[Jim Noble]

The shadow war between Team Clinton and Team Obama breaks into the open.

Smell the fear.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

The Clinton Crime Foundation has the NYT as their character witness.

[FlipWilson]

Editors Note:

Really, it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is. Is a classified document truly classified if it is not marked as such? Rest assured loyal readers, we will be bending over in pretzels to argue that it is NOT. We will continue to stand on watch for Mrs. Clinton until such time as she is toast and/or a better candidate emerges.

[P.O.E.]

The human pretzel that exemplifies the left.

[Steely Tom]

Yeah, I often get confused when I listen to a bunch of BS artists lie in my face.

[allendale]

Clinton was using a private server. How hard was it for the Chinese and Russians to hack? They now know more about Hillary than Bill.

[Colonel_Flagg]

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.

Translation: "We really meant to whitewash this for Hillary from the beginning. We goofed. We're sorry."

[basil]

NO MORE BUSH’ES!

[Liz]

NOTE TO NYT EDITORS RE: Clinton Email Coverage

Did you report to your readers that a high government official (particularly the Secy of State) to utilize day to day a non government computer for communications in the performance of their job is in violation of security laws in dozens of ways?

Did you factor into your report that emails emanating from Hillary's private server contained classified ntl security data?

Did you bother to determine that the US govt tech system is really fussy----particularly about emails from the US State Dept?

Did you determine that a govt official (particularly the Secy of State) cannot simply buy a brand new computer with licenses and programs and expect to have it certified?

Did you report that US govt officials are required to have a government-purchased computer, set up by the govt, utilizing a CACC card cleared technician?

Last but not least---would you have been this accommodating if the subject of your story was a Republican?

=============================================

Contact The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018
Tel: (212) 556-7777
Fax: (212) 556-7088 or (212) 556-5830

EMAIL FORM PAGE
https://myaccount.nytimes.com/membercenter/help.html

[justa-hairyape]

There it is. 1984 newsspeak right out in the open.

[Timber Rattler]

Shortly after the article was published online, however, aides to Mrs. Clinton contacted one reporter to dispute the account.

'nuff said, and the Slimes obliged by changing the story.

Hillary Clinton Operatives Bracing For “Clinton Collapse”

“Get Amy! Somebody get Amy on this!”

Amy being a likely reference to New York Times reporter, Amy Chozick, a particularly Clinton-friendly advocate at that influential publication.

A D.C. Whispers source had this to say regarding Mrs. Clinton’s view of the modern media:

“She doesn’t understand how it works. She still thinks the New York Times is the end-all, be-all regarding media coverage and because they (the Clinton Machine) pretty much control how the Times covers them, she feels she controls her own media destiny and when that doesn’t happen, it infuriates her. She gets very angry very quickly and it’s a particularly aggressive kind of nasty on her part.”

[Mannaggia l'America]

But later in the day, the Justice Department and the inspectors general said that the request was not a “criminal referral” but rather a “security referral,” meant to alert the F.B.I. about a potential mishandling of classified information. It was not clear how the discrepancy arose.

Maybe not clear to the NY Slimes, part of the Democrat-Media Complex. But it's obvious.

The Hillary apparatus first called someone in Obama DOJ, who got the FBI to change it to a "security referral", then once that was in hand, the NY Slimes reporter was called, to tell the report to check with the FBI because the story was wrong.