Supplemental: Can this possibly be true?

FRIDAY, JULY 24, 2015

The New York Times does it again:
At 10:25 this morning, Kevin Drum basically said that the Times had done it again.

The Times had written a front-page report about Candidate Clinton. The exciting report had opened with a startling claim:

“Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information....”

Say what? Two inspectors general had requested a criminal probe of Candidate Clinton? The claim sounded very dire. Then, as always, the story changed! The new version of the Times front-page report was suddenly starting like this:

“Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled....”

The alleged criminal probe was no longer centered on Clinton.

Drum thought this apparent bungle by the Times was worth a post all by itself. His post carried this headline:

“Hillary vs. the Press, Round One Million: The Times Screws Up a Scoop.”

Now, the story seems to have changed again! From the AP and the Washington Post on down, numerous news orgs are now reporting that no one ever requested a criminal probe at all.

You can forget your Times front page. Apparently, there never was a request for a criminal probe.

The New York Times defies belief. This has long been the case.

That said, a general code of silence has long surrounded this newspaper’s deeply peculiar workings. Within the guild, one doesn’t discuss the things the mighty New York Times does.

This morning, Kevin Drum did! We have his next headline for him right here:

“The New York Times vs. Clinton/Gore/Clinton, Round One Million and One.”

92 comments:

  1. They may make a mistake or two but generally the Time's coverage is fair and often very, very compelling as Times readers know. They are pleated

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Badly bungled but pleated.

      Delete
    2. I though pleats were out this year.

      Delete
  2. The NYT made a total commitment to liberal bias when Pinch Sulzberger became the publisher.

    Review of William McGowan’s new book, Gray Lady Down:

    ""Author William McGowan has compiled a timely indictment of how the paper lost its way. He catalogs well-known mistakes and the cheerleading and other none-too-subtle ways it puts its thumb on the scales of key stories. He shows how its news coverage of President Obama, gay marriage, immigration, the military, the Duke "rape" case, radicalized Muslims, the Ground Zero mosque, and the war on terror are riddled with omissions, distortions and biases. McGowan blames "an insular group-think" for turning the paper "into a tattered symbol of liberal orthodoxy," adding, "How deeply compromised its principles have become are questions inextricably entwined with the Times' ideological commitments."
    — Michael Goodwin, New York Post

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Didn't they blow it on the Wilson Segregated Washington story as well? And don't get me started on the Byrd is a Klansman coverup,

      Delete
    2. You would imagine that a Princeton Professor and POTUS being a racist might have caught the attention of Punch Sulzberger if not Pinch.

      Delete
  3. I am glad the Justice Department is only being asked to investigate the way classified material was mishandled on the private Email account Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chose for her own use rather than investigating the way she mishandled classified information on the private Email account she chose for her own use.

    This way they are looking at whether she took the initiative in creating the account which mishandled the information instead of whether she invented the mishandling of the information.

    Safe, Smart, Convenient
    Clinton 2016!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about, but that never stopped you before.
      This story has nothing to do with how "classified material was mishandled on the private Email account Secretary of State Hillary Clinton"

      It's so funny watching you wingnuts time and time again so sure you got her only to open your clenched fist and discover there's nothing there.

      Delete
    2. cicero's blowup dollJuly 24, 2015 at 5:55 PM

      Rep. Elijah Cummings:

      I spoke personally to the State Department Inspector General on Thursday, and he said he never asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation of Secretary Clinton's email usage,” Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said Friday in a statement.
      Instead, State Inspector General Steve A. Linick, “told me the Intelligence Community IG notified the Justice Department and Congress that they identified classified information in a few emails that were part of the [Freedom of Information Act] review, and that none of those emails had been previously marked as classified."

      Delete

    3. Only a Bobolean of the first order would write what mm just wrote:

      "This story has nothing to do with how "classified material was mishandled on the private Email account Secretary of State Hillary Clinton"

      I guess Bob fooled you by disappearing the headline and dropping Clinton out of the first part of the lede.....

      The new, improved, much better for Hillary New York Times article, headline and all, now reads

      Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account

      WASHINGTON — Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled.....(here is where Somerby stopped).... in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.

      Of course the Clinton campaign defly handles this:

      "The Justice Department has not decided if it will open an investigation, senior officials said. A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign declined to comment."

      I gotta admit, mm. It was convenient to keep that yoga stuff mixed with news from Tripoli. What's a busy daughter/mom/wife to do? Carry two devices when Colin Powell didn't have to? Heck Karl Rove didn't go to jail. over those lost Emails.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/us/politics/criminal-inquiry-is-sought-in-hillary-clinton-email-account

      Delete
    4. cicero's blowup dollJuly 24, 2015 at 6:01 PM

      Only a wingnutean of the first order would write what Anonymous @5:56 pm just wrote:

      Rep. Elijah Cummings:

      I spoke personally to the State Department Inspector General on Thursday, and he said he never asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation of Secretary Clinton's email usage,” Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said Friday in a statement.
      Instead, State Inspector General Steve A. Linick, “told me the Intelligence Community IG notified the Justice Department and Congress that they identified classified information in a few emails that were part of the [Freedom of Information Act] review, and that none of those emails had been previously marked as classified."

      Delete
    5. Ah, yes, c'sbd, Cummings did say that. Here is the headline and another quote from the CNN article in which Cummings statement can be found:

      "Official: Clinton emails included classified information

      Sources confirmed both inspectors general have asked DOJ to open an investigation. The inspectors general are independent officials who conduct audits, investigations and inspections in the agencies for which they're responsible.

      There has not yet been a decision on whether to launch a criminal probe."

      Same line from Slate:

      "Officials at the Justice Department say no decision has been made on whether to launch a criminal investigation."

      http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/23/criminal_investigation_sought_over_hillary_clinton_s_state_department_email.html

      The DOJ will now have to decide and announce what it plans to do. Once they do, the next step is a call for a Special Prosecutor. All because someone with Hillary Clinton's intelligence and experience decided to do something "for convenience." And sadly, those closest to her, including the Big Dog himself, didn't have the sense to see
      the convenient thing was quite the stupid thing as well.

      And of course that last judgement is based on taking her word on the convenience explanation. Which I do. Because I'm a wingnut.

      Delete
    6. "The DOJ will now have to decide and announce what it plans to do. Once they do, the next step is a call for a Special Prosecutor."

      You're missing a rather key fact. What is the theoretical crime? Get back to me after thoroughly searching your ass.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous @ 6:36 PM - you might want to see a proctologist for all that butthurt you have.

      Delete
    8. Secretarys Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used PUBLIC servers (rented by the RNC) and PRIVATE emails (provided by the RNC) and turned NONE of them over to the state dept.
      100% OF THESE EMAILS WERE DESTROYED (by the RNC)
      RWNJs are such total screaming hypocrites

      Delete
  4. TDH asks a rhetorical question.

    "Can this possibly be true?"

    and then answers his own question,

    "The New York Times defies belief. This has long been the case."

    Unfortunately, the NY Times can stretch back and confidently say,
    mission accomplished.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can this possibly be true?

      Hillary Clinton suffered through the 90's and the Times investigations of her own screwy business relationships, witnessed the press hair tearing over the RNC maintained Bush Email server controversy and then have the chutzpah to say she did it for the convenience?

      Delete
    2. @ mm

      HRC calls up the NYT in a hysterical fit, and faster than you can say Sydney Blumenthal, the NYT changes this:

      "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email”

      "..into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state.”

      THIS:

      “Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account"

      “into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state.”


      Imagine any Republican getting the NYT to change a headline or even a name misspelling.

      Delete
    3. cicero sez, "I much prefer the false story cause I'm a jackass.

      Delete
    4. @mm

      The false story? Whom do you think is responsible for HRC's email account? Hint: It's the same person whom the NYT mentioned in their initial headline. That the NYT attempted to make the identity nebulous could only confuse a Clintonista.

      Delete
    5. mm prefers to take on cicero rather than admit that the story was caused by a Clinton decision that nobody forced her to make.

      Delete
    6. Yes, she could have just given everyone the middle finger like Colin Powell when asked for his emails. That would have made everything go away.

      Delete
    7. cicero, you wingnut jackass, the email account is old news.

      The NY Times fucked up. Deal with it.

      Delete
    8. @mm

      The NYT long history of printing all the news that's fibbed to print. is old news. Were you complaining about the NYT story that "exposed" Mark Rubio's driving record.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/11/even-the-daily-show-is-taking-marco-rubios-side-on-the-new-york-times-stories-on-his-tickets-and-spending/

      Powell was not running for POTUS. In 2005, after Powell left office, the State Department updated the Foreign Affairs manual to say that day-to-day operations should be conducted on the authorized system. So explain again how HRC should flip off everybody when Powell was not operating under the rules that were in place when HRC was at Foggy Bottom.

      This is your notion of Powell giving everyone the finger?

      “I don’t have any to turn over. I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files,” Colin Powell

      Delete
    9. Once again our pet rightwing-nut proves he can't do research. At least anything more recent than, say 50 BC.

      Report: “Officials seek criminal probe of Hillary Clinton e-mail account.”
      Washington Post Fred Barbash July 24 at 1:05 PM
      “Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled sensitive information through her private e-mail account, according to the New York Times.
      The Times, citing unnamed “senior government officials,” said Thursday night that the requests had come from the inspectors general for the State Department and intelligence agencies. They concluded that Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails,” according to the Times.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/24/report-officials-seek-criminal-probe-of-hillary-clinton-email-account/?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1

      “Probe sought into possible ‘classified’ details in Clinton private e-mails”
      Washington Post Sari Horwitz, Anne Gearan and Karen DeYoung July 24 at 12:56 PM
      “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.
      A statement issued by the Department said it had received a “referral” on the matter, although it did not say whom it had come from.
      “It is not a criminal referral,” the statement said.
      Justice officials also said that no decision has yet been made about whether to open an investigation.
      The statement came after media reports — initially confirmed to The Washington Post by Justice Department officials — that a criminal investigation was being considered. The New York Times first reported Thursday that the inspectors general of the State Department and the intelligence agencies had asked for a criminal investigation related to Clinton’s e-mail account.”

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/criminal-probe-sought-into-clinton-private-e-mails-for-suspected-sensitive-content/2015/07/24/b90bf598-31f8-11e5-97ae-30a30cca95d7_story.html

      Read it and weep.

      Delete
    10. cicero only gets paid for piecework. Research is not billable.

      Delete
    11. @ gravymeister

      You should concentrate on stirring to prevent curdling.
      What does that WaPo headline have to do with mm's fascination with Powell's Foggy Bottom emails or NYT taking out the word "use" from it's headline?

      Delete
    12. “I don’t have any to turn over. I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files,” Colin Powell

      Right. Why didn't he preserve them? He was conducting official government business. What about all the future FOIA demands from the press? That's what all this phony outrage from wingnut land is all about right? The press precious right to look at all the SoS work product. Colin Powell's emails are gone, poof, nothing to see here folks. But Clinton turns over 55000 pages of email and there's universal outrage that she might be hiding some? Right?

      Everyone using the State Department email server right now, today, has to right to delete anything personal they and they alone determine is not related to their official government work.

      Delete
    13. @mm

      Are you being deliberately obtuse?

      1) Powell did not use a private server stashed in his home. HRC has still not explained what was the purpose of exclusively using this Chappaqua server.

      Here is Powell's complete explanation of the email system he used while at Foggy Bottom:

      POWELL: I — I can’t speak to a — Mrs. Clinton and what she should do now. That would be inappropriate.

      What I did when I entered the State Department, I found an antiquated system that had to be modernized and modernized quickly.

      So we put in place new systems, bought 44,000 computers and put a new Internet capable computer on every single desk in every embassy, every office in the State Department. And then I connected it with software.

      But in order to change the culture, to change the brainware, as I call it, I started using it in order to get everybody to use it, so we could be a 21st century institution and not a 19th century.

      But I retained none of those e-mails and we are working with the State Department to see if there’s anything else they want to discuss with me about those e-mails.


      2) In 2009, the year Clinton became secretary, federal regulations codified what experts say was a long-held assumption that a contemporary transfer to archives is required of personal e-mails used for official business

      3) HRC had her minions delete 30,000 emails. We do not know how many of those contained classified information nor do we know if her minions had the proper security clearance to read them.

      Delete
    14. cicero, you are an idiot wingnut jackass.

      You mean Powell didn't print out important work related emails and preserve them for posterity and future FOIA requests from the NY Times? Oh the humanity!

      Powell fucked up and all of his SoS work related emails that he sent or received on his private account and are gone forever. No one will ever know what has been lost to history and future FOIA requests, but Democrats aren't hounding him to the Gates of Hell over it. Shit happens.

      I've been printing and filing my emails in the normal course of my job all through the 90's. It's just fucking common sense.

      Hillary did just that also, and has turned them all over to the state department. That is what this latest fracas is about. This is an in fight between the people at the State Department who are reviewing the emails and releasing them to the public, just what you and your fellow wingnuts have been demanding to see, and the IG who have determined that parts of a couple of those emails released to the public had been retroactively classified.

      This latest debacle by the NY Times was a story that had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. You still don't get that.

      Delete
    15. @mm

      Private email account is not the same as an exclusive private server operating out of the Secretary's home in New York. Even Powell couldn't fathom why HRC went to such lengths to keep her control of her communications when as a civil service employee they are property of the government and the people. To insist that half of her emails were not related to government business is absurd. Bill Clinton has sent the total of two emails his entire life.

      Why would Democrats hound Powell anymore than they do HRC? Powell voted for Obama, twice, and has supported everything the Obama Administration has done.

      HRC did not turn over everything she was supposed to as we have seen in the emails she sent Sydney Blumenthal that he turned over reluctantly.

      The NYT story has to do with HRC's emails being investigated, but not HRC? So liberals are back to being excited about HRC's campaign? How long before VP Biden and or JFK(Kerry) get in the race?

      Delete
  5. Clinton made a major speech today outlining her economic policy. The NY Times coincidentally features another bombshell hit piece against her, again without substance, calculated to distract attention from her campaign efforts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And it worked like a charm. Not a second of her policy speech on the news, just an endless loop of the part where she talks about the LIES in the NY Times story. The NY Times did not even see the document sent by the IG, they simply took dictation from unnamed "senior government officials" (hello Trey)

      Watch if you can the NY Times hack MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT sputtering incoherently trying to explain to Chris Matthews why this was a front page story.

      Headline, still up on the NY Times website;

      "Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account"

      Not a single word in the story explaining what the "crime" might be.

      NY Times JEB(!) - mission accomplished.

      Delete
    2. And of course you were apoplectic over the 2008 NYT bogus above the fold front page story about a telecommunications lobbyist having an affair with McCain during his first run for the White House in 1999.

      Ask General David Petraeus about Defense Department's inspector general inquiry into his handling of classified information. He was sentenced to two years’ probation and fined $100,000 for leaking classified information.

      Delete
    3. I don't know anyone who cared whether or who John McCain had an affair with. I don't give a rat's ass that he left his first wife. Whoring himself out to a crooked banker, as he did, is bad enough.

      Delete
    4. @ 11:31

      The NYT not only figured their readers cared, they published a story that was completely fabricated. The NYT retraction was buried. It didn't appear on the front page. Such deference is only accorded to liberal politicians like HRC.

      Delete
  6. There is an unresolved duality to this story. Maybe the Times harmed Hillary by falsely reporting that two inspectors general requested a criminal probe of Hillary's conduct. OTOH maybe there really was a formal recommendation for a criminal probe, but it was unreported or under-reported by a subservient, liberal-biased media.

    We don't know which interpretation is correct, because there are no independent facts to check it against. AFAIK there have been no public statements by the two (alleged) inspectors general. We haven't seen a copy of their alleged recommendation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David, your brain is an unresolved duality.

      "We haven't seen a copy of their alleged recommendation."

      Because the NY Times decided to once again run with a false front page headline,
      "Criminal Inquiry Sought In Clinton's Use Of Email"

      before doing their professional due diligence by obtaining the actual IG memo.

      This is a clear cut and dried case of the NY Times fucking up royally in the campaign to take down Hillary.


      *******************
      The Times also cited "senior government officials" as its source for the claim that two inspectors general had called for a DOJ criminal probe into Clinton's actions. The article also cites two "memos" from inspectors general on the topic, which were provided to the Times and which were apparently sent before the referral itself. On Twitter, Clinton campaign aide Brian Fallon noted that he was unaware of any reporter "who has actually seen a referral" like the one described by the Times.
      *************http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/24/the-unanswered-questions-from-the-ny-times-debu/204589

      Delete
  7. Fortunately, most voters are not paying any attention to these pseudo scandals. These are exciting to Republicans but they aren't going to vote for Clinton anyway. Others just look at it as another confusing mess aimed at the Clintons that can be ignored. Later, they will decide based on personal impression or the debates or a comparison of positions on issues. Conservatives make this all so murky people give up and write it off as noise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This kind of thing only seemed to work against Al Gore for some reason?

      Delete
    2. "Fortunately, most voters are not paying any attention to these pseudo scandals."

      Whether that's true or not doesn't mean TDH is not right to highlight the absolute clusterfuck travesty that is the NY Times.

      Take a look at the hack from the NY Times hopeless incoherent attempts to answer Chris Matthews' simple question. There is no doubt about it, this is a reporter with an agenda and no objectivity.

      http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/07/24/ny-times-reporter-cant-answer-chris-matthews-si/204593

      Delete
    3. You can't possible be suggesting Chris "Almost Got Somebody Killed" did something sort of journalistically correct in a matter which involved Guild Rules as described here in very clear terms by Bob Somerby.

      Delete
    4. That's right, play games, make jokes, do anything to ignore the focus of this post by TDH.

      Delete
    5. So I just imagined Bob Somerby was talking about Guild Rules?

      Delete
  8. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-new-york-times-clinton-email-controversy-timeline

    ReplyDelete
  9. Just think of the NYT as a paper put out by 10 year olds, every article is a very rough draft, and you'll find your complaints about it fall dramatically.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I wonder why Somerby chose to leave these words from "Uncle Drum" out of this particular post:

    "The feud between Hillary and the press is sort of like the Hatfields and McCoys: it's now so old, and so deeply ingrained, that it's almost impossible to tell who's more at fault. The press learned to deeply mistrust the Clintons during the 90s, sometimes with cause, and the Clintons learned to deeply mistrust the press at the same time, also sometimes with cause. The result is that Hillary does everything she can to shield herself from the press, and the press assumes that everything she does has some kind of sinister motive. Meanwhile, Republicans sit back and fan the flames, just as you'd expect them to."

    Drum was not only right on top of this story, he seems to take a "non-tribal" view of Tribe Clinton and Tribe Press.

    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/07/hillary-vs-press-round-one-million-times-screws-scoop

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think the press "learned to deeply mistrust the Clintons". I think they were out to get the Clintons even back then. The Clintons were pretty much the same as any new President and First Lady except they had a coordinated right wing vendetta against them to deal with, abetted by the press from the beginning. The press got burned repeatedly because their attempts to pillory the Clintons kept backfiring, but that wasn't because of the Clintons -- it was because the info fed to the press by the right wing lacked substance.

      People refer to the Hatfields & McCoys as if it were some incomprehensible family fight. It had its origins in the split between defenders of England and those who wanted independence, and continued because of a split between North and South in the Civil War. With large extended families, it is inevitable various relatives will take different sides on these deep divides, but the taking of sides was confounded with actual war, leading to long-held animosities between the two clans.

      You seem to think the Clintons have no basis for being defensive. I think it is just common sense that they would not want to play into the hands of those who are determined to destroy them politically, abetted by the press. There has been a documented "vast, right-wing conspiracy" just as Hillary Clinton claimed back when it was all going on during Bill Clinton's presidency. She has every right to prevent the right and other candidates from undermining her campaign.

      Delete
  11. When you get right down to the nitty gritty, even the slow can eventually see this isn't a story about Prince Charles.

    "This story has nothing to do with how "classified material was mishandled on the private Email account Secretary of State Hillary Clinton"

    mm @ 5: 56 yesterday

    "This latest debacle by the NY Times was a story that had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. You still don't get that."

    mm @ 7:11 today

    "This is a clear cut and dried case of the NY Times fucking up royally in the campaign to take down Hillary."

    mm @ 7:42 today



























































    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. shorter AnonymousJuly 25, 2015 at 9:55 AM:

      "it's Ok with me if the NY Times makes up shit and plants it on their front page"

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJuly 25, 2015 at 10:14 AM wrote,

      incoherent unfunny gibberish.

      Delete
    3. longer mm

      I can't answer 9:55's question because someone else proved my statement at 5:56 was incoherent, my statement at 7:11 was gibberish, and that is no funny. To me.

      Delete
    4. mm, your characterization of my comment @ 9:55 was quite unfair.

      I think Kevin Drum did a better job and Somerby did him a his own readers a disservice. My comment had nothing to do with approving what the New York Times did.

      Delete
    5. Jackass,

      9:55's question is irrelevant to the focus of this post by TDH. Whatever the opinion of Kevin Drum is about the background of the Clinton's relations to the press is, it has no bearing on the fact that the NY Times printed a false front page headline and have been backtracking ever since. The NYTimes or any other news organization doesn't have carte blanche to just make shit up because they don't like her, for whatever damn reason. Is that clear, you horse's ass?

      I didn't make any statement at 5:56, you horse's ass.

      my statement at 7:11 was perfectly clear, and I see you have no answer to it, you horse's ass.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousJuly 25, 2015 at 10:58 AM,\

      TDH linked to Drum's article. Your suggestion that he was trying to hide something was a little irritating, and in my opinion implied that what the NY Times did was somehow justified. I find the paragraph you excerpted from Drum's article to be just another "both sides are to blame" mealy mouthed sop to those suffering CDS. I don't agree with Drum's opinion, but that is irrelevant to the story Bob Somerby was writing about.

      Delete
    7. We stand corrected.

      mm did not make an incoherent statement at 5:56pm yesterday. It was made at 5:20pm.

      "mm July 24, 2015 at 5:20 PM

      You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about, but that never stopped you before.

      This story has nothing to do with how "classified material was mishandled on the private Email account Secretary of State Hillary Clinton"

      I stand by my previous statement that it had nothing to do with Prince Charles either.

      Delete
    8. Mr. or Ms. Ass,

      tell me in a few short sentences what Hillary Clinton's private email server, which she shared with the ex-president WJC, and which evidently was more secure than the State Department's or the WH email server, tell me what that has to do with this story. Go ahead, give it a shot.

      Delete
    9. mm, you wrote "I find the paragraph you excerpted from Drum's article to be just another "both sides are to blame" mealy mouthed sop to those suffering CDS."

      Accuse Drum of pandering to CDS sufferers all you want.

      You also wrote: "I don't agree with Drum's opinion, but that is irrelevant to the story Bob Somerby was writing about."

      Somerby closed his story with this: “The New York Times vs. Clinton/Gore/Clinton, Round One Million and One.”

      Drum briefly touched on the Clinton/Gore/Clinton history then closed his story with this: "Meanwhile, Republicans sit back and fan the flames, just as you'd expect them to."

      I'd say your consideration of Drum as irrelevant or a sop to CDS sufferers to be the mark of those Clinton supporters Somerby once surmised to be her biggest problem.

      Delete
    10. Horse had to take the kids to a soccer match mm, so let me reply to your inquiry as to what this story has to do with Clinton's private Email account.

      Everything.

      Without it there is no story.

      We at the Ass household hope you find this response convenient.

      Delete
    11. AnonymousJuly 25, 2015 at 11:55 AM,

      Whenever something like this debacle created by the NY Times happens, and it has been happening now with alarming regularity seemingly timed to key events in Clinton's campaign - and never an apology from the NY Times - to this day they have never apologized for their Whitewater reporting - there is always the obligatory sidetrack assertions made without any substance to support the statement that the Clinton's are somehow responsible for the unprofessional behavior of the press because of something that happened 20 years ago or they snubbed Sally Quinn in 1993. This is 2016, and the leading Democratic candidate for the presidency of these United States is being slandered day after day by these monkeys.

      I fail to see the relevance to the topic at hand. MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT was probably not even out of grade school when Clinton started his first term. What in the hell is his beef with the Clintons and what does that have to do with his false front page story that appeared yesterday? To put it another way, what precisely is Hillary Clinton doing to the NY Times now, today? They are a completely independent autonomous supposed news organization. If this is a War between the Clintons and the NY Times, then surely you can tell me what attacks she is making on the NY Times. That guy MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT has been all over the cable shows stuttering and muttering trying to justify his royal fuckup.

      TDH uses this blog to write about:

      "musings on the mainstream "press corps" and the american discourse"

      His insights and writings are unique and invaluable and that's why I come here. You want to debate the history of the press's lies and false reporting concerning the Clintons then I'm happy to do that also, but that is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

      Delete
    12. Well, you're completely mistaken, jackass.

      This story is about how the State Department released emails to the public that contained information that was retroactively deemed to be classified material.

      It makes no difference where the original emails came from, the review and release to the public is what is at issue. If she had received those emails on the State Department server they still would have had to go through this review process before being released to the public. By the way, if she had used the State Department server they would have already been public because the State Department's server had already been hacked.

      Hillary Clinton did not release the documents in question to the public. She turned them over to the reviewing authority as was right and proper. She did everything right and by the book. This is an in fight between the IG and the State Department.

      Don't take my word for it, go ahead, ask the clown at the Times, MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT, why this was a front page story.

      But thank you for proving how effective the NY Times was in confusing people.

      Delete
    13. Ass Family SpokespersonJuly 25, 2015 at 1:02 PM

      The Ass family authorized me to release the follwing statement:

      We now know the New York Times was effective because they put Hillary Clinton's name in a story and mentioned her private Email account. Otherwise she had nothing to do with the story. That sure confused us. Mr. Ass could have sworn it was about her. Mrs. Ass too.

      The Ass family sends its regrets to anyone who originally knew this story was not about Hillary Clinton and her convenient PRIVATE Email server and got things ass backward like we did. Apologies are also extended to HRH Charles, Prince of Wales. We saved him for last because we know he is a patient fellow.

      Delete
    14. I can see it's useless trying to have an intelligent discussion with the Ass Family.

      Not a single serious response to anything I wrote explaining my statements.


      Delete
    15. Ass Family StablehandJuly 25, 2015 at 3:51 PM

      For you to repeatedly state the story was not about Hillary Clinton's private Email account indicates you have left me something else to clean up.

      You are someone to be treated with the equine-imity you deserve. The happy Ass family bent over backward to show you their highest regard.

      Delete
    16. You're so funny. I particularly enjoyed your little etymological pun.

      You keep asserting without any argument that the story was about how "classified material was mishandled on the private Email account Secretary of State Hillary Clinton". I challenged that statement and you then starting sniping at me.

      You make no attempt to support your opinion, you simply assert it and make jokes. I asked you a direct question which you ignored.

      Your argument appears to be that since the NY Times chose to put Hillary Clinton's name in the headline as well as her email account, this somehow proves that that is truly what the controversy reported yesterday concerning the IG, the State Department and the DOJ. In all honesty, the reporter was totally incomprehensible in the original story and butchered the story so horribly it's easy to see how you can be confused. There have been multiple corrections since.

      But the fact that Hillary Clinton's name and her email account in the headline doesn't prove that that was what the story was about. That in fact was TDH's point.

      I have noted repeatedly, as earlier as 8:30 am yesterday morning, that the story seemed to be missing an essential detail, namely what the theoretical crime was, and not a single person has even attempted to respond.

      That to me is the single most important issue. The Times linked Clinton's use of a private email server to potential criminality, and that my friend was outrageous and unfair.

      I agree with Bob.

      "The New York Times defies belief. This has long been the case."

      You want to follow Clinton Rules and blame her for what the NY Times and they alone chose to do yesterday. And I say bullshit. Thank you, and you can kiss my ass as well.


      Delete
    17. 6:05

      That's just a Darwinian rationale. Try again brother!

      Delete
  12. Clearly the New York Times erred by trusting their "Senior Government Official" and rushed to print a story which turned out not to be true.

    That mean the New York Times was played big time by someone.

    The question now is whether the New York Times will admit it, and in the public interest, reveal not just how it got played but name the anonymous "source" or "sources" so the press and public can evaluate
    the validity of anything that ever comes out of the mouth of the source(s) again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't hold your breath.

      Delete
    2. Politico is suggesting, but not stating for a fact, that the original source for the New York Times came from the Justice Department. The fact that Justice sources continued until midday Friday to characterize this as a criminal referral to other outlets give some credence to this suggestion.

      http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/07/in-clinton-email-inquiry-a-changing-story-211211.html

      As an aside, I am responding to @ 10:42 not mm, so please, mm, do not jump in with vulgar attacks on me.

      Delete
    3. The headline in the Times read as follow:

      "Criminal Inquiry Sought In Clinton's Use Of Email"

      Yet nowhere in the report is there any indication of a possible crime. That's the first thing I noticed yesterday morning when I first read the report. So where the hell are the Times editors? What makes you think the NY Times was burned by a bad source?

      Delete
    4. I didn't think the story was about Clinton. Or her Email account. Because you said it wasn't.

      Delete
  13. "That said, a general code of silence has long surrounded this newspaper’s deeply peculiar workings. Within the guild, one doesn’t discuss the things the mighty New York Times does." TDH

    This post was made possible by Kevin Drum naming names. Very quickly other media outlets began questioning, by name, the New York
    Times report, including the Washington Post, Politico, Slate, Media Matters, and yes, even Chris Matthews and MSNBC.

    The most complete criticism thus far has come from Newsweek.

    http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246

    The final paragraph of the Newsweek piece is worth reprinting here:

    "And to other reporters: Democracy is not a game. It is not a means of getting our names on the front page or setting the world abuzz about our latest scoop. It is about providing information so that an electorate can make decisions based on reality. It is about being fair and being accurate. This despicable Times story was neither."

    Names were named this time. And that is good.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Perhaps it is time for Bob Somerby to rethink all the nasty things he has said about Donald Trump.

    And time for Hillary Clinton to take a lesson.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-bans-des-moines-register

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Newsweek story does an excellent job of explaining the nautre of the IG's inquiry and how it had nothing to do with HRC's management of her State Department emails. It's a case of the NYT taking a source's story to the outer limits of plausibility or just amazing bad reporting on the part of the NYT.
    The NYT, in a rush to score a scoop and "win the morning," blew it.
    Now, this won't change the opinions of people who don't like:
    Democrats
    Liberals
    Center-left politicians
    Hillary
    Facts
    But it might serve as a cautionary tale to people who rely on the establishment media to report the 2016 presidential primaries.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The important thing is that the story remains about what the Times did or didn't do and NOT about whether the private server compromised classified information. Focus!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That, unfortunately is a story which will be overshadowed by another.

      The other important thing is Clinton's Emails remain a very big story and she will be addressing it as an issue throughout the campaign.

      The New York Times is a newspaper. It cannot seek, win, or lose an term as President.

      Which story do you think will be more closely followed by more people.

      Delete
    2. Only a big story to Republicans. Democrats don't care, especially those who are already Clinton supporters. This is just another smear campaign with no substance.

      There is a lot of fuss being made, but where is any evidence that Clinton did anything with her personal email server that ever jeopardized the nation or resulted in a bad outcome while doing her job? Why does this even matter? Most Dems don't think it does.

      Delete
    3. You are right. The "Broke and in debt" story will probably prove the be a bigger problem.

      Delete
  17. It is Sunday. I would have expected TDH to follow up Saturday on what clearly was a story made for this blog. New York Times. Clinton. Errors. Republicans jumping in to focus on what is the Gore model.....she can't be trusted. Tweety weighs in with incoherent coverage on Hardball Friday night.

    Meanwhile, on the other side, two big stories emerge. Trump attacks. Trump is attacked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somerby should at least have posted a link to the Newsweek piece which came out Friday afternoon. It was devastating.

      Crooks and Liars reprinted the whole thing as stand alone post.

      Delete
    2. Why does Somerby have to work on the weekend?

      Delete
    3. Oh. I don't begrudge him a day off. He sometimes posts on Saturdays. Sometimes he takes Friday off.

      It is just this was such a big story.

      I don't think providing a link would have been much work. Clearly just linking to Drum's work here wasn't much of an effort. I think mm worked harder.

      Delete
    4. The Kurt Eichenwald analysis piece in Newsweek is brilliant.

      The Horse's Ass family might want to read it. But I doubt it will change the minds of people suffering from CDS. They are not reality based.

      http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246

      Delete
    5. Jack is munching the lawn this Sunday, mm, but he whinnied mordantly when I read your comment to him. He is the one who anonymously posted the first Newsweek link yesterday, before he discovered you had revealed my identity in an comment moments before.

      He wants you to know Hillary Clinton's Email account is the subject of that story as well.

      Delete
    6. Here is what I wrote at 5:20 yesterday,

      "This story has nothing to do with how "classified material was mishandled on the private Email account Secretary of State Hillary Clinton"

      You're playing word games now. The Eichenwald piece in Newsweek skillfully and in an almost scholarly manner dissects the NY Times reporting and proves that what I wrote above is true concerning the UNDERLYING STORY, you know, THE ACTUAL FACTUAL MATERIAL behind the misleading grotesque mendacious article published on the front page of the NY Times, July 23, 2015.

      Enjoy your hay.

      Delete
    7. This story has nothing to do with how "classified material was mishandled on the private Email account Secretary of State Hillary Clinton" This latest debacle by the NY Times was a story that had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. This is a clear cut and dried case of the NY Times fucking up royally in the campaign to take down Hillary.

      I think I finally get it. This story is about an alleged call for a criminal investigation into how "classified material was mishandled" that WAS on the private EMAIL ACCOUNT of Secretary of State Hillary CLINTON." Since there was no real call for a criminal investigation the story was not about Hillary Clinton or her Email account at all. It was just part of the campaign to take Hillary Clinton down.

      Glad you like the Newsweek article. Better than Drum, yes?

      The Asses eat fresh pasture greens. I ate hay when we were broke and in debt. Horse ate crudites. It was in her contract.

      Delete
    8. No, I'm afraid you still don't get it. It's ok, everyone has to go at their own pace. You'll catch up, I'm sure of it.

      Delete
  18. I remain impressed how cleverly the New York Times has deceived people into ignoring the War on Clinton by endorsing her twice for the US Senate and once already for President in 2008. Devious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Editorial page is recognized as opinion whereas the rest of the paper masquerades as fact. The complaints are about the content of the paper day-in and day-out, where these fabricated front page hit pieces have much more impact, with their smear headlines, than an editorial endorsement ever can. Or perhaps it offers the kind of plausible deniability of bias that you are claiming here.

      Delete
    2. Whatever, it is clever. I haven't seen any follow up by them on this story or the one which indicated Ms. Clinton was detained and searched.

      Delete