Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2019 August 27

= August 27 =

Hillary Clinton
Is Hillary Clinton really involved in many crimes or is it just a conspiracy theory? 42.118.3.112 (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would direct you to the articles at Category:Hillary Clinton controversies. The truth is that the Clintons are proximate to, honestly, the expected number and sorts of controversies for people who spent their lives in politics and hang out with billionaires. When you are as connected as they are, it is inevitable that you will be close to people committing white-collar crimes. In fact, I'd say that the Clintons actually must be remarkably clean for politicians, considering the incredible number of investigations into them that failed to result in charges. As for "conspiracy theory", you'd have to point to something more specific. I've certainly seen many claims about Hillary's involvement in this, that or the other scandal, where even the accusation itself is just completely disconnected from reality. People like to accuse her of crimes, and some politicians even admitted the purpose of this was to hurt her poll numbers. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, some of her "crimes" are incredibly minor, like using a private email server for government communications. Trump tried to make it sound like the crime of the century, and send her to prison, but in the end it wasn't even worth pursuing. SinisterLefty (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to mention Trump's own usage of private emails and phones..... --Khajidha (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * She's been investigated many times, and there's nothing there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hillary is a bit boring, and that is a problem for her enemies. She is not the kind of person who gets drunk, starts a fight with a bouncer, throws stuff at paparazzi, accidentally kicks her chihuahua in the face and gets arrested. That means that a story criticizing her is always going to be rather boring. For example, I would criticize her for how her position on gay marriage has evolved over the years. Yawn. A lot of money, time and effort has been spent trying to find and create kompromat. So far all we got is that someone on her IT staff made at least one stupid decision and that she, like most 72yr olds, is not a computerwizard. She doesn't need to know how to install and configure her own mailserver; her staff should handle that kinda stuff. This absence of real evidence of wrongdoings despite a huge demand has left a vacuum that was quickly filled by all kinds of conspiracy nutcases. Poveglia (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why they're always trying to drag her husband into the discussion, as if she made him do the stuff he did. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * OP just asked if Hillary Clinton was "really involved in many crimes". No one disputes, aftrer an FBI investigation, that Hillary Clinton had a server installed at one of her homes on which confidential State Department Email was improperly stored.  ComputerWorld magazine states in an article that this information was insecure for two months.


 * [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798 U.S. Code Title 18, Section 798. "Disclosure of classified information" says "Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—. ..(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."


 * The Federal statute "Disclosure of classified information" has been enforced before and since Mrs. Clinton migrated thousands of Emails relevant to confidential and classified State Department business outside the firewalls of US Government servers. Our article on Clinton's first CIA Director John Deutch records"'Deutch fell out of favor with the Clinton administration because of public testimony he gave to Congress on Iraq. Specifically Deutch testified that Saddam Hussein was stronger than he was four years ago and the CIA might never be able to remedy the issue. Clinton replaced Deutch after he had won re-election. Deutch left the CIA on December 15, 1996,[2] and soon after it was revealed that several of his laptop computers contained classified information wrongfully labeled as unclassified.[8] In January 1997, the CIA began a formal security investigation of the matter. Senior management at CIA declined to fully pursue the security breach. Over two years after his departure, the matter was referred to the Department of Justice, where Attorney General Janet Reno declined prosecution. She did, however, recommend an investigation to determine whether Deutch should retain his security clearance.[9] Deutch had agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor for mishandling government secrets on January 19, 2001, but President Clinton pardoned him in his last day in office, two days before the Justice Department could file the case against him."


 * After a conference on Attorney General Loretta Lynch's aircraft between her and Bill Clinton, FBI Director Comey said ".'Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information... For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).... None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail...  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. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.'". Comey concluded "'Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past... In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.'"
 * Hillary Clinton wasn't prosecuted for a crime in that regard. It would be WP:OR to say whether or not she was involved in a crime. Read for yourself what Director Comey said, and see what former CIA Director John Deutch went through just for taking laptops home with information he was cleared to see and possess, after he fell out of favor with the Clinton White House. --loupgarous (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not just OR, but a BLP violation. The question, "Is/was Hillary Clinton involved in any crimes?" can only be answered, "Legally speaking, NO." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The IT person(s) who configured the device(s) she used to email from (and bought and installed the server) made a dumb decision. Boring! If you wanna criticize a Clinton I'd recommend starting with Bill. Poveglia (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * She hired someone to break the page-long exposition of her legal responsibilities to safeguard information that came into her possession when she processed in as Secretary of State. She signed a form promising not to do what she did - and it was her responsibility to keep that information safe and behind Federal firewalls. Especially the Top Secret/Special Access Program stuff that could have been human source intel.  NOT boring when a host nation arrests one of your sources because they know where the TS/SAP information came from that someone picked off your unsecured home-brew server.  Nice whataboutism, though.  Let me guess.  Bill made her neglect her custodial responsibility over Special Access Program data?  Guy's a regular Devil in a Blue Dress.  --loupgarous (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Poveglia (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It was rather ironic that Trump was attacking Hillary for placing emails where they theoretically were more likely to be hacked by foreign entitires, while at the same time encouraging foreign entity Wikileaks to hack those very emails. SinisterLefty (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You've confused me with a fan of Trump's. I'm just allergic to serious diplomatic incompetence with a big body count. That would be the lady you all burn incense to. --loupgarous (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not a fan and I would never vote for her (or her husband) if she would be a politician in my country. That hasn't stopped me pointing out the facts tho. You have not provided evidence of "serious diplomatic incompetence" and "a big body count". If you have some, then Fox News will love to hear all about it. If they publish the evidence you think you have we can include it in the article. If not, then having a political debate is pointless. You are not going to convince anyone and you are not going to be convinced by anyone. So why argue? Poveglia (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC) p.s. Sinister is Latin for the direction "left", so SinisterLefty is LeftLeft. Seems unlikely that you and him are going to convince eachother.
 * His cousin would be "DexterousRighty". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Conchita Wurst in BBC's 100 Women
How can Conchita Wurst be listed in BBC's 100 Women? Conchita Wurst is a man. J I P &#124; Talk 12:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article contains the sentence: "Neuwirth uses masculine pronouns when referring to himself but feminine pronouns to describe Conchita". The stage persona does not necessarily have to be exactly the same as the performer is in real life; that's kinda the point of creating one. Poveglia (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Not really – Thomas Neuwirth is a man, but Conchita Wurst is a female character. --Viennese Waltz 12:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Did anyone else with a working knowledge of German do a spit take at Conchita Wurst's name (given she's a female character acted by a man)? --loupgarous (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised not to see Dame Edna Everage included. Richard Avery (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The OP may be interested in learning more about genderfluidity, many people consider their gender identity to be not necessarily fixed, and can change given their particular context at a particular time and place in their lives, day to day, or even depending on what they are doing or feeling at that moment. Most important, it isn't the OP's job to tell someone else what their gender is or can be.  -- Jayron 32 01:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * People should be careful when having intimate moments. They wouldn't want to get any of that gender fluid spilled on their clothes. (apologies to Barry Humphries) --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are assuming the OP's job, right? There are jobs where it is necessary to tell a person what their gender is. For example, an OB/Gyn should tell a man that he absolutely has no risk of ovarian cancer no matter how much he wants to identify as a woman. 199.164.8.1 (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your disingenuousness speaks volumes about your character. You know exactly what the issues are, and you choose to ignore them.  -- Jayron 32 14:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that 199.whatever is assuming that the man in question is not a trans man who CAN have ovarian cancer. And, while I don't know of any cases of individuals identified at birth as male who turned out to have ovaries due to mosaicism or something, I am aware of individuals who were identified at birth as female who turned out to have undeveloped, undescended testicles and had them removed as a preventive measure against testicular cancer. Translation, sex and gender are nowhere near as clear cut as 199.whatever would like them to be. --Khajidha (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Only on the Wikipedia reference desk can a conversation go from Conchita Wurst to ovarian cancer. J I P  &#124; Talk 18:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear... If you do not have ovaries, you cannot develop ovarian cancer. By "trans man" above, you must be referring to a woman who has transitioned to a man and not a man who has transitioned (presumably to a woman). There are no documented cases of a person born male who has ovaries implanted as part of a transition to female. Current ovarian transpant procedures are very limited (and very novel in my opinion) and used to remove ovaries from a woman and place them back again later. As with any procedure, there is testing of transplant from one female to another, but if you want to be that pedantic, you can claim that any procedure imaginable could be happening illegally somewhere in the world. So, the statement above should be that an OB/Gyn will tell a person who does not overies that ovarian cancer is not possible. If you don't have ovaries, you can't imagine them into existence and form cancer. Similarly, if you don't have a prostate, you can't get prostate cancer (unless you want to pretend that the skene glands are prostates, just to make an argument). 135.84.167.41 (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, a trans man is someone who is undergoing or has undergone the process of transitioning to being a man. It is quite possible for such a person to still have their ovaries and to develop ovarian cancer. --Khajidha (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I see OP's original point (User:JIP, please correct me if I'm wrong). Conchita Wurst is a fictional character portrayed by a man . It makes as much or as little sense for the BBC to classify Conchita Wurst as one of their "Top 100 Women" as it would for them to classify Captain James T. Kirk as one of their "Top 100 Astronauts".  The BBC implied (jokingly, I hope) that being a literary invention is as consequential as being a woman (i.e., a living female person). --loupgarous (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The personal life section of the Conchita Wurst article says that "Neuwirth has stated that he is not a 'trans woman', but is a man", which is backed by a couple of sources, one of which (The Guardian) states, "One of the most common misconceptions about Conchita is that she has had, or wants, a sex change. She is careful to differentiate between drag artists and transgender people". So Conchita Wurst is a stage character, a drag queen, not a woman. However, it's pointless having a discussion here about whether the BBC should have included the character in their list, because it's the BBC's list and they can include what they like (though they might be criticised for it by licence-fee payers). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone can criticize the propriety and logic of the BBC's choices of "Top 100 Women" if they like - though I concede Reference Desk isn't the forum for a debate, someone's beaten us to that here. Thanks for the information, I had no idea who or what Conchita Wurst was before this discussion. --loupgarous (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If they'd listed a fictional cartoon character as a woman of the year, nobody'd say a word about it. Let's not stress about who's a legitimate woman. Temerarius (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)