Now It's My Turn To Do A Little Chortling....

[Lord Jim]

These emails are going to be the gift that keeps on giving... (even though she destroyed half of them)

Hillary Clinton Emails Said to Contain Classified Data

WASHINGTON — Government investigators said Friday that they had discovered classified information on the private email account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used while secretary of state, stating unequivocally that those secrets never should have been stored outside of secure government computer systems.

Mrs. Clinton has said for months that she kept no classified information on the private server that she set up in her house so she would not have to carry both a personal phone and a work phone. Her campaign said Friday that any government secrets found on the server had been classified after the fact.

But the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies said the information they found was classified when it was sent and remains so now. Information is considered classified if its disclosure would likely harm national security, and such information can be sent or stored only on computer networks with special safeguards.

“This classified information never should have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system,” Steve A. Linick, the State Department inspector general, said in a statement signed by him and I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the intelligence community.[that's actually a formal title; I assume it encompasses all of our spook organizations; CIA, NSA, etc: http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/orga ... who-we-are]

Exactly how much classified information Mrs. Clinton had on the server is unclear. Investigators said they searched a small sample of 40 emails and found four that contained government secrets. But Mr. McCullough said in a separate statement that although the State Department had granted limited access to its own inspector general, the department rejected Mr. McCullough’s request for access to the 30,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton said were government-related and gave to the State Department.

Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, is “purported” to also have copies of the 30,000 emails on a thumb drive, according to Mr. McCullough.

The discovery of the four emails prompted Mr. McCullough to refer the matter to F.B.I. counterintelligence agents, who investigate crimes related to the mishandling of classified information. On Thursday night and again Friday morning, the Justice Department referred to the matter as a “criminal referral,” but later Friday dropped the word “criminal.” The inspectors general said late Friday that it was a “security referral” intended to alert authorities that “classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government’s possession.”

Irrespective of the terminology, the referral raises the possibility of a Justice Department investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails as she campaigns for president. Polls show she is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination by a wide margin.

Mishandling classified information is a crime. Justice Department officials said no decision had been made about whether to open a criminal investigation.

The refusal by the State Department to give Mr. McCullough access to the emails has reignited calls by Republicans for Mrs. Clinton to hand over the server that she used to house the personal email account.

“If Secretary Clinton truly has nothing to hide, she can prove it by immediately turning over her server to the proper authorities and allowing them to examine the complete record,” Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, said on Friday. “Her poor judgment has undermined our national security, and it is time for her to finally do the right thing.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/us/po ... unity.html

I think what's clearly needed here, is the appointment of a Special Counsel to do a thorough and complete investigation into this; Since Hillary is completely innocent of any wrong doing, I'm sure she would welcome such a public and prolonged investigation...

Though I have to say, that if they've only looked at 40 emails and already found criminal transmission of classified material in four of them, after they look at all 30,000 (The 30,000 Her Royal Clintoness found fit to provide after she deleted the other 30,000 that were under subpoena...wholesale destruction of legally subpoenaed records is a line even Dick Nixon wouldn't cross...) if the percentage holds, that will be somewhere in the neighborhood of three thousand criminal violations...

[Long Run]

The old Clinton story: Too smart by a half.

[rubato]

The chance that any Senator has done the same is near 100%.


So much that is of nil real value is classified and the total volume is so great that communication would not happen at all otherwise.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

ThechancethatanySenatorhasdonethesameisnear100%.Somuchthatisofnilrealvalueisclassifiedandthetotalvolumeissogreatthatcommunicationwouldnothappenatallotherwise.yrs,rubato

[Lord Jim]

CLINTON: I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.

So I'm certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... ails-iran/

That's probably the biggest whopper since, "If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your plan. Period. Full stop."

The chance that any Senator, bloviate, bloviate, blah, blah blah..

[Econoline]

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton ... ils-357246

How The New York Times Bungled the Hillary Clinton Emails Story
BY KURT EICHENWALD 7/24/15 AT 5:21 PM

What the hell is happening at The New York Times?

In March, the newspaper published a highly touted article about Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email account that, as I wrote in an earlier column, was wrong in its major points. The Times’s public editor defended that piece, linking to a lengthy series of regulations that, in fact, proved the allegations contained in the article were false. While there has since been a lot of partisan hullaballoo about “email-bogus-gate”—something to be expected when the story involves a political party’s presidential front-runner—the reality remained that, when it came to this story, there was no there there.

Then, on Thursday night, the Times dropped a bombshell: Two government inspectors general had made a criminal referral to the Justice Department about Clinton and her handling of the emails. The story was largely impenetrable, because at no point did it offer even a suggestion of what might constitute a crime. By Friday morning, the Times did what is known in the media trade as a “skin back”—the article now said the criminal referral wasn’t about Clinton but about the department’s handling of emails. Still, it conveyed no indication of what possible crime might be involved.

The story seemed to further fall apart on Friday morning when Representative Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) issued a statement saying that he had spoken to the inspector general of the State Department and that there had been no criminal referral regarding Clinton’s email usage. Rather, Cummings said, the inspectors general for State and the intelligence community had simply notified the Justice Department—which issues the regulations on Freedom of Information Act requests—that some emails subject to FOIA review had been identified as classified when they had not previously been designated that way.

So had the Times mixed up a criminal referral—a major news event—with a notification to the department responsible for overseeing FOIA errors that might affect some documents’ release? It’s impossible to tell, because the Times story—complete with its lack of identification of any possible criminal activity—continues to mention a criminal referral.

But based on a review of documents from the inspectors general, the problems with the story may be worse than that—much, much worse. The reason my last sentence says may is this: There is a possibility—however unlikely—that the Times cited documents in its article that have the same dates and the same quotes but are different from the records I have reviewed. I emailed Dean Baquet, the Times’s executive editor, to ask if there are some other records the paper has and a series of other questions, but received no response. (Full disclosure: I’m a former senior writer for the Times and have worked with Baquet in the past.)

So, in an excess of caution, I’m leaving open the possibility that there are other documents with the same quotes on the same dates simply because the other conclusion—that The New York Times is writing about records its reporters haven’t read or almost willfully didn’t understand—is, for a journalist, simply too horrible to contemplate.

Indeed, if the Times article is based on the same documents I read, then the piece is wrong in all of its implications and in almost every particular related to the inspector generals’ conclusions. These are errors that go far beyond whether there was a criminal referral of Clinton's emails or a criminal referral at all. Sources can mislead; documents do not.

First, what did the Times article say? To be charitable, let’s use the skinned-back version and quote the first two paragraphs:

Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.

The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management.

The words in those paragraphs would lead any rational reader of the Times story to conclude that sensitive government information was mishandled, that this mishandling raised concerns about criminal activity, and that these concerns related somehow to classified information in Clinton’s email account.

Here are the words that were left out: Freedom of Information Act. At no point in the story does the Times mention what this memo—and the other it cited—was really all about: that the officials at the Freedom of Information office in the State Department and intelligence agencies, which were reviewing emails for release, had discovered emails that may not have been designated with the correct classification. For anyone who has dealt with the FOIA and government agencies, this is something that happens all the time in every administration. (Advice to other journalists: That is why it’s smart to file multiple FOIA requests for the same document; different FOIA officials will declare different items unreleasable, so some records can be turned over where a sentence has been blacked out because one reviewer decided it was classified, while another deemed it unclassified.)

The problem is, it is not as if the real purpose of this memo was hard to discern. Here is the subject heading: “Potential Issues Identified by the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community Concerning the Department of State’s Process for the Review of Former Secretary Clinton’s Emails under the Freedom of Information Act (ESP-15-05)”

Get it? This is about the process being used by FOIA officials in reviewing former Secretary Clinton. And former government officials have nothing to do with how FOIA officials deal with requests for documentation. To jump from this fact to a conclusion that, somehow, someone thinks there is a criminal case against Clinton (the original story) requires a level of recklessness that borders on, well, criminal behavior.

Yes, there is memo after memo after memo, which the Times gloats were given to it by a senior government official. (For those who have thoughts of late-night meetings in parking garages or the Pentagon Papers, they were unclassified documents. Reporters obtain those kinds of records through the complex, investigative procedure of asking the press office for them.) And all of them are about the exact same thing: the process being used by current FOIA officials reviewing the emails of a former official is messed up. That’s like criticizing the former owner of a car for the work conducted by the new owner’s mechanic.

So what was the point of the memo written by Linick and McCullough? The memo itself is very clear: “The Department should ensure that no classified documents are publically released.”

In terms of journalism, this is terrible. That the Times article never discloses this is about an after-the-fact review of Clinton’s emails conducted long after she left the State Department is simply inexcusable. That this all comes from a concern about the accidental release of classified information—a fact that goes unmentioned—is even worse. In other words, the Times has twisted and turned in a way that makes this story seem like something it most decidedly is not. This is no Clinton scandal. It is no scandal at all. It is about current bureaucratic processes, probably the biggest snooze-fest in all of journalism.

The heavy breathing of deception or incompetence by the Times doesn’t stop there. In fact, almost every paragraph at the top of the story is wrong, misleading or fundamentally deceptive.

The third paragraph states: “It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them.” No, in fact, it is quite clear. All of the memos are about emails that the officials say may not have been properly designated as classified, meaning it would be improper to release them. If a document is marked as classified, it is certainly not difficult to determine if it has been marked as classified. Paragraph three is false.

Paragraph four: “But since her use of a private email account for official State Department business was revealed in March, she has repeatedly said that she had no classified information on the account.” Mmmm-kay. A point that would seem to be reinforced by the fact that this whole issue is about whether emails should have been designated as classified by FOIA officials. The but makes it seem as if there is a contradiction, when in fact the two points are completely consistent.

Then there are a couple of paragraphs that are a short summary of the past and a comment from the Clinton campaign saying any released emails deemed classified were designated that way after the fact. Yah—that’s what the memos are talking about.

All of this is bad enough, but then there is the ultimate disaster, paragraph seven: “At issue are thousands of pages of State Department emails from Mrs. Clinton’s private account. Mrs. Clinton has said she used the account because it was more convenient, but it also shielded her correspondence from congressional and Freedom of Information Act requests.”

Wow. The first time that the story—which readers cannot possibly know is about FOIA requests—finally mentions FOIA requests, it just manufactures a reality out of thin air. Using a private account would not, in any way, shield Clinton’s correspondence from congressional or FOIA requests.

Start with the rules. Under the FOIA, any document that is not specifically exempted and that falls “under the control of the Department” at the time the request for those records is submitted must be produced. By legal definition, the secretary of state qualifies as part of “the Department,” and thus anything that official writes as part of the job—whether by email, telegraph or handwritten on personal stationery—is subject to a FOIA request. Same goes for Congress. That’s why congressional hearings sometimes produce personal handwritten documents—the fact that they might not be in an email server does not limit the requirement that they be turned over.

Second, contrary to the implication from the first Times story, Clinton’s emails sent in her role as secretary of state were automatically saved into a secure data system under the control of the department. In fact, where does the Times think the FOIA offices for the State Department and the intelligence community are finding the 55,000 emails now under review that it cites in its new story? Are officials breaking into Clinton’s house in the middle of the night to examine them by flashlight? Nope. They are pulling them off of the system under the department’s control.

Then there is accusation by false association. If a sentence read, “Bill shot Ted, and Ted died,” any responsible journalist who wrote that would understand the implication was that Bill killed Ted. But if the truth is that Bill accidentally shot Ted when they were on a hunting trip, and 30 years later Ted died from heart disease, the implied accusation is true in its fact yet false in its statement.

This unforgivable journalistic sin turns up in paragraphs 13 and 14 in the Times story. They read:

The inspectors general also criticized the State Department for its handling of sensitive information, particularly its reliance on retired senior Foreign Service officers to decide if information should be classified, and for not consulting with the intelligence agencies about its determinations.

In March, Mrs. Clinton insisted that she was careful in her handling of information on her private account. “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” she said.

No reader could possibly know that the two paragraphs, jammed together and using similar phrases—handling of information and handling of sensitive information—have nothing to do with each other. The first paragraph is once again based on the inspectors general’s memos. And again, what those memos are actually discussing is the way that the FOIA office is handling its review of the former secretary of state’s emails for public release. They in no way discuss Clinton, her handling of emails or anything approaching those topics.

But by slapping those two paragraphs together and using the same words, the Times—again, either out of recklessness, ignorance or intentional deception—makes it seem as if the inspectors general are saying Clinton mishandled classified information. They didn’t.

In our hyper-partisan world, many people will not care about the truth here. That the Times story is false in almost every particular—down to the level of who wrote what memo—will only lead to accusations that people trying to set the record straight are pro-Hillary. I am not pro-Hillary. I am, however, pro-journalism. And this display of incompetence or malice cannot stand without correction.

And to other reporters: Democracy is not a game. It is not a means of getting our names on the front page or setting the world abuzz about our latest scoop. It is about providing information so that an electorate can make decisions based on reality. It is about being fair and being accurate. This despicable Times story was neither.

[MajGenl.Meade]

CLINTON: I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.

So I'm certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... ails-iran/

That's probably the biggest whopper since, "If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your plan. Period. Full stop."

Maybe that's so, LJ but I'm not sure. She said she did not email classified information to anyone on her email. She didn't say she didn't have classified info on her email server - but that she never sent it on to anyone else.

And in the second sentence she makes that even clearer: "I did not send classified material". Again, there's a difference between possessing and sending.

Maybe 'send' depends on what 'it' means....

[Gob]

Did she send them while wearing a blue dress?

[Long Run]

Come on, Gob.

[Lord Jim]

Econo:

If you don't like the NY Times, (I realize they're not as authoritative a source as "The sports writer and game show contestant" whose articles you're fond of quoting) how about CNN:

Official: Clinton emails included classified information

The IG reviewed a "limited sampling" of her emails and among those 40 reviewed found that "four contained classified [intelligence community] information," wrote the IG Charles McCullough in a letter to Congress.

McCullough noted that "none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings" but that some "should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network."

The four emails in question "were classified when they were sent and are classified now," spokeswoman Andrea Williams told CNN.

McCullough said that State Department Freedom of Information Act officials told the intelligence community IG that "there are potentially hundreds of classified emails within the approximately 30,000 provided by former Secretary Clinton.

Sources confirmed both inspectors general have asked DOJ to open an investigation. The inspectors general are independent officials who conduct audits, investigations and inspections in the agencies for which they're responsible.

No decision yet to launch probe

There has not yet been a decision on whether to launch a criminal probe.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/ ... epartment/

Or the BBC:

Clinton sent emails containing classified information

The four emails "were classified when they were sent and are classified now," Andrea Williams, a spokesperson for I Charles McCullough, inspector general of the intelligence community, tells Byron Tau of the Wall Street Journal.

Tau reports that the inspector general delivered a letter to Congress on Thursday asserting that Mrs Clinton should not have been using her personal server to send such information.

"None of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings, but some included [intelligence community]-derived classified information and should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked and transmitted via a secure network," McCullough wrote.

Mishandling classified information is prohibited by federal law, and numerous government employees, including former CIA head David Petraeus, have been charged with violations in recent years. Tau reports that the inspector general has provided relevant information to the counterintelligence division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for further investigation.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33660942

Or that most sainted of liberal "objective" news sources, the beloved NPR:

Classified Emails Were Sent Through Clinton's Private Network, Watchdog Says

The Justice Department has received a referral to look into whether classified information was mishandled in relation to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email account to conduct official business.

After The New York Times first reported the story, the inspectors general of the State Department and the Intelligence Community made public memos that outline the concerns that led to the referral.

The memos reveal two important things: First, that investigators found that Clinton's private email account contained "hundreds of potentially classified emails." Second, the investigators found that "at least one email made public by the State Department contained classified information."

Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the inspector general for the Intelligence Community, told NPR's Carrie Johnson that at least four emails that were sent through Clinton's private email network "were classified when they were sent and are classified now."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... vate-email

I guess they're all members of the vast right-wing conspiracy too....

[wesw]

jim, you should know by now that the truth means nothing to the Obama /Clinton crowd.

Rachel maddow (madcow) is their goddess

they get their news from comedians.

[RayThom]

This new revelation is going to cause all sorts of trouble for president Clinton. Soon after Inauguration Day, 2017.

Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire...

[Econoline]

There is much that is still very very unclear, in those stories you linked to: (1) If particular emails weren't marked "Classified" but should have been, who is responsible for that omission? There is not even a hint that Clinton herself was responsible for this.

McCullough noted that "none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings" but that some "should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network."

(2) If "at least one email made public by the State Department contained classified information" this would have happened long after Clinton resigned as SoS and after someone else in the State Dept. reviewed the documents and decided they were okay to release. Again, not even a hint that Clinton was responsible for this release; indeed, she couldn't have been responsible since she was no longer working at the State Dept. at the time.

(3) It says only that the emails in question were found on Clinton's private server, *NOT* that she sent those emails. Did someone send them to her? Were they emails between other people that were CC'd to her? Were they emails between other people which were later forwarded to her?

It's worth noting that it is still unclear who sent those emails and that the State Department disputes the charges made by the Intelligence Community inspector general.

P.S. I'm not sure what Charlie Pierce (on whom I have never relied for any facts, though I have agreed with and quoted his opinions) has to do with this discussion, Jim...I quoted--in full--an article from Newsweek.com authored by Kurt Eichenwald, who writes for Newsweek, Vanity Fair, and The New York Times and neither you nor anyone else here has yet responded to the substance of that article.

[wesw]

the Blumenthal e mails that he turned over under subpoena give proof to other lies and deceits....

[Guinevere]

She who chortles last . . .

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/27/media/n ... index.html

Four days after a major error in a story about Hillary Clinton's emails, the New York Times has published an editors' note laying out what went wrong.

The note, published late Monday night, said The Times' initial story was based on "multiple high-level government sources," but acknowledged that as the paper walked back its reporting, corrections were slow to materialize, and substantial alterations "may have left readers with a confused picture."

The original story was published Thursday night. It initially claimed federal inspectors general had requested a criminal investigation into Clinton's email use during her tenure at the State Department.

Over the next few days, the story had numerous changes, including that the investigation request was for a "security" referral, which is far short of a criminal investigation. In addition, Clinton was no longer named as a target.

The Times wrote a new article on Friday afternoon, which clarified the nature of the investigation. But the original story was not fully corrected in a timely manner.

"The original article ... was not altered online until Saturday morning to take account of the change in description of the referral from 'criminal' to 'security.' Editors should have added a correction sooner to note that change," the editors' note said.

The Times quickly came under intense scrutiny for both getting the story wrong and failing to indicate changes had been made.

Earlier Monday, Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet acknowledged that readers had been "whipsawed" by the changes. "We should have explained to our readers right away what happened here, as soon as we knew it," he said.

But Baquet stopped short of blaming the reporters or editors involved.

"You had the government confirming that it was a criminal referral," he said. "I'm not sure what they could have done differently on that."

The editors' note published Monday echoed that sentiment. On Friday, a Justice Department official confirmed to Times reporters that a "criminal investigation" had been requested, the note explains. Later in the day, when it became clear that information was faulty, officials "did not expand on why their earlier description was incorrect."

Public Editor Margaret Sullivan had a harsher view of the story's handling. Noting the use of anonymous sources, she wrote that, "continuing to develop it [the story] the next day would have been a wise play. Better yet: Waiting until the next day to publish anything at all."

She also critiqued current trends in journalism that she said include the "rampant use of anonymous sources," and the hyper pace of journalism in the digital era.

Sullivan said there is a "need to slow down and employ what might seem an excess of caution before publishing a political blockbuster based on shadowy sources.

"I'll summarize my prescription in four words: Less speed. More transparency," she said.

In other words, there was no and is no criminal investigation.

[Sue U]

Also too such as:

Journalism is haaaaard
New York Times Sorry For Sucking At Journalism, Again

by Kaili Joy Gray
Jul 28 2:30 pm 2015

Our esteemed newspaper of record told a riveting EXCLUSIVE! MUST CREDIT NEW YORK TIMES! tale last week about a criminal inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information with her personal email. And except for how it wasn’t about Clinton mishandling classified information, and the information wasn’t classified at the time, and the inquiry wasn’t criminal, it was all true! Which is why the Times quietly changed its story overnight to be slightly less inaccurate in its telling of this WHOA IF TRUE! story of Clinton criming while Clinton. And then it changed the story again. And then it published a “correction” about how the original headline and story were not exactly right, but it’s all good now, Pulitzers please!

Some people, like Yr Wonkette, said, “Hey, that is bad journalism!” And Margaret Sullivan, public editor at the Times, agreed. She wrote about the “journalistic problems” of the reporters trying to be FIRST! with their big scoop that turned out to be flat-out wrong, and then the paper trying to kinda sorta fix it on the down low, without clearly explaining to its readers that the article was flat-out wrong. Oops!

"Losing the story to another news outlet would have been a far, far better outcome than publishing an unfair story and damaging The Times’s reputation for accuracy."

Yes, we certainly would not want to see the Times’s reputation damaged for reporting a completely not true story. You know, again.

So finally, finally, the editors have decided to speak on the issue, with an “Editors’ Note” that should hopefully clear everything up so we can forget about this bit of unpleasantness and move on to breathlessly awaiting the next oops! on Hillary Clinton:

"The Times’s coverage last week of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s use of a personal email account as secretary of state involved several corrections and changes that may have left readers with a confused picture."

“Confused” is one word for it. “Totally misinformed because the article was wrong” would be another way of putting it, but that’s so wordy.

"After consultation between editors and reporters, the first paragraph was edited to say the investigation was requested “into whether sensitive government information was mishandled,” rather than into whether Mrs. Clinton herself mishandled information. That type of substantive change should have been noted immediately for readers; instead, a correction was not appended to the article until hours later."

On the one hand, good for the Times for realizing that “Clinton might be criminally investigated” is substantively different from “Someone who is not Clinton might be criminally investigated.” On the other hand, though, it took the Times days, not hours, to keep correcting its story, as Sullivan noted, and also, isn’t the Times supposed to have editors on the payroll to make sure such an explosive accusation is, like, accurate? Hahahaha, who are we kidding, it’s the Times! Those editors are too busy looking for the latest trend in successful single women letting their ovaries rot instead of finding a decent enough man to settle down with, like they should. Or addressing Ted Cruz’s hurt feelings about his “book” not being on the New York Times bestseller list. (Not to worry, it fixed that problem quickly.)

The editors also address the whole “criminal” versus “not criminal” confusion:

"It was not clear how the discrepancy arose."

Good to know they figured that out so it will never happen again. Did the Times do anything else to clean up its mess?

"On Friday afternoon, The Times wrote a new article, including the inspectors’ finding and the change in the description of the referral, as well as Mrs. Clinton’s response that she was confident her emails did not contain classified information. The original article, however, was not altered online until Saturday morning to take account of the change in description of the referral from “criminal” to “security.” Editors should have added a correction sooner to note that change."

So, in other words: The Times wrote a bogus story, made some tweaks, later added a correction, then tweaked some more, tweaked its correction, and finally realized the entire story was a pile of garbage, so it wrote a fresh new one, but didn’t bother noting that the original story was a pile of garbage until days later. But at least the editors are very sorry about this colossal fuck-up:

“……………………………………”

Oh, nope, they’re not. That was the end of the “note.” Oh well. Next time they GOTCHA! Hillary Clinton for jeopardizing national security by criminally emailing classified documents, they’ll be sure to get it right.

Source, of course.

It's well-known around here that I'm not even a Democrat, let alone a big Hillary fan, but the Times is truly guilty of some epic suckitude in the way it handled this story.

[Econoline]

Same ol' same ol' Clinton Rules. Nothing to see here. Move along.

ETA:

I quoted--in full--an article from Newsweek.com authored by Kurt Eichenwald, who writes for Newsweek, Vanity Fair, and The New York Times and neither you nor anyone else here has yet responded to the substance of that article.

[Scooter]

But, but, but...isn't the mainstream media all left wing and isn't the NYT their primary mouthpiece, and aren't they all already in the bag for Clinton?

Oh yeah, and $500K in earthquake relief for Haiti that Algeria funnelled through the Clinton Foundation created a conflict of interest. No one can explain how, but they are sure that it did.