====================================================
NOTE TO NYT EDITORS RE: clarification of your Clinton Email Coverage (reprinted below)
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?
Did you advise your readers that even the calendar of the Secy of State is considered classified information?
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
===============================================
NY TIMES CLARIFICATION REPRINT: The Times reported online Thursday night (and in some print editions Friday) that the State Department IG ---and US intelligence agencies had sent a referral to the Justice Department requesting a “criminal investigation” into whether Mrs. Clinton “mishandled sensitive government information” on the email account. That article was based on multiple high-level government sources.
Shortly after the article was published online, however, aides to Mrs. Clinton contacted one reporter to dispute the account. After consultation between editors and reporters, the first paragraph was edited to say the investigation was requested “into whether sensitive government information was mishandled,” rather than into whether Mrs. Clinton herself mishandled information. That type of substantive change should have been noted immediately for readers; instead, a correction was not appended to the article until hours later.
On Friday, another question arose — whether the investigation being sought was a “criminal” inquiry. As other news organizations followed up on The Times’s report, the Justice Department confirmed to them that a “criminal” investigation had been requested. Officials also gave that description again to Times reporters who were rechecking their initial story. 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.
——contained classified ntl security data-——
that is the crux of the matter. Since day one eons ago in the 90’s, the 60’s mindset was that there was no need for security. Everything was over classified.
Hillary can thus say truthfully that the emails were not classified because she classified nothing. That is where “contained” becomes operative. Hillary received classified material and then commented on it in her e mail that she without doubt insisted not be classified.
In WW II she would have been quietly exterminated. She now needs to be quietly exterminated
Congress warned: Hillary’s e-mails likely contained hundreds of exposures of classified nat-sec data