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. 

NYT throws away any pretense at journalism from the political news desk

Just when you think there might still be some journalistic anything at the NYT:
NYT is now using Maureen Dowd as a source and considers her a reporter, even though it is unclear if she just made this last "report" up.

Here Maureen Dowd is appearing to quote Beau Biden is as he is dying. This is in her over 150th (not a typo) anti-Clinton column. Pretty low.

No word on where she got this from, nothing saying "source", it's never been reported anywhere before, but there it is in quotes in the opinion column in the NYT. It's fine that you have quotes like that in an opinion column, often it's fiction and fantasy but not a news item so ok.

She also mentions what his friends and family have, to her claim, been discussing, but never mentions whether there is any sort of source or if she is continuing to "report" fictional, possible, or hypothetical events.

The next day Amy Choznic writes an article noted as an "Exclusive" that lands in the print version of the NYT, and uses Maureen Dowd as the source and reporter. Newp, not kidding. 

I will be flabbergasted for a long time after this. No response yet from NYT Public Editor on whether Maureed Dowd's account are fiction or if there was indeed a source.

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.

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 email writer pushing the negative narrative...frequently and openly

 The NYT email story writer, who gets lots of clicks for the NYT and also now more airtime on TV has a vested interest in the email story looking sinister, but tell me how this story pushing is ethical journalism. And if you can put DUN DUN DUN! after every tweet, probably someone is pushing some bullshit.

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.

NYT gets called out for their sloppy & yellow journalism w/ Schweizer story

Newsweek, NBC, ABC, Newsmax and others don't agree with the NYT insinuated charges. "Sloppy journalism" "doesn't hold up" "insinuates scandal where there is none" "peppering their story w/ innuendo for a juicy pay to play story". Way to go NYT.

Needless to say the story produced by the NYT on Schweizers "Clinton Cash" insinuation of wrong doing by SOS Clinton reads like every other piece they write on the Clintons, full of innuendo and insinuation, misleading facts and omitting others.

It took the NYT a few days after getting their goods from conservative activist, Peter Schwiezer, for them to print the Uranium/Clinton story, so at least they fact checked some of Schweizer's details before publishing his POV. But they failed to even find out how the approval process works, so basically, they just re-wrote Schweizer's story.

Did everyone agree with the NYT and Schweizer's insinuations that were very close to accusations? Fox, yes. The typical haters, yes.. lots of accusations to make (Morning Joe, Chuck Todd, the rest of the clowns). Occasionally adding their own random theories. But not everyone agreed:

Obviously camp Clinton disagrees: This excerpt from the debunk.

Relying largely on research from the conservative author of Clinton Cash, today’s New York Times alleges that donations to the Clinton Foundation coincided with the U.S. government’s 2010 approval of the sale of a company known as Uranium One to the Russian government. Without presenting any direct evidence in support of the claim, the Times story — like the book on which it is based — wrongly suggests that Hillary Clinton’s State Department pushed for the sale’s approval to reward donors who had a financial interest in the deal. Ironically, buried within the story is original reporting that debunks the allegation that then-Secretary Clinton played any role in the review of the sale.

As reported by Media Matters, NBC News says "The NYT story doesn't hold up", ABC also agrees, the NYT doesn't hold up.

Newsweek pretty much captures it all:  [Schweizer's book] "reads like a hatched job", and speaks to the painfully poor logic of the entire book.

Disparate facts are treated like a logical series of events—a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this," another argumentative fallacy. 

The other person NYT smears in the deal is Frank Guistra, long-time philanthropist, recipient of last year's first ever Dalai Lama humanitarian award. He had something to say too. He describes the NYT article as:

 "an attempt to tear down Secretary Clinton and her presidential campaign. If this is what passes for investigative journalism in the United States, it is very sad."

Very sad indeed.

Then Howard Dean calls out the NYT for the story, saying their political writers are "sloppy" and "substituting news for judgement". 

Even the NYT own Jack Krugman calls the NYT out.

Gene Lyons, who wrote about flawed NYT reports of Whitewater chimes in: Media Insinuates Scandal where there is None.

New Republic calls NYT out for "peppering their story w/ innuendo" for a "juicy pay to play story" (that amounts to yellow journalism but we already know that's how NYT rolls).

Hell, even NEWSMAX comes to the defense of the Clinton Foundation.

We know how the NYTimes reacts to obvious flaws in their Clinton reporting. They double down. Triple down and then some so I'm sure they'll have more nonsense to report shortly.

A stroll down memory lane of the NYT printing very serious false accusations...

Just a reminder to folks who think the NYT doesn't mislead the American public for financial or political reasons, let's take a look into the past at only 4, starting with their hand in selling the Iraq war by scaring Americans into believing Bush's lies about Saddam Hussein.

1. Their false, incorrect, misleading stories that helped sell the Iraq war to the public with "verified" stories, (that they later admit were not verified) about stories about Saddam's quest for weapons. Well apparently they were just given wrong information, oops:

The problematic articles (oops) varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. -NYT

Oh, the informants had an agenda, (sorta like a recent source of recent article insinuating something sinister, story false) great sources then, anyone else have agenda? Based on the content of NYT articles featured in my blog and on others', I'd say it's hardly unusual for NYT to use their paper to push an agenda. But the NYT has an excuse for selling misinformation about Saddam Hussein's weapon aquisition, and it's also part of their regular method of operation; not taking the time to verify.

"Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper". -NYT

Well that's interesting. Well surely after a mistake (?) that helped sell a war that killed 5,000 Americans and 200,000 Iraqis that would be sufficient enough to make sure the next time you insinuate or claim that a country in the Middle East has weapons of mass destruction you would double, triple, quadruple check. But that didn't happen, this did: (2) They pushed the exact same falsehoods regarding Syria/WMD.

And we know they love their Clinton hit-pieces that later turn out to be false, some of course setting off major consequences, like their (3) faulty Whitewater reporting and or (4) other bs that leads to investigations that last years. (I'll add this one in for good measure, pretty much the same insinuated charge as their recent story about Clintons and Uranium, but this debunked hit piece was in 2008)

Mistakes? The thing is, editors don't accidentally let reporters rush to report dictators that a U.S. president is on the verge of going to war, are ramping up seeking weapons. The NYT has an agenda and they have blood on their hands, a lot of it; You can be sure they have no problem pushing a Republican into the White House that will result in a stacked conservative SCOTUS that will impact 1,000's upon 1,000's of people's lives. Why they hate the Clintons and why they are so eager to put Jeb Bush into the White House isn't something I'm willing to speculate on, but don't forget that they don't care who is hurt, who will suffer or even how many will die as a result of whatever their agenda is.

Morning Joe: 'Clinton Cash' writer's anti-Clinton connections were not divulged

Morning Joe is correct. In fact, in the NYT recent write up there is little noted as to who this author is and what his writings or history are.

Morning Joe notes on his show: @ 8:01 "If in fact [Schweitzer] has any connection to Ted Cruz's super pac or with other organizations that are overtly anti-Clinton, that should be in any introductory piece, and it certainly wasn't in any report that I saw".

Let's check: Not in the NYT, that's for sure! Not in any of the over 20 paragraphs written by Amy Choznik

Here is NYT introduction of the writer:

“Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer — a 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities — is proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy.

That's it. They barely even mention his political leanings.

The only mention of his being possibly biased is couched in a paragraph about a pro-Democrat super PAC trying to "make the case that he has a bias" in the 9th paragraph.

Conservative super PACs plan to seize on “Clinton Cash,” and a "pro-Democrat super PAC has already assembled a dossier on Mr. Schweizer, a speech writing consultant to former President George W. Bush and a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution who has contributed to the conservative website Breitbart.com** to make the case that he has a bias against Mrs. Clinton."

*Does* the author has a bias? Let's take a look:

Media Matters says

Peter Schweizer is the president of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI), a conservative group with close ties to a billionaire family funding Sen. Ted Cruz's presidential run. GAI has also received substantial support from groups backed by Charles and David Koch: 

But even a quick look at Wiki will tell you all you need to know: The Author, Peter Schweizer, who is the President of GAI, "The Government Accountability Institute (GAI) is a conservative investigative research organization" -Wiki

**Also, according the NYT, Schweizer "has contributed to Breitbart",  but according to Schweizer's facebook posts, he is currently a Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Larg.

And they omit completely that he is President of a conservative investigative research organization. 

NYT makes a deal for opposition research directly from conservative hit-piece writer...

Politico: Fox and NYT Makes Deal with Conservative Writer for Clinton Dirt

Here's the round up so far (and it's only been a day since one of their writers tweeted about their oppo research deal with the conservative hit piece author.

Not affectionate toward HRC, Daily KOS reports: NYTimes takes stenography from GOP hit book

Very unfond of Hillary Clinton, liberal blog 'Crooks and Liars', says, No matter what you think of her, this is something larger

Politico reports: NYT/FOX make a deal for anti-Clinton research

National Memo reports: Murdoch Empire colludes with "liberal media" to promote "Clinton Cash"


NYT Responds on Deal with Conservative Writer for Clinton Dirt, with an odd single sentence statement.

Esquire magazine weighs in: The day political journalism died and the people killed it

MediaMatters runs down who the author actually is, and what he does...and puts together a list of *some* of Schweizers lies and inaccuracies (smears).

Salon reports: The right's new expose just went mainstream, NYT got hooked

But would the NYT really spread serious allegations that are totally false. Yes. And its pretty bad. Here's a recent notable one. 

 

NYT pushed lies about chemical weapons in Syria for which there was no proof.

 

But more often they leave out information in order to insinuate or draw improper conclusions:

 

Here's a good example: Issa sent a letter directly to Hillary asking about her email and she ignored it!  

 

Orrrr, Issa sent a broader letter to 18 agencies and didn't hear back from Clinton. Which do you think the times wrote and which do you think is true. Well, NYT Clinton writers don't look at the big picture, only what looks juicy.

 

Nothing new, tons of similar garbage in March in their very busy month, got called out back then as well:

But surely these are professionals. Yeah, no, they're not.

 

And it's always good for business when they can write right-wing hit pieces on the Clintons... here's one of the NYT hit-piece writers bragging that he got on drudge (with his story that proved false)

 

Today on the campaign trail in fact, someone asked SOS Clinton about the book, after answering Clinton then noted Republicans are all about her and not the issues. She was then mocked by NYT writter Maggie H. But it turns out, it Maggie's own paper came to the same conclusion that Hillary had. Top of the imagine, the NYT 2 days ago. Bottom half of image, NYT Maggie twittering derisively about SOS Clinton.