When the Hillary Clinton email scandal first broke, Hillary’s claims that she conducted her entire job as Secretary of State without classified information being transmitted through her private server and email account did not seem plausible to me.

I said at the time that there was a Bigger Question: Did Hillary use unsecured email for Classified Info?:

As Secretary of State, Hillary presumably received classified and other protected information via email at least on occasion, since it was her only email account. That distinguishes her from predecessors, who at least had government email accounts.

We need more facts on her usage, but if Hillary maintained classified documents (including emails) on an unclassified computer device and email account, that could raise much more serious issues than the records violation….

As Hillary heads towards the presumptive Democratic nomination for President, we need to know what Hillary did with her email account, and when did she do it.

Initially, the press accepted at face value Hillary’s claim that there was no transmission of classified information from her private server/email account.

Slowly, it has been revealed that Yes, Hillary’s emails did contain classified information.

Now two federal Inspectors General have demanded a criminal investigation Hillary, as reported first by The NY Times last night.

“Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email” was the original headline used by theTimes to describe the demand for a criminal investigation. But then a funny thing happened, the Times changed the story in a way more favorable to Hillary, and also changed the url to bury the links to the prior story, all without notice to anyone of the change.

As Politico reports, New York Times alters Clinton email story:

The New York Times made small but significant changes to an exclusive report about a potential criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s State Department email account late Thursday night, but provided no notification of or explanation for of the changes.

The paper initially reported that 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.”

That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry “into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state.”

The Times also 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,” reflecting a similar recasting of Clinton’s possible role. The article’s URL was also changed to reflect the new headline.

https://twitter.com/LegInsurrection/status/624609605046288388

Daily Kos notes the pervasive NY Times deception:

Here’s the first paragraph of an article the New York Times published shortly before midnight Eastern Time on Thursday night, preserved in digital amber by the invaluable NewsDiffs:

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.

And here’s the lede as it was rewritten—in dramatic fashion—an hour later:

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.

Emphasis added in both instances, and boy could that emphasis not be more different. In the first version, Times reporters Michael Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo say that these nameless government officials are basing their request on possible misdeeds Clinton herself is alleged to have committed; in the latter, that’s transformed into an incredibly vague construction: “mishandled in connection with.” What does “in connection with” even mean? It could mean almost anything.

What’s more, this major alteration was made without any notice to the reader. On top of that, the Times even changed the URL (the old one now redirects to the new one). If it weren’t for NewsDiffs and assiduous observers like Zeke Miller, this big edit might have gotten flushed down the memory hole. But in this day and age, fortunately, that sort of shenanigan is difficult to pull off, and “paper of record” will have plenty to answer for Friday morning.

How did it all happen? The Clinton campaign pressured the NY Times for changes:

https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/624566426569936896

Hillary can’t be bothered with all this, she has more important things to do:

https://twitter.com/danmericaCNN/status/624638050891644929

Hillary is setting up the defense — sure, it was my server and email account, but prove it was ME. Just like it depends on what is the meaning of “is”:

https://twitter.com/ClosedPress/status/624613155985993728

Now you must choose.

Who is more deceptive, Hillary Clinton or The NY Times? (You must choose one, sorry.)

Poll open until 3 a.m. Eastern, Sunday, July 26, 2015.



UPDATE July 25, 2015: Sometime today, the NY Times added this “correction”:

Correction: July 25, 2015

An article and a headline in some editions on Friday about a request to the Justice Department for an investigation regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state misstated the nature of the request, using information from senior government officials. It addressed the potential compromise of classified information in connection with that email account. It did not specifically request an investigation into Mrs. Clinton.

In addition, government officials who initially said the request was for a criminal investigation later said it was not a “criminal referral” but a “security referral” pertaining to possible mishandling of classified information.

That seems like a non-correction to me. It was a referral regarding potentially criminal conduct with regard to the handling of classified information in Hillary’s email account. So whether or not it was labeled “criminal referral” or “security referral,” it regarded potentially criminal conduct.

Amazing how the NY Times got bullied by the Clinton machine.