Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy

FBI probe or investigation

re Hillary Clinton email controversy#FBI probe

• "probe" is supported by the existing Nov 2015 Politico citation, of

Still, the FBI has not called its probe a formal investigation, while suggesting it is interested in broader questions about how classified materials were handled — and not necessarily launching a criminal inquiry.

• "investigation" is supported by a May 2016 Politico article including quoting FBI Director James Comey:

I remain close to that investigation to make sure that it’s done well and has the resources that are needed...My goal in any investigation is to do it well and do it promptly, especially investigations of intense public interest. All of that remains true

The FBI chief said he considers the work agents are doing to be an "investigation."

Seems like an investigation, if that's what the FBI Director explicitly calls it. Other citations welcome. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Retitled accordingly. November 2015 characterization is no longer accurate per May 2016 citation. UW Dawgs (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Just Cleaning Up

I cleaned up a lot of grammar for ease of reading and added clarity or precision by virtue of my gov't background to make things more clear and precise for the average reader as well as those readers with actual gov't experience so they won't choke as they attempt to read some of the conflicted constructions that were here earlier. I don't believe that I added or changed any content that materially tilts the direction of this article per the citations. If you believe that I have, please state how and why in clear and precise terms and I will be happy to work with you on the issue. Cheers. Veriss (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverted. This is an epically misleading section title. Your changes completely altered the way the issue is being portrayed. The body of the text must reflect what sources say, including (most notably) that emails were retroactively classified or determined to be classified only after they were sent or received. Also, there's no source stating the private Clinton server was "insecure". I've also reverted the work of another editor who changed "probe" to "investigation", which you later augmented. That isn't what the sources say either. A couple of other changes from other editors have been swept up in this reversion, but trying to unpick everything would've been extremely difficult and it makes more sense to revert back to the last stable version and then fix things after. In the strongest possible terms, I want to stress that on an article as controversial as this, content changes of this magnitude must be proposed on this talk page first, and consensus sought from other editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I see that this same issue was changed and then reverted just now. For the record, I also think that the page must note that the emails were not marked classified at the time (agreeing with the undo). This is a common point of discussion online, and the page should make it clear, as it does now: (a) that they were not marked classified at the time, and (b) that isn't really much of a defense, as the rules for classified information apply even when not marked. MikeR613 (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

FBI Probe/Investigation RFC

FBI director James Comey has stated "we are doing an investigation". Clinton has said it is a "security inquiry". When using wikipedia's voice (eg section titles, or other wiki voice prose), how should this process be described? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Investigation This is the FBI's process. The director of the FBI has explicitly said it is an investigation. The target of the investigation prefers euphemisms. Sources from 6 months ago didn't use the word investigation. They do now. Reliable sources repeatedly refer to it as an investigation. The NYT explicitly discusses the transition in the nature of the investigation "The F.B.I.’s case began as a security referral from the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies, who were concerned that classified information might have been stored outside a secure government network. But multiple law enforcement officials said the matter quickly became an investigation into whether anyone had committed a crime in handling classified information."[1] Gaijin42 (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Ludicrously premature RfC. Again. This debate just started an hour ago, for goodness sake. This is an abuse of process. From WP:RFC:

  "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt to working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC."

-- Scjessey (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Investigation. Per NYT, "multiple law enforcement officials said the matter quickly became an investigation into whether anyone had committed a crime in handling classified information".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Investigation. (WP:SNOW). Per May 2016 Politico article and FBI Director James Comey's "I remain close to that investigation to make sure that it’s done well and has the resources that are needed..." statement and similar within that article. The previous Nov 2015 "probe" characterization is based on "The FBI has not called its probe a formal investigation." That might have been true when written, but the FBI Director's statement is definitive and current. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• One or the other, but for goodness sake let's not fill the article up with content about the debate over whether it is an "investigation" or whatever the Clinton camp is calling it. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Investigation The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Comey, very deliberately chose this description. This investigation involves Title 18 of the United States Code Chapter 37, Section 793 (f) (commonly known as 'The Espionage Act'), which provides for criminal sanction for 'gross negligence' in the handling of 'any... information, relating to the national defense.' Under 793 (e), 'willfully retains the same' is also subject to sanction.(source) The Secretary of State may never have handled information relating to the national defense on this system in the period 2009 to 2013. We can only know the law, not the result of the investigation, at this time. PLawrence99cx (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Probe given that even those who favour the other term concede that this is the longer-term COMMONNAME, its use is preferable to any recent usage. Pincrete (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Investigation. We should be guided by the Director of the FBI's public statement on this. He is in the best position to indicate what his organization is in fact doing on this.CFredkin (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• Investigation per UW Dawgs' arguments. — JFG ^talk 15:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• Who cares - ridiculous discussion. I see that the article uses sometimes one, sometimes the other, and stresses, "The FBI didn't call it an investigation" - except that it says that Comey, their head, did! Ridiculous. MikeR613 (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Reliable sources

Politico, 11/4/15 currently backing "probe" [2] Headline "House GOP split over Clinton email probe" Body "Still, the FBI has not called its probe a formal investigation, while suggesting it is interested in broader questions about how classified materials were handled — and not necessarily launching a criminal inquiry. Politico 5/11/16 [3] FBI's Comey: I feel 'pressure' to quickly finish Clinton email probe FBI Director James Comey said Wednesday he feels "pressure" to complete the federal investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server competently and quickly. Comey also swatted away a series of questions about the status of the investigation, describing it only as pending. He did repeat that he is tracking the probe closely. The FBI began investigating Clinton's e-mail set up last summer, Hill 5/11/16 [4] The head of the FBI on Wednesday appeared to challenge Hillary Clinton’s characterization of the federal investigation into her private email server. Clinton and her allies have repeatedly called the probe a routine “security inquiry.” But Director James Comey told reporters that wasn’t an accurate description."It's in our name. I'm not familiar with the term 'security inquiry,' " Comey said at a roundtable with reporters, according to Politico.“We’re conducting an investigation ... That’s what we do,” he said, according to Fox News. Comey reportedly declined to say whether or not the investigation is “criminal” in nature. Politifact 5/12/16 [5] What we know about the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails Here’s what we know about the investigation so far. The FBI is conducting an investigation. (It’s the Federal Bureau of Investigation, after all.) NYT 3/3/16 [6] Foremost among a half-dozen inquiries and legal proceedings into whether classified information was sent through Mrs. Clinton’s server is an investigation by the F.B.I., whose agents, according to one law enforcement official, could seek to question Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides and possibly the candidate herself within weeks. It is commonplace for the F.B.I. to try to interview key figures before closing an investigation, and doing so is not an indication the bureau thinks a person broke the law. Although defense lawyers often discourage their clients from giving such interviews, Democrats fear the refusal of Mrs. Clinton or her top aides to cooperate would be ready ammunition for Donald J. Trump, the Republican front-runner. A federal law enforcement official said that barring any unforeseen changes,the F.B.I. investigation could conclude by early May. Then the Justice Department will decide whether to file criminal charges and, if so, against whom. NYT 5/12/16 [7] Headline Hillary Clinton Email Inquiry Won’t Be Rushed, F.B.I. Chief Says The director of the F.B.I. said Wednesday that he would not be rushed into finishing his agency’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails on an election timetable. And he would not say whether the inquiry would be wrapped up by the November presidential election. [...]While Mrs. Clinton has characterized the investigation as a “security inquiry,” Mr. Comey said he was “not familiar with the term.” The F.B.I.’s case began as a security referral from the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies, who were concerned that classified information might have been stored outside a secure government network. But multiple law enforcement officials said the matter quickly became an investigation into whether anyone had committed a crime in handling classified information. Mr. Comey said he had been receiving regular briefings on the status of the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails NYT 5/11/16 [8] Her server is now the subject of an F.B.I. investigation, which is likely to conclude in the next month, about whether classified information was mishandled. Whatever the disposition of the investigation, the discussion of troops to Bahrain reveals how routinely sensitive information is emailed on unclassified government servers, reflecting what many officials describe as diplomacy in the age of the Internet, especially in urgent, fast-developing situations. Of the 30,322 emails, the F.B.I.’s investigation has focused on a smaller number, including 22 that the C.I.A. insisted contained information classified “top secret.” Hillary Clinton, during a campaign stop in Ashland, Ky., last week. She said on the CBS program “Face the Nation” on Sunday, regarding an investigation of her use of a private server for email while secretary of state, “I hope this is close to being wrapped up. Time 5/17/16 [9] A law enforcement official familiar with the separate FBI investigation into how classified information got onto her private server says there is little evidence of a crime there either, though the probe is continuing. Wapo 5/1/16 [10] Near the beginning of a recent interview, an FBI investigator broached a topic with longtime Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that her lawyer and the Justice Department had agreed would be off-limits, according to several people familiar with the matter. Investigators consider Mills — who served as chief of staff while Clinton was secretary of state — to be a cooperative witness. The incident was described to The Washington Post by several people, including U.S. law enforcement officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing and those involved could face professional consequences for discussing it publicly. Confused about the investigations around Hillary Clinton? Here are the basics. There are at least three ongoing investigations into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's time as Secretary of State. Here's an explanation of who is investigating, and why ABC 5/9/16 [11] abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-email-investigation-stake/story?id=38940751 What's Next in Hillary Clinton Email Investigation and What's at Stake it may be fair to say that this outstanding investigation about the handling of sensitive information on a private email server during her time at the State Department is the biggest obstacle on her path to the presidency. As the emails were slowly produced, the inspector general for the intelligence community believed there was enough cause to ask the FBI to investigate whether classified information was mishandled via that account. Where Does the Investigation Stand? The FBI will be interviewing Clinton in the coming days, meaning the investigation may be nearing a conclusion about whether to levy any criminal indictments. And her top IT staffer, Bryan Pagliano, has been offered immunity by the Justice Department and is said to be cooperating with the investigation. MotherJones 3/29/16 But the ongoing FBI investigation into her handling of classified information and the use of her private email server located in the basement of her New York residence never disappeared, even if it has receded into the background. NBC 5/5/16 [12] The FBI Has Interviewed Hillary Clinton Aides Over Email Investigation Some of Hillary Clinton's top aides when she was Secretary of State have been interviewed by the FBI "within the past few months," officials familiar with her email investigation confirmed to NBC News on Thursday. As for where the investigation stands, these officials say it is a long way from over. MSNBC 2/8/16 [13] FBI formally confirms its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server LATimes 5/5/16 [14] Top aide to Hillary Clinton questioned by FBI in email server investigation Huma Abedin, a close aide to Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, was questioned last month by FBI agents investigating whether classified material was mishandled on the private email server used by the former secretary of State and her aides, according to a person familiar with the investigation. The FBI investigation has caused Clinton considerable political pain as Republican rivals insist her use of a private email server should lead to her indictment. Wapo 5/25/2016 [15] There are at least three ongoing investigations into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's time as Secretary of State. Here's an explanation of who is investigating, and why. But its release — as well as the conclusion of an ongoing FBI investigation — have also been seen for months by her allies as key milestones to finally putting the email issue to rest. The FBI investigation into whether Clinton mishandled classified material through her use of the private server in her home in suburban New York is still underway. FBI Director James B. Comey has said there is no “external deadline” for concluding that probe, but he acknowledged that there is pressure to wrap up the matter promptly and thoroughly. They have also told The Post that their investigation so far has found little evidence that Clinton maliciously flouted classification rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zac Stewart (talk • contribs) 15:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The sources we used in the article refer to it as a probe. Comey is the first official to use the term "investigation". -- Scjessey (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

A source from 6 months ago called it a probe. That same source (politico) now calls it an investigation. But sources also already in the article called it an investigation [16] There are many many newer sources that call it an investigation. Sources which you removed from the article today. Comey is THE official. Its the FBI's investigation. What other people call it really doesn't matter. But pssst... many many many reliable sources call it an investigation too. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

No, Politico still calls it a "probe", even as it quotes Comey saying "investigation". Also, have you nothing to say about your abuse of the RfC process? Discussion needs to have stalled before you get opinions from elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Collapse meta meta discussion.

There was a talk page section devoted to this issue above titled "FBI probe or investigation where you could have discussed this. In any event, an effort was clearly made to discuss the matter in question before making the request, and the effort does not always have to be by the same editor who starts the RFC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC) That's complete bullshit. There was no "discussion" at all. It's a total abuse of the RfC process to start an RfC when there's been no attempt to seek consensus or anything. One would normally expect a "discussion" to go on for several days before an RfC is even considered. Editors familiar with the subject are far better equipped to discuss and debate these things than editors pulled out of the ether in an RfC. That's why RfC's are only supposed to happen when discussions are deadlocked or stalled. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC) You did plenty of article-editing and even reverted this article (on the very point under discussion) while making no attempt to join the discussion in the previous section above. If you want to persuade people to !vote your way in this RFC, then please discuss the merits instead of cussing about your own previous failure to discuss and debate. Thanks.❤️Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC) I did join the discussion immediately the changes were made. Maybe you just didn't look hard enough. I accept your apology. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC) I do apologize for overlooking your tiny little argument here at this talk page where you said "That isn't what the sources say". So we have an entire talk page section that you didn't join, plus your bald assertion "That isn't what the sources say" buried in another talk page section, and you dispute that there was an effort to resolve this at the talk page? I accept your apology too. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC) I started the RFC because we have danced this dance several times now. You blindly revert ridiculously well sourced information, force us to hash out the debate for 5 days and get overwhelmingly WP:SNOW overruled by consensus. I'm tired of wasting my time with your obstructionist stonewalling.I don't have the time to waste convincing you personally that 2+2=4. the "scandal" redirect, the fact of classified emails being on the server, the security holes in the server, the analysis by security professionals of the server to name just a few. Every one you draw your lines in the sand. Every time your opinion is shown to be completely wrong. This skips over all of that. You don't want RFCs, start working collaboratively instead of being a Hillary PR firm. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC) A complete mischaracterization, as usual. And yet again, you violate Wikipedia policy and basically accuse me of working for the Clinton campaign. You ignore my policy-based comments and apparently do whatever you possibly can to make this faux controversy look as bad as possible. Your behavior contradicts what Wikipedia is meant to stand for, and now you have compounded this with an out-of-process RfC based on an edit that occurred just a few hours earlier. Shame on you. Shame! -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC) I note that you have focused on the process here, and not actually taken a position in the RFC. Given the sources above, do you still object to wikivoice "investigation" ?Gaijin42 (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC) I'm starting to think nobody is reading any of my comments, or at the very least they are being selectively ignored. My position on the RfC is that there shouldn't have been an RfC because it was an abuse of process. My position on the choice of word remains the same as it was the previous times I expressed it. We have multiple reliable sources pointedly using the term "probe", and now you want to change it to investigation because of a recent use of the word by a single FBI official speaking flippantly about what the "I" in "FBI" means. But as I said, my chief concern is with the RfC being used to circumvent the normal discussion process. The RfC should be withdrawn in favor of a proper discussion, and only reintroduced in the unlikely event no agreement is reached. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC) Your argument is based on reliable source. I included a great many reliable sources, which are not quoting Comey, using "Investigation" in their own voice. While "probe" was more common 6 months ago, it is not more common now, as events have developed and more information is known. As for "one official", it is the FBI's investigation, the director of the FBI is that one official. His opinion would seem to be authoritative on what actions the FBI is taking. Please evaluate the sources provided. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC) "Clinton email probe", 793K news results vs "Clinton email investigation", 496K news results. It would seem "probe" is more common with news sources. And like I said, Comey's comment was flippant in nature. Again, you fail to address the process problem. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC) And clineton fbi probe vs clinton fbi investigation is 2:1 in favor of investigation. As I stipulated, probe used to be more common. I listed a dozen recent highly reputable sources using investigation. Not to mention [17] In any case, it appears we are indeed at an impasse, so the RFC will be required to resolve it. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC) That's just complete nonsense. I would expect a discussion to run for many days before even considering an RfC. You did it in just hours with almost no discussion whatsoever. Look, this probe vs investigation thing is not a hill I care to die on, particularly as it seems most editors simply don't give a crap; however, the abuse of process is something I care about. I insist you withdraw the RfC and conduct business in "regular order". -- Scjessey (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC) If he does withdraw it, it would only be a personal favor to you because you're so cuddly and charming. Or to put it another way, I don't see that it violated any policy or guideline.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your completely unhelpful comment. I quoted the relevant part of WP:RFC in my response to the "survey" section above. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC) Yup, and starting a talk page section that you didn't join for over a day (and stil haven't joined) was a reasonable attempt to work out the dispute before seeking help from others; your only talk page comment was in another section where you said "I've also reverted the work of another editor who changed 'probe' to 'investigation', which you later augmented. That isn't what the sources say either." But you still were not responding to the talk page section above where this source was quoted at length.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC) I wasn't online during the (unreasonable) edit you referred to, and in any case, I am not interested in engaging with that particular editor because of previous egregious behavior on their part. I responded to a different edit that made wholesale changes. Why are you inserting yourself in the discussion between me an Gaijin42 anyway? It seems to me that you are just badgering me now, presumably in the hope I will do something stupid. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

rainbow speculation

Anythingyouwant I reverted your addition. I think it gets into WP:OR a bit to much to compare and contrast the various point of views. Also, you completely omitted the "will be" POV, which while smaller is notable and sourcable. Finally, a sentence basically saying "some people think no, some people think maybe, some people think yes" doesn't seem very valuable. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

All of the four cited sources actually quote and analyze the relevant statutes, which is something we have not done, and so those links alone ought to be useful. We don't even say what the relevant statutes are. If I missed a prominent POV, then I support adding it rather than deleting the whole bunch.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how we are going to avoid the "the opinions cover every possibility" problem, but I'm happy to try and work out some wording. Here are some sources that could be used for the missing POV [18] [19][20][21][22][23][http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/04/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-legal-definition-national-defense-information-classification-column/82446130/ Gaijin42 (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you pick out ones that actually focus on what the statutes say, or do all of them do so? That's how I picked out the four sources that I did.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

the USAToday article is the most like that. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Right, but I already cited it, and it predicts she won't be indicted. Is there any column anywhere that predicts she'll be indicted while also analyzing the pertinent statutes?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:58, 24 May 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[24][25] 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[26] 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)

Wrong section

Yesterday's IG report is in the wrong section. Did not address classified info. Addressed other problems with her practices. 2600:1001:B00C:F671:9999:BDB5:4BC6:58 (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done good point. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I do think that section is too long and detailed as a matter of weight versus all the other reports, investigations, claims, etc., that have come out and are likely to come out. I don't think it's necessary to go into so much detail about how operatives on all sides of the issue have tried to spin it. However, we can wait until things have died down a little, and then step back to see what really is relevant and significant. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

Wikidemon, 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)

Wikidemon 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)

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. Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_21#Hillary_Clinton_email_scandal 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)

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 [27]
    • "Violated email rules".
    • "Violated the Official Records Act",
    • "Violating a rule put in place under Clinton",
    • "feels like she is lying straight out"
  • Politico [28]
    • 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 [29]
    • Clinton’s inexcusable, willful disregard for the rules
  • Wapo [30]
    • 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 [31]
    • 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 [32]
    • 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 [33]
    • 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 [34]
    • 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 [35]
  • CNN [36]
    • 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)

@Gaijin42: 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)

(edit conflict)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)

polls

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

• 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/

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

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)