, please explain. MikeR613 (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wasn't aware of the history here, I just saw a statement that wasn't supported by the first source alone. These sources, collectively if not individually, do support the statement.The three propositions do each (a) contradict what Clinton and her aides had been saying; (b) those statements were made consistently (didn't check whether Clinton and her aides both made those statement consistently though). Thanks, we're going to have to rename Gaijin42 "Doctor Source"! I did remove one of the four sources as a word-for-word identical version of the same AP source. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Could be we should remove the word "consistently"; that would be a pain to justify. Tho I have an impression that the Clinton team had a very consistent set of responses, used over and over - see the section on "Clinton's response (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Clinton.27s_response)" for a list of what they were saying, if not how often. I think by the way that the section on "Later responses by Clinton" needs updating, as their responses have sure changed now. MikeR613 (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, I took out "consistently". The same point is made either way. If someone wants it back, they can. MikeR613 (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Another revert; 24.216.167.65 made a bunch of changes in the section about Blackberry phones. They all look like opinion to me and completely dubious, and largely irrelevant to the topic. Please discuss in the Talk page before these kind of changes. MikeR613 (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm not expert in Wikipedia protocol - am I supposed to be the one checking with everyone here before reverting? These changes just looked like a really bad idea. MikeR613 (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BRD your revert was fine, especially as the addition was uncited WP:OR. For more legitimate, yet controversial edits, discussion may be a better avenue, but for stuff like this that is clearly against policy, then WP:NOTBURO Gaijin42 (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The I. G. Report
There seems to be a difference of opinion. So I want to come here to the Talk Page first to gather consensus on the matter. I had originally thought that the I. G. Report had very definitively and conclusively indicated that there was wrongdoing on the part of Clinton. Through my discussions above, another editor (User:Scjessey) enlightened me. This editor asserts that the I. G. Report does not indicate any wrongdoing on the part of Clinton. When I pressed the matter further, the editor replied as follows, quote:  Per the definition, Clinton has not done any wrongdoing.  So, in light of the fact that I have now been enlightened by this editor, I have changed my opinion. And I agree that the I. G. Report definitively concludes that there was no wrongdoing on the part of Clinton (as editor User:Scjessey has now persuaded me). So, I would like to add this "fact" into the article. But I want to get consensus here first. Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe you are being sarcastic here and making a WP:POINT. Thats not really the best used of everyone's time here. In any case, an emphatic no Gaijin42 (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Gaijin MikeR613 (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's start with "Assume Good Faith". That being said: No, I am not being sarcastic.  And I am not trying to make a point.  As I said, that editor changed my mind with his persuasive argument.  He seems to be correct.  By the definition that he provided, the I. G. Report certainly did not assert any wrongdoing by Clinton.  Why an emphatic "no"?  What am I missing here?   Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me count the ways... At a minimum RS strongly lean in the "misdeeds camp", and at best the question remains open. Any statement should probably not be in WP:Wikivoice but should be WP:ATTRIBUTEPOVed, and such statements should follow WP:WEIGHT and not give WP:FALSEBALANCE
 * WP:PRIMARY The IG report does not say that. To the contrary there are numerous areas where the report details her not complying with regulations.
 * WP:SYNTH WP:OR You couldn't get a more textbook example of synth than comparing the report to a dictionary and deciding that it meets that definition.
 * In addition, that OR is wrong, since "dishonest" is a core part of that definition, as well as "misconduct, misbehavior" etc. which are amply sourced below.
 * WP:NPOV WP:RS WP:WEIGHT Most importantly, there are numerous reliable sources which do this analysis on our behalf, and the vast majority of them conclude that she broke multiple rules and regulations


 * MSNBC/NBC
 * "Violated email rules".
 * "Violated the Official Records Act",
 * "Violating a rule put in place under Clinton",
 * "feels like she is lying straight out"
 * Politico
 * A State Department watchdog concluded that Hillary Clinton failed to comply with the agency’s policies on records while using a personal email server that was not — and, officials say, would never have been — approved by agency officials, according to a report released to lawmakers on Wednesday.
 * The report also notes that she had an "obligation to discuss using her personal email account" but did not get permission from the people who would have needed to approve the technology, who said they would not have done so, if they had been asked.
 * Wapo
 * Clinton’s inexcusable, willful disregard for the rules
 * Wapo
 * The report by the inspector general’s office concludes that Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for president, handled email in a way that was “not an appropriate method” for preserving public records and that her practices failed to comply with department policy.
 * Time
 * Hillary Clinton and her team ignored clear guidance from the State Department that her email setup broke federal standards and could leave sensitive material vulnerable to hackers, an independent audit has found.
 * The 78-page analysis, [], says Clinton ignored clear directives
 * Twice in 2010, information management staff at the State Department raised concerns that Clinton’s email practicesfailed to meet federal records-keeping requirements. The staff’s director responded that Clinton’s personal email system had been reviewed and approved by legal staff, “and that the matter was not to be discussed any further.” The audit found no evidence of a legal staff review or approval. It said any such request would have been denied by senior information officers because of security risks.
 * Time http://time.com/4348021/hillary-clinton-emails-ig-report/
 * The State Department’s Inspector General has concluded that Hillary Clinton and her senior aides ignored repeated warnings that her private email system was vulnerable to hackers when she was Secretary of State. The IG also finds, in the report set to be released Thursday morning, that Clinton failed to comply with Federal Records Act requirements to turn over her work e-mails when she left office in 2013.
 * NPR
 * Watchdog: Hillary Clinton Violated State Dept. Policies By Using Private Email
 * During her tenure as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton violated department policies when she used a personal email account to conduct official business, a new report from the Office of the Inspector General for the State Department found.
 * The report does make clear that Clinton violated policies, the official added, but she also "mitigated" that when she turned over emails from her private server to the State Department.
 * CBS
 * Hillary Clinton didn't comply with email policies, State Dept IG finds
 * These started before Clinton's appointment as secretary of state, but her failures were singled out as more serious.
 * NBC
 * Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton violated federal records rules through her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, a State Department audit has concluded.
 * Mother Jones
 * State Department Inspector General Finds Hillary Clinton Violated Recordkeeping Rules
 * The IG also says Clinton and her top aides did not cooperate with its investigation.
 * The State Department's Inspector General has determined that Hillary Clinton violated agency policies on record-keeping, according to a report it released to lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.
 * BBC
 * CNN
 * While an FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server continues, the State Department's Office of Inspector General has raised the stakes with the release of a remarkable report finding that Clinton's actions violated State Department policies and were inconsistent with federal record-keeping laws.
 * [Gaijin42: confusing conclusion here] Clinton violated the law, but committed no crime.

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Gaijin, thanks, this is a useful list; I have been searching through the various sources to figure out which is a source for which offense. MikeR613 (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in this, which provides sourcing for the entire timeline. http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Medium_Version_-_Part_1 Gaijin42 (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That was a lot of work.  Thanks for the thorough and comprehensive list.  The issue seems quite clear.  Thanks again.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Very fucking funny, Joseph. Let me further enlighten you, since you seem to just be ignoring that actual facts here. For the THIRD FUCKING TIME, let me draw your attention to the report's conclusion on page 42. It absolutely does not say Clinton broke any "rules" or "regulations" or "laws" anywhere at all. There's a set of GUIDELINES (you understand the distinction, right?) that she ignored, for which she was criticized in strong terms. It is absolutely fair for the article to say that. Any other interpretation of that, regardless of the source, is inaccurate, and it would be wrong to say she broke rules, laws, regulations or anything like that. Clinton obviously did something monumentally stupid, but not a single character of the report says it was illegal. We must wait until the FBI probe to conclude before we can establish that.

My concern here is that conservatively-minded salivating editors are blowing up this IG report out of all proportion, relying on sources that are misrepresenting or blatantly ignoring the facts of the report. Furthermore, the coverage in this article is overly comprehensive by at least 100%. Per WP:WEIGHT, it should be cut in half at the very least. Just because umpteen sources exist, it doesn't necessarily mean it needs umpteen paragraphs of coverage. Gaijin42, for example, is fond of filling this talk page with references, many of which reference each other, whenever there's something they want in the article. That's not how the process is supposed to work. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that this seems to be one of the biggest news items for the last several days, with literally dozens of articles from every major news source poring through every last detail (as Gaijin has documented) - well, I fail to understand your points. This is obviously major news, and plenty of sources are describing how it may affect the 2016 presidential campaign. As many people are interested in that rather important subject, they have a right to expect this article to provide full details. What, the report doesn't use the word "broke"? It describes the guidelines/rules, then says that Clinton didn't follow them. It left it to the news sources to use stronger words, which they did. I agree that calling her actions illegal would be premature, as this report isn't tasked with that determination. But the article has not made that mistake. MikeR613 (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Speaking of facts, you are misstating them. When I read page 42, I see "legal requirements" but the word "guidelines" does not appear at all. Elsewhere in the document it says explicitly "did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act". In any case, it is exactly the way it is supposed to work. WP:WEIGHT. You think the massive number WP:RELIABLESOURCES are wrong. That's called WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Even if you are right in your interpretation (which you aren't) :  WP:FLAT.  And indeed as Mike said, we are not even saying she did anything illegal. The purpose of this section is about if we should say "Clinton has not done any wrongdoing". And, the answer is, no. We should not.  Gaijin42 (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the purpose of this section is clearly for Joseph to make fun of me and make a big fucking deal over this "wrongdoing" language I referred to in previous sections. "Wrongdoing" implies illegality, which means the word shouldn't be used. And by the way, you are misunderstanding WP:OR. Original research is when people make shit up and put it in an article. It has nothing to do with discussion on the talk page about how to interpret the quality of sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * (1) I am not quite sure how you would possibly know what my motives and intentions were. And, regardless, my motives and intentions are totally irrelevant to the text that is added to (or deleted from) the article.  (2)  "Make fun of you"?  You do realize that I am not in third grade, yes?   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You are evaluating the quality of sources based on the fact that they disagree with your interpretation. In any case, if you note in my original reply to Joseph, I called him out for making a WP:POINT. He insisted that it was a legitimate concern. So. Its possible he successfully trolled all of us (me). But either way the issue of "no wrongdoing" is one you raised (though not in the context of adding such text into the article), and has now been addressed. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * (1) It is/was a legitimate concern. (2) I don't "troll" people or Talk Pages.  Thanks for the hard work, all the efforts, and the clarifications.  You put a lot of work into that thorough and comprehensive list of sources.  Thanks again. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's utter nonsense. "Great! I will propose that we add this into the article! Thanks! Let's see how that consensus goes! I will start a thread below to get consensus on your great idea! Thanks again!" and the creation of this thread is obviously not meant to be sincere. You must think we were all born yesterday. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The question was posed (by me, above) as to whether or not certain content is appropriate for this article. That's the exact reason for which we have Talk Pages on articles.  It is irrelevant that you like or dislike my question.  But, thanks for your interest in improving this article!  Thanks!    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * New York Post
 * "Yes, Hillary Clinton broke the law".
 * IJReview
 * "3 Federal Laws Hillary May Have Violated By Using Personal Email"
 * Washington Examiner
 * "Report: FBI 'increasingly certain' Clinton broke the law"
 * National Review
 * "Yes, Hillary Clinton Broke the Law"
 * Hot Air
 * "Levin: Hillary didn’t break email rules, she broke federal law"
 * "the Federal Records Act lays it out pretty clearly: (18 U.S. Code § 2071)"
 * The Register(IT news)
 * "Hillary Clinton broke law with private email server – top US govt watchdog"
 * "A report by the US State Department's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has found presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton did breach record-keeping laws – by using a personal server for work emails." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.43.21 (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * @75 :Please don't add to my comments in a way that could imply I made the edit. In addition, the sources you added are of significantly lower quality. while they are repeating the same reporting, and thus are inherently reliable for the identical facts, their general reputation on wiki (and in a liberal topic) is such that its just going to waste everyone's time trying to use those sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @Gaijin42 Sorry, I saw the mistakes in your list so I fixed it. Your list does not include U.S. Code.   My list, "the Federal Records Act...  (18 U.S. Code § 2071)", 75.37...
 * If you see mistakes, you may certainly reply to my comment and indicate your thoughts, but per WP:TPO you should not modify other's comments. Also, regarding the FRA, while I personally agree with your analysis such analysis is WP:OR and not usable on wiki. We need WP:RS to have done that analysis for us. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Dana Milbank's primary media affiliation
The article quotes "Dana Milbank of the Chicago Tribune." Mr. Milbank is a Washington Post columnist and a member of that newspaper's staff. It is true that his column runs intermittently in the Tribune through syndication (The Washington Post News Service), but he is not on staff there. Maccb (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please - if you know that, fix it! WP:BOLD MikeR613 (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made the fix. Thanks for flagging. Neutralitytalk 15:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Security Risk
A section was just added about the security risk of the email server. We already have such a section, and I'm not sure if the new source is a help. I'd prefer rolling the change(s) back. MikeR613 (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see MrX reverted it. Come to the Talk Page if this needs more discussion. MikeR613 (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly it was poorly written, and we already have two sections where this might be appropriate (security, or classified). I think a brief (1-2 sentence) mention might be appropriate in one of the two sections (perhaps classified more, since the story is ultimately based on the classification markings in the FOIA release).  Gaijin42 (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Does it add anything new? We have a lot of such statements. MikeR613 (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way, the section on "Journalism and Experts" reads kind of weird to me. A bunch of experts in the previous sections saying that it's really risky having classified information on an insecure server. And here a bunch of experts in this section saying that they don't really think that the information that was called classified is really sensitive at all. Because, like, some classifiers overdo it. But they really have no clue, right, since any sensitive parts were redacted? Aren't there any references of other experts responding, saying, "You are all guessing and don't really have a clue how important these emails are? Only the FBI knows." MikeR613 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Should today's WSJ revelations on what the FBI is focussing on (drone strikes...) be included? http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-emails-in-probe-dealt-with-planned-drone-strikes-1465509863 As I just said, I'm queasy about all these articles that quote "certain law enforcement individuals" and stuff like that. The source is reliable, but what about what it says? MikeR613 (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If the source is reliable, what is the question about what it says? Wikipedia should simply note that the law enforcement individuals were not named.  It's likely that if the FBI decides to leak information, the sources will not be using their names, so if everything were left out that did not have a name, the leaked info would never appear on wikipedia.  I would argue that a reader understands the implication of information that is not sourced to an individual.GreenIn2010 (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Even a reliable source can include useless fluff from unnamed sources. It might be real leaks from the FBI, but how can you tell? Maybe Wikipedia can afford to wait till we see if better information becomes available? MikeR613 (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

About that other shoe...
Clinton's version : "I did not send classified material, and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified"
 * Reality #1 : Clinton, on her private server, wrote 104 emails the government says are classified
 * Reality #2 :
 * Despite Clinton claims, 2012 email had classified marking
 * But a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.
 * A US government source said there are other Clinton emails with classified markings, or marked classified, beyond the April 2012 document.

We can wait for some addition confirmation on #2 before putting it into the article tho.Gaijin42 (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're citing Fox News, dude. We can also wait for reliable sourcing and consensus. You're talking about an email sent to her account? If we're referencing folksy old metaphors here, I'm not sure whether it's a matter of the other shoe dropping or the [| tempest trying to escape the teapot]. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * you saw the part where I said in my OP that we could wait right? Clearly marked classified material sent to her account is an issue, since she was so adamant that it never happened. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable references that Fox news is biased? I would like to see those. I think a fair and balanced approach will keep the article unbiased so why don't we simply give both sides? Maybe use Fox & another network if they report differently and let the readers decide which they want to believe. That would keep the bias out.Chryslerfan (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Lack of citations in opening paragrpahs
The lack of citations in the opening paragraphs seems to indicate the article may be written from a biased point of view. For instance: "They were not marked as classified at the time they were sent." Citations? Chryslerfan (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:LEADCITE. There are plenty of sources that say they weren't marked at the time. The new Fox story may change things tho. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't visualize anybody question calling into question any impropriety if they went not marked. I could not find any references to that but I will keep looking. Chryslerfan (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Per Clinton's NDA she was supposed to identify and protect unmarked classified material. There are tons of refs for the marked vs unmarked issues already in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Napolitano
Later, it was clarified by former Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano, that materials marked classified were inconsequential to meet "gross negligence" charges under the espionage act, as are the sender or receiver's intent for using a private, unsecured server http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/11/andrew-anpolitan-hillary-clintons-email-scandal-is/

Lots of problems with this, even though I agree with the thrust of the argument.

Gaijin42 (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Poorly written. It reads the opposite of what it means.
 * not supported by the source.
 * Others are going to tell you that WT isn't reliable.

Wikileaks
Huh - I see the new paragraph about Wikileaks is repeated word-for-word in successive sections. I left the one of the two that I thought made the most sense. I also removed a phrase about what was "needed for indictment", which seemed over-the-top to me and unconnected to what the paragraph was describing. MikeR613 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And I've removed all of it because it was original research. Wikileaks itself is not a reliable source, and it certainly isn't a reliable source for its own activities. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No idea why you're calling it original research, when it's a quote from the wikileaks site. I can see reasons for removing (much of) it, as it seems to be more info than we care about. And why do you claim that wikileaks isn't a reliable source? Have you seen a claim that they post incorrect information? MikeR613 (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Its not original research, but... It is reliable as a WP:CONVENIENCE link to a WP:PRIMARY source, but for analysis of what those leaks mean, they are for the most part WP:SELFPUB Gaijin42 (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Gaijin, could you explain: is that a yes or a no on allowing this paragraph, or in between? MikeR613 (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Its a no as is. However, I'm sure you can probably find WP:SECONDARY news sources that discuss the wikileaks archive, and those would satisfy WP:RS and WP:V, but would still be subject to Editorial Discretion. Ultimate inclusion would probably depend on what the final text was, but I would probably lean against something in the ballpark of what was reverted out, because its sort of an editorial tautology/commentary that is WP:NOT very encyclopedic. But I would reserve final judgement depending on what source was found, who that source quotes, what they say, and how we hypothetically choose to present that. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * While I disagree that it was not OR, in all other respects I quite agree. If secondary news sources can be found that are reliable, I see no reason why some aspect of this might be put back into the article. But it is probably only worth one line at best, since it does not form part of the "controversy" at all. It's more about Wikileaks than the subject of the article. Also, this is already in the article in some form. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Are we trying to cover the fact that Wikileaks posted the email content (and is that noteworthy)? Or is this just a "see also" or convenience link? If we can confirm that this is widely known and an authoritative repository of the emails in question, then either the Wikileaks or some other link to the actual emails would seem to be a useful addition to the article. BTW, did Wikileaks also post the deleted and/or retroactively classified emails? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that menitoning that wikileaks is hosting the emails (either in our prose, or in an external link) is a good addition. My main objection to the previous content was the editorializing along the lines of "with this archive any user can verify...etc". Are you referring to Assange's recent statement that he has more emails? No, those have not been released yet. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)