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.