This is how desperate the NYT is, another walk back of an already long reach...

NYT latest article is pretty much: "we caught Hillary in a lie", which they published, people just looking at the document were questioning it, they finally hours later corrected, their whole premise was false.

The reach went like this: Hillary said one thing and she said another thing that could be inconsistent with that other thing. And it's sorta related to something someone says said her assistant did...so the NYT wrote a whole piece on it.

Except their report was completely false.

The article starts off with Judicial watch (far right-wing group) going after Hillary Clinton's assistant having a 2nd job, saying there was some rule broken. In talking about the issue on Mitchell Reports show Clinton says, as NYT printed:

“Well, you know, I was not directly involved in that,” Mrs. Clinton replied. “But everything that she did was approved, under the rules, as they existed, by the State Department.”

So the NYT writes an entire piece that they found a document showing Hillary Clinton signed off of her assistant being able to have that job. This is supposed to be inconsistant with Hillary Clinton being directly involved with Huma getting her 2nd job, even if it was just a sign off... But guess what. Wasn't true. Hillary didn't sign off. This sad sad image spells out really how bad the NYT is when it comes to Hillary Clinton.

How the hell does that happen.

Things the NYT doesn't write about Hillary Clinton

Wednesday Sept 10the Dept of Justice revealed to a federal court:

“There is no question that former Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision".

But the NYT chose not to cover it until late Friday night.

Since the NYT has been breathlessly writing (and mis-writing) about Hillary Clinton's emails since March, majority of them landing on the front page, you would think this would be part of their coverage. Guess again. It took 60 hours from the release of the statement for the NYT to admit it to their readers. The Washington Times (a right wing newspaper) published it first. It then took the NYT another 35 hours after Wash Times released the information, for NYT to publish it.

If you recall, they blame their "criminal probe" false story on a rush to scoop. This story on the other hand was absolutely true, and there was clearly no rush at all.

And when they finally put it into print, it was on page a14 on a Saturday. It makes you wonder, had Buzzfeed and MSNBC not gotten a hold of the information, would the NYT have written about it at all?

Keep in mind, pretty much all other emails stories insinuating wrong-doing, go on page a1. Heck, even NYT analyzing her spontaneity goes on a1. But this major addition to EmaILZ ends up somewhere on the bottom of the 14th page. And after 6 paragraphs of the story that they finally put up on Friday night online, they change the subject to her IT guy refusing to testify to the Benghazi committee.

The NYT is not just biased, they're not just yellow, they're corrupt.

NYT continues their ugly trolling on Hillary Clinton

Here they pretend Al Gore, John Kerry and Elizabeth Warren are wanted by "jittery" supporters. Don't puke:

"Big-Name Plan Bs for Democrats Concerned About Hillary Clinton"

If Hillary Rodham Clinton’s new apology for her private email server fails to reassure jittery supporters, it could amplify the chatter among some Democrats who have been casting about for a potential white knight to rescue the party from a beleaguered Clinton candidacy.

Front page, of course, all their trolling of her hits the front page.

Reminder, I only write about 5% of NYT HRC stories, and the other ones are not any more professional than pieces like this. They've been trolling endlessly with needling and negative micro-coverage, focused negative coverage, false stories, GOP narrative stories and ugly, snarky, nasty comments IN THE ACTUAL ARTICLES, straight since March. And they write an email story about once every 2-4 days. Trolling.

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Secretary of State John Kerry, Senator Elizabeth Warren, former Vice President Al Gore: Each has been discussed among party officials in recent weeks as an alternative to Mrs. Clinton if she does not regain her once-dominant standing in the 2016 presidential field and instead remains mired in the long-running email controversy, with its attendant investigations.

Did you get a load of those names? Biden aside, are you kidding me? The whole article is an insulting mess where they just see how many ways they can say the dems need "rescuing" because of Hillary. 

2 days prior to this there was an article titled "Hillary Clinton to show more humor and heart", declaring "there will be new efforts to bring spontaneity to a candidacy that sometimes seems wooden and overly cautious". And that's just the first line.