The evidence:
Exhibit A: good sources said it was a criminal investigation. And not just one source. Two of them.
Exhibit B: The story was reported and the Clinton campaign sprang into action. At which point the administration corrected the story.
It’s possible that two sources the NYT considered reliable were wrong. It’s more likely that politicians are lying again. But if you want to be gullible, cuz ya just gotta believe…
:eek: O. M. G.
The irony of that statement, she burns, adaher.
This reminds me of all those times you defended Hillary as innocent when her team didn’t react to a story…oh wait…
Some stories can’t be fixed with a phone call to the right administration official.
This story wasn’t fixed with a phone call to the right administration official. If you have evidence to the contrary you should show it.
Lance … no no no. Of course it is clear that Obama, while in Africa, made the call that made both the State Department’s IG and the Intelligence Community IG both change their tune and claim that they never asked for any such thing. The memo that had been given that allegedly had stated such, that the NYT did not actually have access to but instead was accepting an anonymous source’s claim of what it said, that is now in public domain, has been retroactively modified to eliminate the criminal referral reference. (Here is the now modified memo. You can tell it is modified because the criminal referral that was claimed to be recommended is not in there. Therefore it must be fake; the result of the quick phone call from Africa.)
Not quite the quality of cover-up done for Obama’s birth certificate, for the inside job on 9-11, for the moon landing hoax, or for the vaccine-autism conspiracy job, but not bad for short notice, no?
Oy. Pathetic.
Look. I can see how some “source” who really wants to believe in the fantasy of some Hillary destroying breaking news could possibly maybe believe that “I have referred this matter to counterintelligence officials at State and with the IC, including the National Counterintelligence and Security Center and the Federal Bureau of Investigation” means “I am advising a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton.” I mean if they really really really want to believe … squint at it from just the right angle of preconceptions and add a few words in your head that are not there and … sure. But no it did not say that and never did.
Thing is, according the NYT public editor in her apology for the paper there were NOT even, to her best ability to figure it out, two sources confirming the rumor but that instead “final confirmation came from the same person more than once.”
The complete story - The intelligence community is not of one mind as to what should and should not be classified. Some think almost everything should be classified including used toilet paper; some use differing judgements. The Intelligence IG opinion differs from those who made the determinations at the time and thinks, in his judgement, that some things in Clinton’s e-mails that were not classed as classified then should have been. Thus great caution must be used before releasing the files under the Freedom of Information Act rather than merely accepting past determinations. Also the fact that some information that he would judge as classified are “purportedly” still in the possession of Clinton’s lawyer warrants further (routine) investigation. It has been passed on for that to occur. (Yawn.)
The NYT in their long established eagerness to believe something excitingly bad about Hillary, fucked up badly. They assessed a source as “reliable” that clearly was using them to pass a false leak. Because they wanted to believe and because acceptable journalistic practices and ethics takes a back seat to getting clicks and taking the frontrunner down a notch.
THAT is the news story here: the mainstream media, at least the NYT, really IS out to harm Hillary, and will not only spin the news to accomplish it, but will go FOX and Breitbart if that’s what it takes.
Not a surprise that adaher vouches for that.
I admit it’s possible that the NY Times has it in for Clinton and that led them to screw up. Respected news sources have fouled up due to that kind of bias in the past.
It’s also possible that their sources had a history of reliability and that the information was correct at the time.
The nice thing about respected news sources is that they find out how things went wrong. Y’all better hope the NY Times finds out that they screwed up. I’m betting on politicians lying again. You never lose betting on that.
THEY ALREADY DID. And apologized.
The memo DID NOT SAY what they said it said, which they said based on being told by someone else who apparently may have just been fed that by someone else.
It is clearly established that the information was not correct at ANY time. At least not in this universe.
I assure you, the Times is not done with this story yet.
A more important question to ask though, is if the mainstream media is out to get Clinton, how can she possibly win?
Oh I doubt they are … they will be dealing with the loss of credibility for a while now.
Basic concept here: if your sources give you provably false information they are, by definition, not “very good sources” and your assessment that they were reflects only your poor judgement.
What if they’ve always been reliable in the past but got it wrong now. Is it really very likely that multiple reliable sources got it wrong?
Remember, this wasn’t just one anonymous source. This was two, from inside the administration.
By getting more votes, duh.
Media can only spin so much so hard. And in any case what motivates them is a desire for Hillary to lose but for the horse race to be a close one. They don’t care if she comes out on top or if even Trump does so long as they get the ads sold along the way.
I’ve never heard of a candidate winning in the face of a hostile media.
IF all they want is a horse race and they go easy on her once it becomes a horse race, that’s one thing. If they have a vendetta because she won’t talk to them and treats them like she thinks they are stupid, then the media won’t let up until she’s gone.
How often have “they” (the anonymous “senior government officials” that claimed that two IGs were doing something they never were going to do) been reliable in the past?
And how often have senior members of the “Benghazi committee leaked deceptive information” in the past?
On preview - I’ve never seen a winning candidate NOT face hostile media.
Refresh my memory… what was she thinking when she decided to use her own server for government work?
FDR and Truman, specifically.
In the more general sense, the vast majority of newspaper publishers were Republican for most of the 20th century. I believe that Johnson was the first time a majority endorsed the Democrat but that was an exception until recently.
The only real point, the one you are obsfucating, is that there is no hostile mainstream media against Clinton. It doesn’t exist now, it won’t exist at any time before the election. Your wanting it true won’t make it true. Your needing it to be true to make any of your nonsensical predictions happen will end in disappointment.
Still no pony.
So the NY Times is fair and balanced to Clinton? You guys need to get your talking points straight.