NYT changes story after Clinton complains

[Blackjack200]

It's certainly nice to know that in this time of cutbacks, at least Newsweek has remained on Mrs. Clinton's payroll. Perhaps the Times should take note and adjust prices accordingly.

Well . . . at least one Newsweek opinion writer anyway.

Is he wrong?

 

[Jhhnn]

It's certainly nice to know that in this time of cutbacks, at least Newsweek has remained on Mrs. Clinton's payroll. Perhaps the Times should take note and adjust prices accordingly.

Well . . . at least one Newsweek opinion writer anyway.

See! See! It really is a conspiracy!

 

[umbrella39]

And you guys wonder why you are continually pointed towards and laughed at in every aspect of your lives... Yawngazzzzzzzzzzz....

 

[nickqt]

And you guys wonder why you are continually pointed towards and laughed at in every aspect of your lives... Yawngazzzzzzzzzzz....

Sure, here in observable reality American "liberalism" is considered center-left to center-right in the rest of the western world. But when your ideology isn't conservative but reactionary, every little thing is evidence of communist-socialist-fascist tyranny. Because describing it as anything less outs the reactionary nature of your ideology for what it is, taking away the pretense of it being "conservative" in any objective sense.

It's also why the media is so complicit in spreading the BothSidesDoIt™ meme.

 

[werepossum]

Time will tell. I expect her to drop out. I don't think this would have gone this far without somebody green lighting it. It all could have been made to go away but it has not. Emails, servers, the foundation, it's a revolving door of one thing after another that keeps surfacing and receding in a seemingly endless cycle that all could have been controlled and managed but that's not happening. She has made it clear to someone that she will not play ball and that someone is in control. She's not interested in finishing the fundamental transformation that Obama has been so successful in implementing. This is the closest the progressives have been in over a hundred years and I just don't see them letting her in the top slot when they know she's only on board with what's good for the Clinton's and not for the progressive vision. It doesn't make sense to put her in place when there may be somebody else that can be more easily controlled. They are just too close.

Yeah, it's conspiracy theory type shit. But it's happening and there's a reason why. When do politician's go after other politician's? When they try to go off the reservation or when they go rogue. She went rogue a long time ago and has a track record of doing whatever she damn well pleases. She can't be controlled and she's not on board. She's the antithesis of a sure thing for the progressive movement.

We'll see. Personally I fully expect her to be the Democrat nominee, just like I fully expect every one of these MSM reporters to embrace her as the Second Coming of Barak once that happens.

Is he wrong?

Hard to say; at this point I'm still too distracted by his short skirt, colorful pompoms, and energetic leaping and shouting. But I'm guessing that yes, he is wrong. Hard to see how massive problems in classifying these documents now, years after the fact, correlates with absolutely none of them being classified at the time they were actually going on. But then, if you can conceive on a SecState handling absolutely no classified documents in years of service, then obviously YMMV. Along with your color of sky and your definition of the word "is".

 

[Blackjack200]

Hard to say; at this point I'm still too distracted by his short skirt, colorful pompoms, and energetic leaping and shouting. But I'm guessing that yes, he is wrong. Hard to see how massive problems in classifying these documents now, years after the fact, correlates with absolutely none of them being classified at the time they were actually going on. But then, if you can conceive on a SecState handling absolutely no classified documents in years of service, then obviously YMMV. Along with your color of sky and your definition of the word "is".

Did the times, or did it not, report that the IGs asked the JD to open a criminal investigation into Clinton?

Did the IGs, or did they not, actually ask the JD to open a criminal investigation into Clinton?

Those are two pretty black and white questions.

 

[fskimospy]

Hard to say; at this point I'm still too distracted by his short skirt, colorful pompoms, and energetic leaping and shouting. But I'm guessing that yes, he is wrong. Hard to see how massive problems in classifying these documents now, years after the fact, correlates with absolutely none of them being classified at the time they were actually going on. But then, if you can conceive on a SecState handling absolutely no classified documents in years of service, then obviously YMMV. Along with your color of sky and your definition of the word "is".

Please point to specific lines or conclusions in the Newsweek piece that you believe to be wrong. I'm interested to see what the color of the sky in your world is.

It is pretty hilarious to watch conservatives try and twist the NYT publishing an incorrect story about Hillary Clinton into a narrative about how the media is biased in her favor though.

 

[Jhhnn]

Please point to specific lines or conclusions in the Newsweek piece that you believe to be wrong. I'm interested to see what the color of the sky in your world is.

It is pretty hilarious to watch conservatives try and twist the NYT publishing an incorrect story about Hillary Clinton into a narrative about how the media is biased in her favor though.

What did you expect from Birther/Benghazi Believers, anyway?

 

[werepossum]

Did the times, or did it not, report that the IGs asked the JD to open a criminal investigation into Clinton?

Did the IGs, or did they not, actually ask the JD to open a criminal investigation into Clinton?

Those are two pretty black and white questions.

The Times changed the headline of the story, from "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email" to "Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account." The article's URL was also changed to reflect the new headline. The Times story did not specifically say an inquiry of Clinton had been called for; Team Clinton demanded and got revisions to make that more clear. It seems to me that the Times story was reasonably accurate except for being only one IG recommending an inquiry, but that the Times agreed to change it for it being unnecessarily prejudicial as it is not a forgone conclusion that anything criminal occurred. However, the Newsweek cheerleader is conflating "criminal inquiry", meaning an inquiry as to possible criminal activity, with his own strawman "criminal referral", meaning evidence has been found of criminal activity. The Justice Department admitted that a criminal inquiry had been requested when it announced that it had not yet decided whether to grant one, no?

Please point to specific lines or conclusions in the Newsweek piece that you believe to be wrong. I'm interested to see what the color of the sky in your world is.

It is pretty hilarious to watch conservatives try and twist the NYT publishing an incorrect story about Hillary Clinton into a narrative about how the media is biased in her favor though.

My issue was with the cheerleading tone, such as "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." However:
The original post:

Original post, July 23, 11:56 p.m.: The Justice Department has been asked to open a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account while serving as Secretary of State and whether it criminally compromised classified information. The request was submitted by two inspectors general and is being reported by the New York Times.​

From the Newsweek donation-in-kind:

Two government inspectors general had made a criminal referral to the Justice Department about Clinton and her handling of the emails.​

As noted above, asking for a criminal inquiry is NOT making a criminal referral. Also from the Newsweek donation-in-kind:

The story was largely impenetrable, because at no point did it offer even a suggestion of what might constitute a crime.​

Given all the talk about this issue - what the cheerleader describes as 'a lot of partisan hullaballoo about “email-bogus-gate”' - it's patently obvious what crime might have been committed: mishandling of classified documents. If you wish to buy into the convenient idea that literally thousands of emails are so sensitive as to require classification now years later but were not in fact needing to be classified as they were ongoing, it's still a free country. You should expect moderate to heavy mocking, however.

As far as the media being biased toward Mrs. Clinton, it's pretty clear that Michael Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo are not big fans, although I fully expect them to become so once she's The Party's nominee. Even the Times' designated "conservatives" (whomever they are at the moment) are going to endorse Mrs. Clinton. It's been so at least since Sullivan patented his "I'm a conservative, but <insert progressive position here>". But Kurt Eichenwald isn't just carrying Hillary's water, he's carrying water personally produced by Hillary. Thus my amusement.

I should add that I am neither scandalized nor outraged by Hillary's treatment of her emails, nor by the Times walking back its article, nor by Newsweek's cheerleading. It's pretty much what I expected from each party, with the proviso that the Times is too big to keep every element singing from the same hymnal on every verse and thus the occasional non-party line may creep in. But when the old fat Gray Lady sings, we all know it's going to be in praise of whomever gets the Dem nod, including Hilary.

 

[fskimospy]

The NYT public editor seems to agree with the Newsweek opinion writer's assessment of their coverage:

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.c...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Although the NYT is so obviously biased towards Hillary that they are probably being biased against themselves when their coverage is biased against Hillary.

 

[Blackjack200]

The NYT public editor seems to agree with the Newsweek opinion writer's assessment of their coverage:

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.c...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Although the NYT is so obviously biased towards Hillary that they are probably being biased against themselves when their coverage is biased against Hillary.

Bottom line, this is yet another case of Times reporters relying on unnamed government sources and it blowing up in their face. They had the same issue with Snowden, publishing flat out lies about how his leaks aided ISIS.

Eventually they are going to have to decide if they have any journalistic standards at all.

“We got it wrong because our very good sources had it wrong,” Mr. Purdy told me. “That’s an explanation, not an excuse. We have an obligation to get facts right and we work very hard to do that.”

By Friday afternoon, the Justice Department issued a terse statement, saying that there had been a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information, stating clearly that it was not a criminal referral. Mr. Purdy says he remains puzzled about why the initial inaccurate information was confirmed so clearly. (Update: Other news outlets also got confirmation of the criminal referral as they followed The Times’s story. They did not report, as an earlier version of this post suggested, that she herself was the target of the referral.)

There are at least two major journalistic problems here, in my view. Competitive pressure and the desire for a scoop led to too much speed and not enough caution. Mr. Purdy told me that the reporters, whom he described as excellent and experienced, were “sent back again and again” to seek confirmation of the key elements; but while no one would discuss the specifics of who the sources were, my sense is that final confirmation came from the same person more than once.

 

[cabri]

Hidden behind the partisan bickery is will Lynch (Attorney General) act on the issue of classified material being on Clinton's unsecured server and people that may not be cleared (Security-wise) handling such information.

Is her allegiance to the United States, Obama or Clinton.
Remember that Bill also appointed her to a post.

 

[werepossum]

Lot of semantics being played here. For one, the manufactured difference between a criminal inquiry and a security referral. From the Washington Post's story:

The inspector general, I. Charles McCullough III, said in a separate statement that he had found information that should have been designated as classified in four e-mails out of a “limited sample” of 40 that his agency reviewed. As a result, he said, he made the “security referral,” acting under a federal law that requires alerting the FBI to any potential compromises of national security information.

“The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government’s possession,” McCullough said in a statement, which was also signed by the State Department’s inspector general, Steve A. Linick.

The private server is Clinton’s, and the thumb drive, containing 30,000 e-mails she turned over to the State Department, is in the possession of her attorney, David Kendall.​

Is the inference here that Clinton handled absolutely no classified emails during her tenure, but they all become magically classified once she resigns? If so, are we to assume that Mrs. Clinton has somehow been victimized by having her perfectly innocuous emails viciously classified, so we can't blame her for having classified information when she is no longer a government employee? Or are we perhaps to believe that leprechauns spirited that email server out of State and into her basement?

For another, the willful violation of security statutes is a crime. How long must we pretend that an inquiry on Mrs. Clinton's maintaining a private server in violation of federal statutes is not also an inquiry into possible criminal activity by Mrs. Clinton? We all know it's going nowhere. We all know the Pubbies will likely do the exact same thing, subverting the system for their own benefit and security. But I fail to see why we should pretend it didn't happen.

 

[Blackjack200]

Lot of semantics being played here. For one, the manufactured difference between a criminal inquiry and a security referral. From the Washington Post's story:

The inspector general, I. Charles McCullough III, said in a separate statement that he had found information that should have been designated as classified in four e-mails out of a “limited sample” of 40 that his agency reviewed. As a result, he said, he made the “security referral,” acting under a federal law that requires alerting the FBI to any potential compromises of national security information.

“The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government’s possession,” McCullough said in a statement, which was also signed by the State Department’s inspector general, Steve A. Linick.

The private server is Clinton’s, and the thumb drive, containing 30,000 e-mails she turned over to the State Department, is in the possession of her attorney, David Kendall.​

Is the inference here that Clinton handled absolutely no classified emails during her tenure, but they all become magically classified once she resigns? If so, are we to assume that Mrs. Clinton has somehow been victimized by having her perfectly innocuous emails viciously classified, so we can't blame her for having classified information when she is no longer a government employee? Or are we perhaps to believe that leprechauns spirited that email server out of State and into her basement?

For another, the willful violation of security statutes is a crime. How long must we pretend that an inquiry on Mrs. Clinton's maintaining a private server in violation of federal statutes is not also an inquiry into possible criminal activity by Mrs. Clinton? We all know it's going nowhere. We all know the Pubbies will likely do the exact same thing, subverting the system for their own benefit and security. But I fail to see why we should pretend it didn't happen.

The inference here is that there is no criminal investigation at this point. You may feel that the current inquiry is essentially no different from a criminal investigation, but when the Times reported it on Thursday evening it was a sensational story, and it was wrong.

 

[werepossum]

The inference here is that there is no criminal investigation at this point. You may feel that the current inquiry is essentially no different from a criminal investigation, but when the Times reported it on Thursday evening it was a sensational story, and it was wrong.

So is there anything at all that Mrs. Clinton could do that would lose her your support, keeping in mind that she would be doing it to keep Republicans out of power?

 

[Blackjack200]

I actually support Bernie Sanders.

But if you're asking me if the politicized Benghazi/E-mail manufactured scandals would dissuade me from voting for Clinton, the answer is no.

 

[Jhhnn]

the Times is too big to keep every element singing from the same hymnal on every verse and thus the occasional non-party line may creep in. But when the old fat Gray Lady sings, we all know it's going to be in praise of whomever gets the Dem nod, including Hilary.

As will every sane editorial staff in the Country.

It looks to me like Repubs will have trouble getting it up this time around, let alone getting it in.

 

[Jhhnn]

Lot of semantics being played here. For one, the manufactured difference between a criminal inquiry and a security referral. From the Washington Post's story:

The inspector general, I. Charles McCullough III, said in a separate statement that he had found information that should have been designated as classified in four e-mails out of a “limited sample” of 40 that his agency reviewed. As a result, he said, he made the “security referral,” acting under a federal law that requires alerting the FBI to any potential compromises of national security information.

“The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government’s possession,” McCullough said in a statement, which was also signed by the State Department’s inspector general, Steve A. Linick.

The private server is Clinton’s, and the thumb drive, containing 30,000 e-mails she turned over to the State Department, is in the possession of her attorney, David Kendall.​

Is the inference here that Clinton handled absolutely no classified emails during her tenure, but they all become magically classified once she resigns? If so, are we to assume that Mrs. Clinton has somehow been victimized by having her perfectly innocuous emails viciously classified, so we can't blame her for having classified information when she is no longer a government employee? Or are we perhaps to believe that leprechauns spirited that email server out of State and into her basement?

For another, the willful violation of security statutes is a crime. How long must we pretend that an inquiry on Mrs. Clinton's maintaining a private server in violation of federal statutes is not also an inquiry into possible criminal activity by Mrs. Clinton? We all know it's going nowhere. We all know the Pubbies will likely do the exact same thing, subverting the system for their own benefit and security. But I fail to see why we should pretend it didn't happen.

Cite that statute, OK?

If it could be done, I suspect it would have happened a long time ago.

 

[werepossum]

I actually support Bernie Sanders.

But if you're asking me if the politicized Benghazi/E-mail manufactured scandals would dissuade me from voting for Clinton, the answer is no.

That is patently obvious. I was simply morbidly curious if you could even imagine some theoretical point at which it might not be so. Mrs. Clinton enriching herself off those wanting something from the US government doesn't do it. Mrs. Clinton running her own email server from her basement for her own benefit in violation of federal policy doesn't do it.

As will every sane editorial staff in the Country.

It looks to me like Repubs will have trouble getting it up this time around, let alone getting it in.

This time, last time, next time, every time. And yeah, nobody fucks America like the Dems. They have a permanent boner for us.

 

[werepossum]

Cite that statute, OK?

If it could be done, I suspect it would have happened a long time ago.

The policy has been cited on these boards. If you wish to believe that SecState running her own email server from her basement is normal and good and healthy for our country, it's still a free country and people can believe whatever idiocy they wish.

 

[Jhhnn]

The policy has been cited on these boards. If you wish to believe that SecState running her own email server from her basement is normal and good and healthy for our country, it's still a free country and people can believe whatever idiocy they wish.

Nice dodge. Policy & law aren't necessarily the same things, are they?

In order for something to be deemed criminal, it must violate a specific law.

Obviously no such law exists or Right Wing sources would refer directly to it.

You know, as in the Plame affair.

 

[werepossum]

Nice dodge. Policy & law aren't necessarily the same things, are they?

In order for something to be deemed criminal, it must violate a specific law.

Obviously no such law exists or Right Wing sources would refer directly to it.

You know, as in the Plame affair.

I recommend you take your foamy wrath directly to Charles McCullough III. I am sure he will be relieved to know that Mrs. Clinton can do whatever the fuck she wishes to do and he should just chill.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Nice dodge. Policy & law aren't necessarily the same things, are they?

In order for something to be deemed criminal, it must violate a specific law.

Obviously no such law exists or Right Wing sources would refer directly to it.

You know, as in the Plame affair.

Sounds like you're dodging now. Aside from policy or law do you think her practice was ethical or even prudent? Or, is this just more about right vs. left? Just curious....

 

[unokitty]

Hillary Clinton's email could become a criminal matter

The Committee appreciates that Inspectors General appointed by President Obama have confirmed this is a serious and nonpartisan national security matter by any objective measure.&#8221; In the South Carolina Republican&#8217;s opinion, &#8220;these issues should be evaluated under the same strict standards that would apply to anyone found to be in possession of classified information outside of an approved system.&#8221;

Hapless Obama White House betrayed by Hillary Clinton&#8217;s callousness

The editorial determination to either frame Clinton as a victim of circumstance or Obama as a victim of Clinton ...

Obama victimized by Hillary?

Hillary victimized by Obama Administration?

Mutual victimization?

Anyway, anyone else find it interesting that it was the Obama Administration, rather than the Republicans, leaked the story of Hilary&#8217;s email server to the press?

Kind of makes you wonder what else that Valerie Jarrett knows that hasn't come out yet, don't it?


Uno

 

[Jhhnn]

I recommend you take your foamy wrath directly to Charles McCullough III. I am sure he will be relieved to know that Mrs. Clinton can do whatever the fuck she wishes to do and he should just chill.

I asked a polite question for which you obviously have no answer. Apparently McCullouch can't answer either or the complaint would be specific. It's more fishing & posturing all around.

More Benghazi.