As I was saying, the "emails" writer at NYT has an agenda, now everyone can see it...

Today the email writing falsely indicated government officials were investigating Hillary in a crime probe. Well, that was a lie. But it's par for the course for the NYT.

My last post I showed a few of the tweets written by the NYT "emails" writer showing how clear his agenda is to make Clinton guilty of some type of wrong-doing. Any type would satisfy him so he keeps it up from all angles...

So yesterday, after a week of Trump mania keeps he and his cohorts from space to write nasty things about Hillary Clinton, and after one poll showing not good things for Clinton, time to get to work...writing fiction and pretending it's journalism. Yellow, yellow, yellow.

Here are Politico and Daily KOs catch the NYT being, as usual, shady.

NYT alters Clinton story without correction - Dylan Byers

The New York Times made small but significant changes to an exclusive report about a potential criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's State Department email account late Thursday night, but provided no notification of or explanation for of the changes.
The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state."

That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry "into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state."

And

NYT dramatically re-writes Hillary Clinton email after midnight - David Nir

David Nir points out the 2 different versions. The first story:

Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.

and the re-write:

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

And notes thusly:

In the first version, Times reporters Michael Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo say that these nameless government officials are basing their request on possible misdeeds Clinton herself is alleged to have committed; in the latter, that's transformed into an incredibly vague construction: "mishandled in connection with." What does "in connection with" even mean? It could mean almost anything. What's more, this major alteration was made without any notice to the reader. 

Perhaps it is the NYT that needs to be investigated.

NYT makes no mention of aquisition of the SOS Clinton emails they published...

Not just not who, but no mention altogether. Hmmmm.

NYT gets a hold of 27 pages of unpublished emails between HRC and other government officials and from Sidney Blumenthal, all Blumenthal related, and publishes them online. This moments before the Benghazi Committee subpoenas S. Blumenthal. Coincidence? Beyond unlikely.

Oddly, the NYT makes no mention of anything related to acquisition. Only that they are "selected". Selected from what? (by whom?) and at one point refer to them as "obtained".

They make no mention of from where they came. No mention at all. Not only not who but also nothing even similar to "anonymous source", not "source we cannot disclose", etc. Nothing. They just skip it completely. Oops, just forget that part readers!

But what if there are readers that are curious. Did the source request be to kept anonymous? Is the sender unknown? Or did someone send it and had no desire to have their identity kept private but the NYT just opt not to add it? NYT completely skips it, which means it could be any of those answers but we have no idea. If someone wants to know anything about how they were acquired they will not find it in the paper that published them.

Why not?

Here are the 3 NYT pieces:

An odd but typical one that suggests there's something wrong with someone you've worked with sending you intel from a country of national interest to the U.S.

The summary of what was in the emails.

And the actual emails. This is the first time these have been published.

If the paper is under obligation not to disclose their source, why would they not reveal that obligation? Is it an error? Several people on Twitter have asked the writers why no mention, 1 responded to one of the commenters but without answering the question, nor was anything added later. So you can cross possible oversight off the list of possible explanations.

It's an understatement to say something's not quite right here.

Elijah Cummings, the leading democrat on the Select Benghazi Committee says it was Gowdy, head of GOP Benghazi committee, who sent them. Why does the NYT make no mention of anything related to aquisition what-so-ever? If Elijah Cummings is correct and it was Gowdy, then the NYT is protecting Trey Gowdy from current and future scrutiny of motive, helping him with his latest Benghazi charade. How does the release serve Gowdy? It makes it look like he has a reason to subpoena Blumenthal, but the fact is he's known about Blumenthal's emails for almost a year.