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.

The NYT publishes "criminal inquiry" after they know it wasn't true.

The NYT seriously botched a story, well, basically made one up. First they wrote a story that Hillary Clinton was the subject of a criminal probe. Blasted it out to millions via email on the Thursday, then quietly removed that claim early Friday morning (without noting the changes). The new story was that there was a "criminal inquiry" related to Hillary Clinton's emails. Turns out that was also false, but according to Dean Banquet, it's because their "sources got it wrong" (that being the 2nd story, no one knows where first one came from and Dean's not talking). But after the NYT found out that there was no "criminal inquiry" at all they continued to publish repeatedly that there was.

It's not just a case of waiting too long to remove, they published it at least 3x after they knew that wasn't the case.  

The story of the NYT July 23rd faulty reporting is indeed extensive, as nothing in their story was correct, but this post is proof that there's more to it than a rush to judgement. Proof of NYT purposefully telling a significant untruth. This was not a mistake, or a rush to scoop, it was publishing a falsehood.

By 9:24am Friday morning it was confirmed by DOJ and other sources that there was "no criminal inquiry" but NYT made the decision at some point that the claim would stay in and they left it in both the lead and the title. In fact, they didn't just not remove it, they republished it. Here's what happened:

-DOJ announces by 9:24am that there is no criminal inquiry
-NYT Republished the "criminal inquiry" falsehood at 10:51am.
-An editor admitted at 12:12pm in a tweet they knew it wasn't a criminal inquiry.
-Republished the falsehood at 2:54pm
-7 hours goes by, they still do not remove it. By this time all major news organizations have removed it, a number of them also tweeting, that there is no criminal inquiry
-Republished the falsehood at 10:05pm.
Update: -Finally removed Saturday morning at what looks to be 9:29am

Which means the NYT knowingly published false information tying a leading presidential candidate to a criminal investigation multiple times over a course a number of hours AFTER knowing it was not the case. Indeed, they lied.

In fact, the writer of the story, Michael Schmidt, who I've written about before, was a guest caller on Hardball Friday late afternoon and did not correct it then even after the host asked him multiple why is it criminal. The host knew because anyone who read the story could see it made no sense.

So why would a newspaper lie about a presidential candidate and try to link it to something criminal when they were already under scrutiny and knew it wasn't at all the case.

NYT let it stay over night and finally removed "criminal inquiry" 9:29am Saturday, 7/25. Also removed were 100's of previously approved and published comments. Those are now at zero and closed.

Here is the change log showing multiple edits were made in the lead but criminal enquiry left in and republished. This isn't by accident.

So just in case you were thinking: The NYT can't lose a scoop, there aren't enough editors, a source burned them.... none of those explain the above. None. The NYT purposely published a known falsehood in their article tying Hillary Clinton to a non-existent "criminal inquiry" for a full day after knowing the truth.

And guess who did it. Hint, a story botched this badly means that higher up hands are on deck. Highest ranking person "directly involved with the story" according to NYT public editor Margaret Sulliview, is Executive Editor, Dean Baquet.

And by the way, what *was* the real story? After 2 days, a total replacement of the first hideous article, 10 edits and 2 written corrections of the replacement article, it boils down to this: 2 agencies arguing over what is classified and whether the State dept is releasing sensitive into when releasing Hillary Clinton's emails to the public.

"WASHINGTON — Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open an 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."

That's it. That only after multiple political talk shows and many online media outlets wrongly relayed that Hillary Clinton and/or her handling of her emails, were the target a criminal investigation.

Like I said, there are other serious issues with the article(s) that were noticed almost immediately after their first publish of the original article up to even the last article and can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and other places.