Jump to content

Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:2c0:4881:1a20:d919:1a02:3df1:5b11 (talk) at 21:08, 11 May 2022 (→‎Standards: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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

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

FBI discovers even MORE hidden Hillary Clinton emails

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

[T]he Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) recently sent [the State Department] additional documents as part of the ongoing inter-agency consultation process in connection with other FOIA litigation. [The State Department] is working to determine whether that set of documents includes any responsive, non-duplicative agency records that have not already been processed. [The State Department] will promptly update [Judicial Watch] and the Court once that initial review is complete. 174.158.157.41 (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Judicial Watch is not a reliable source of information. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was reported during a TV broadcast on Fox News by Sara Carter Federal investigators have told a court that they found "additional Clinton emails that potentially had not been previously released."174.158.157.41 (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News is not a reliable source of information either. The investigation is closed.[1] – Muboshgu (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sara Carter is also not reliable. JW asserts the FBI asked State if the "documents" are responsive and non-duplicative of what was already known. So let's wait and see what State says. soibangla (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This has no weight until multiple RS cover it. So far only unreliable sources have done so. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

She is going to be asked under oath on 2th June!!! Yeah! 94.29.3.116 (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, in recording of the in DC curcuit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3OoVnWT0oU it is said on 38:52 that google produced 260 work related (October-December 2010) and NOT PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED BY CLINTON herself or ident. later by FBI in 5000 emails! FBI was wrong. Wow. CarterHeavyIndustries that is. 2A00:1370:812C:ADF2:BC21:B8EF:E68D:7B48 (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Valerie Jarrett

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

Allan Rice, that's NY Post you linked to, not NY Times. And it's all speculation and unverified info. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Post is just a right of center newspaper. Perhaps readers are interested in the story of how and why this matter got into the mainstream media. You certainly can't figure it out from the way the article is currently written. Allan Rice (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Allan Rice, the NY Post is definitely a right-wing source. Thanoscar21talk, contribs 15:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blaine

This is an obscure reference that doesn't even warrant inclusion in the body, let alone the lead, and the edit doesn't even mention why comparisons are evoked. And even if it did, it's still trivia. It should be removed. soibangla (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Total random nerd, the lead is a summary of the body. Everything in the lead is in the body. You can't just stick something there, and in this case it's being objected to. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standards

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

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