Another New York Times bombshell on the Clintons (remember the impenetrable nothing-ball of a foundation expose?) has fallen apart hours after release.

Criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton over handling of State Department e-mail? Actually, no.


And, of course, the New York Times admits no errors. The Washington Post highlights a rather dramatic recasting of the story and the unapologetic New York Times. It brings to mind the haughty Times editor who refused to correct or acknowledge error in some of the newspaper’s bad Whitewater reporting back in the day.

Here’s the rewrite of the paragraph you see above, with emphasis on a newly passive phrase emphasized:


“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.”

This is what the Department of Justice now says about the Hillary Clinton e-mails being discussed:

“The Department has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information. It is not a criminal referral.”

Information that was NOT classified when it passed through Hillary Clinton’s mail account has become classified in more recent times. There is no criminal referral. 


It’s all good for the Times and the Fox noise machine. Clinton has been negatively branded by a wildly misleading accusation whose “clarification” will get far less, if any, attention.

Gene Lyons explained the Clinton Rules well in a recent column.

And for a broader view of the handling of classified material, The Atlantic has this.

UPDATE AND CORRECTION: After a day of bashing and little room to maneuver, the New York Times did issue a correction.


Also: The inspector generals issued a statement saying this information shouldn’t have been transmitted on a personal email system. Clinton wasn’t he first to do so, by the way.