New York Times Writes Badass Slash Fiction About Hillary Clinton Criminal Investigation
In its pathological Liberal Media quest to catch Billary Clinton Doing Some Kind of Bad Thing That Is Bad Maybe, the New York Times published a devastating, campaign-destroying, earth-shattering, game-changing, smoking gun GOTCHA! story late Thursday night, and it was Not Excellent News for Hillary:
Criminal Inquiry Sought in Clinton’s Use of Email
Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.
That sounds pretty uh oh. Criminal, even! Hillary will never be president now because she will be in PRISON, for emailing sensitive classified state secrets from her personal GrammaYOLO@Hillz.com email, even though she said she only used it to plan her daughter's wedding and talk about yoga. But no! She used it for doing crime and jeopardizing national security. Bad Hillary, no White House for you!
Just one little problem: it's not true, according to the Justice Department. Oops!
A statement issued by the Department said it had received a “referral” on the matter, although it did not say who originated it.
“It is not a criminal referral,” the statement said.
But what about looking into Hillary's "use of email"? Nope, that's not true either:
The Justice Department said Friday it has been asked to investigate the “potential compromise of classified information” in connection with the private e-mail account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used while serving as secretary of state.
That's a little bit different from saying Hillary Clinton might be criminally investigated for emailing classified information, isn't it? As the Times noted in its shocking story:
In the course of the email review, State Department officials determined that some information in the messages should be retroactively classified. In the 3,000 pages that were released, for example, portions of two dozen emails were redacted because they were upgraded to “classified status.” But none of those were marked as classified at the time Mrs. Clinton handled them.
So the State Department is retroactively classifying documents Hillary emailed, which were not classified at the time, but that adds up to criminal activity by Clinton, and the DOJ is ON IT, except not? Ace reporting there, The New York Times!
The paper eventually decided it regrets the error of getting the whole thing wrong, so it changed the headline and the lede and the story, and added a "correction," and it is very sorry about that, we good now?
But the interweb is forever, so you can see the changes from the original story here, thanks to NewsDiffs.
So, how did the Times fuck this up so badly? Well, it got some secret memos. Can't tell you how, it is a SECRET. But Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings, who is a member of the House Benghazi Committee To Investigate Hillary Clinton Until They Prove She Did Benghazi, thinks he might know:
In a statement, Cummings said that “this is the latest example in a series of inaccurate leaks to generate false front-page headlines — only to be corrected later — and they have absolutely nothing to do with the attacks in Benghazi or protecting our diplomatic corps overseas.”
So hmm, maybe Republicans are leaking information to the Times to try to turn a story that isn't a story into a story, for their own political gain. But nah, they would never do something like that, would they? And the Times would never play along, would it? (Yes and yes.)
So never mind. But wow, that sure was exciting for a hot minute, wasn't it? Nice try, The NYT, better luck next time. Again.