Hillary Clinton may well be the most investigated person ever in American government. Since her days as First Lady of Arkansas to her current presidential candidacy, she has been dogged by those who have sought to bring her down. She has been tried in the media and by special investigators. Entire networks have been dedicated to finding her guilty … of something. If there is a scandal to be created, they get out their cardboard cutouts of Hillary Clinton and stick her effigy in the center.
Really, there is nothing new about waking up to a headline that contains the word criminal and the name Clinton. It is just another sunny day. So, of course, despite yet another senseless shooting of innocent people going about their summer business last night, it was incumbent upon morning TV to devote time and opinion to the New York Times story with the disturbing header.
So let’s be clear here. The criminal inquiry being sought is not an investigation of a person but rather of a process. It is the State Department and its classification methods and not Hillary Clinton that is the object. Further, the article states:
The Justice Department has not decided if it will open an investigation, senior officials said.
The request may or may not be honored and the inquiry requested involves a set of procedures and not an individual. None of this is clear from the header which sets the bull’s eye smack on Hillary Clinton’s forehead. The procedures in question potentially involve many more individuals and a great many more emails than the 55,000 pages released voluntarily by Hillary Clinton including the 3,000 pages currently available at the State Department website. But never mind that. On to more essential things.
The subject of her candidacy arises in the article as does protectionism.
Republicans have said the department is trying to use those processes to protect Mrs. Clinton.
From the opening statements on the very first day the House Oversight Committee commenced hearings on Benghazi a day short of a month after the Benghazi attacks, clearly. politics and protection were on Republican minds. Already, this election cycle and Hillary’s potential candidacy were in the cross hairs.
Today was the first public session of the House Committee Oversight and Government Reform hearings on diplomatic security in Libya. In closing today’s more than four-hour long session, chairman Darrell Issa noted that although this is an election year, his committee wants to find out what went wrong in Benghazi in order to prevent it from happening anywhere again. If you buy that, I have a bridge for sale.
His admonishing tone, suggesting members of the panel might have an election year agenda, was startlingly inappropriate. The panel consisted of Col. Andrew Wood, who had been stationed in Libya earlier this year, Eric Nordstrom, who was a regional security officer and had been in Libya earlier in 2012, Charlene Lamb, who is Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, and Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy.
SNIP
… as Issa pointed out at the end, it is a general election year. Directing that remark to the panel, however, appeared ignorant and was certainly arrogant. Three of the four, career Foreign Service officers, are, as the Department of State is, apolitical. They serve, and have served through multiple administrations of both parties and were not there to promote anybody’s candidacy.
It was stunning that career Foreign Service officials should be accused of playing partisan politics. Even at that early date, there was fear of a Hillary Clinton candidacy so obvious as to be read outright into the Congressional Record.
The objective from the outset was to lay obstacles in a path to the White House should Hillary Clinton embark. Those who insist on focusing the spotlight on her rather than investigating the larger picture of what went wrong in Benghazi and how a repeat can be avoided in the future have, in fact, abandoned their appointed task.
In astoundingly transparent fashion, the Republicans on the Select Committee on Benghazi have abandoned all pretense plans for investigating departments and agencies outside the State Department and individuals other than Hillary Clinton.
An article in The Hill today reveals a letter from Select Committee Democrats to their GOP counterparts accusing them of refitting the objectives of the committee from inquiry and prevention into a political weapon aimed at the former secretary of state.
Hillary Clinton has said that she has done nothing wrong, has gone above and beyond in her compliance with House committee requests, that she will gladly go to the Hill to respond to what questions there may be, and that the emails are in the hands of the State Department whose processing of them is the true object of the requested inquiry. She will be exonerated of all wrong-doing in the end as she has been after every Republican and right-wing attack against her. I take her at her word. I always have and have never been disappointed. She has done nothing wrong and has done her best to cooperate and comply.
Excellent point. The headlines on this were total distortion and misrepresentation. NYTimes is walking it back but not before they sent out e-mail alerts and published their misleading lede. What a toxic waste the media are!
If all you have to go by is the NYT story, you need powers of detection worthy of Sherlock Holmes just to figure out what the fuss is about. The Times keeps referring to Hillary’s “private account”, but that appears to be irrelevant to the IG’s concerns. Apparently, those center on State’s handling of classified or sensitive info in responding to Freedom of Information requests. Hillary’s emails just tipped them off that there may be a problem with the review process. It wouldn’t matter if Hillary used a private account, the State Department unclassified email system, or carrier pigeon. The concern is that material that should be classified by State is not being classified, and, therefore getting into the public domain. This would, of course, apply to info handled by many people, not just the SOS.
The Times’ original source was probably (yet again!) some staffer on the so-called Benghazi Committee which has less and less to do with the tragic attack there.
Sometime I wonder why Hillary even bothers being in public life anymore. I don’t know how she she takes it. And I’m getting really sick and tired of the NYT serving as Trey Gowdy’s PR firm and then having to backtrack. They should be ashamed.
I saw the headlines earlier and didn’t click on any of them. I got to work phone banking for hours now. I just stopped for a break and came here first. Glad to see it was all BS as usual. I just am so sick of them I don’t read it, I don’t give a rats ass at this point if they do find something! After decades of her being falsely accused they owe her one freebie!
I don’t care anymore what they do, what she does, what all the noise is.
I just work hard so she can win ANOTHER POTUS primary. With even more than 18 million votes this time. 20 million sounds like a nice round number.
Yes, and they want Hillary supporters to tweet and retweet their articles. (If you are signed up as a Corrector, you probably got an email about this.)
How The New York Times Bungled the Hillary Clinton Emails Story
BY KURT EICHENWALD 7/24/15 AT 5:21 PM
OPINION
Hillary Clinton speaking at a town hall meeting in Dover, New Hampshire, on July 16. BRIAN SNYDER/REUTERS
FILED UNDER: Opinion
What the hell is happening at The New York Times?
In March, the newspaper published a highly touted article about Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email account that, as I wrote in an earlier column, was wrong in its major points. TheTimes’s public editor defended that piece, linking to a lengthy series of regulations that, in fact, proved the allegations contained in the article were false. While there has since been a lot of partisan hullaballoo about “email-bogus-gate”—something to be expected when the story involves a political party’s presidential front-runner—the reality remained that, when it came to this story, there was no there there.
Then, on Thursday night, the Times dropped a bombshell: Two government inspectors general had made a criminal referral to the Justice Department about Clinton and her handling of the emails. The story was largely impenetrable, because at no point did it offer even a suggestion of what might constitute a crime. By Friday morning, the Times did what is known in the media trade as a “skin back”—the article now said the criminal referral wasn’t about Clinton but about the department’s handling of emails. Still, it conveyed no indication of what possible crime might be involved.
Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week
The story seemed to further fall apart on Friday morning when Representative Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) issued a statement saying that he had spoken to the inspector general of the State Department and that there had been no criminal referral regarding Clinton’s email usage. Rather, Cummings said, the inspectors general for State and the intelligence community had simply notified the Justice Department—which issues the regulations on Freedom of Information Act requests—that some emails subject to FOIA review had been identified as classified when they had not previously been designated that way.
So had the Times mixed up a criminal referral—a major news event—with a notification to the department responsible for overseeing FOIA errors that might affect some documents’ release? It’s impossible to tell, because the Times story—complete with its lack of identification of any possible criminal activity—continues to mention a criminal referral.
But based on a review of documents from the inspectors general, the problems with the story may be worse than that—much, much worse. The reason my last sentence says may is this: There is a possibility—however unlikely—that the Timescited documents in its article that have the same dates and the same quotes but are different from the records I have reviewed. I emailed Dean Baquet, the Times’s executive editor, to ask if there are some other records the paper has and a series of other questions, but received no response. (Full disclosure: I’m a former senior writer for the Times and have worked with Baquet in the past.)
So, in an excess of caution, I’m leaving open the possibility that there are other documents with the same quotes on the same dates simply because the other conclusion—that The New York Times is writing about records its reporters haven’t read or almost willfully didn’t understand—is, for a journalist, simply too horrible to contemplate.
Indeed, if the Times article is based on the same documents I read, then the piece is wrong in all of its implications and in almost every particular related to the inspector generals’ conclusions. These are errors that go far beyond whether there was a criminal referral of Clinton’s emails or a criminal referral at all. Sources can mislead; documents do not.
First, what did the Times article say? To be charitable, let’s use the skinned-back version and quote the first two paragraphs:
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.
The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management.
The words in those paragraphs would lead any rational reader of the Times story to conclude that sensitive government information was mishandled, that this mishandling raised concerns about criminal activity, and that these concerns related somehow to classified information in Clinton’s email account.
Here are the words that were left out: Freedom of Information Act. At no point in the story does theTimes mention what this memo—and the other it cited—was really all about: that the officials at the Freedom of Information office in the State Department and intelligence agencies, which were reviewing emails for release, had discovered emails that may not have been designated with the correct classification. For anyone who has dealt with the FOIA and government agencies, this is something that happens all the time in every administration. (Advice to other journalists: That is why it’s smart to file multiple FOIA requests for the same document; different FOIA officials will declare different items unreleasable, so some records can be turned over where a sentence has been blacked out because one reviewer decided it was classified, while another deemed it unclassified.)
The problem is, it is not as if the real purpose of this memo was hard to discern. Here is the subject heading: “Potential Issues Identified by the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community Concerning the Department of State’s Process for the Review of Former Secretary Clinton’s Emails under the Freedom of Information Act (ESP-15-05)”
Get it? This is about the process being used by FOIA officials in reviewing former Secretary Clinton. And former government officials have nothing to do with how FOIA officials deal with requests for documentation. To jump from this fact to a conclusion that, somehow, someone thinks there is a criminal case against Clinton (the original story) requires a level of recklessness that borders on, well, criminal behavior.
Yes, there is memo after memo after memo, which the Times gloats were given to it by a senior government official. (For those who have thoughts of late-night meetings in parking garages or the Pentagon Papers, they were unclassified documents. Reporters obtain those kinds of records through the complex, investigative procedure of asking the press office for them.) And all of them are about the exact same thing: the process being used by current FOIA officials reviewing the emails of a former official is messed up. That’s like criticizing the former owner of a car for the work conducted by the new owner’s mechanic.
So what was the point of the memo written by Linick and McCullough? The memo itself is very clear: “The Department should ensure that no classified documents are publically released.”
In terms of journalism, this is terrible. That theTimes article never discloses this is about an after-the-fact review of Clinton’s emails conducted long after she left the State Department is simply inexcusable. That this all comes from a concern about the accidental release of classified information—a fact that goes unmentioned—is even worse. In other words, the Times has twisted and turned in a way that makes this story seem like something it most decidedly is not. This is no Clinton scandal. It is no scandal at all. It is about current bureaucratic processes, probably the biggest snooze-fest in all of journalism.
The heavy breathing of deception or incompetence by the Times doesn’t stop there. In fact, almost every paragraph at the top of the story is wrong, misleading or fundamentally deceptive.
The third paragraph states: “It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them. No, in fact, it is quite clear. All of the memos are about emails that the officials say may not have been properly designated as classified, meaning it would be improper to release them. If a document is marked as classified, it is certainly not difficult to determine if it has been marked as classified. Paragraph three is false.
Paragraph four: “But since her use of a private email account for official State Department business was revealed in March, she has repeatedly said that she had no classified information on the account.” Mmmm-kay. A point that would seem to be reinforced by the fact that this whole issue is about whether emails should have been designated as classified by FOIA officials. The but makes it seem as if there is a contradiction, when in fact the two points are completely consistent.
Then there are a couple of paragraphs that are a short summary of the past and a comment from the Clinton campaign saying any released emails deemed classified were designated that way after the fact. Yah—that’s what the memos are talking about.
All of this is bad enough, but then there is the ultimate disaster, paragraph seven: “At issue are thousands of pages of State Department emails from Mrs. Clinton’s private account. Mrs. Clinton has said she used the account because it was more convenient, but it also shielded her correspondence from congressional and Freedom of Information Act requests.”
Wow. The first time that the story—which readers cannot possibly know is about FOIA requests—finally mentions FOIA requests, it just manufactures a reality out of thin air. Using a private account would not, in any way, shield Clinton’s correspondence from congressional or FOIA requests.
Start with the rules. Under the FOIA, any document that is not specifically exempted and that falls “under the control of the Department” at the time the request for those records is submitted must be produced. By legal definition, the secretary of state qualifies as part of “the Department,” and thus anything that official writes as part of the job—whether by email, telegraph or handwritten on personal stationery—is subject to a FOIA request. Same goes for Congress. That’s why congressional hearings sometimes produce personal handwritten documents—the fact that they might not be in an email server does not limit the requirement that they be turned over.
Second, contrary to the implication from the first Times story, Clinton’s emails sent in her role as secretary of state were automatically saved into a secure data system under the control of the department. In fact, where does the Times think the FOIA offices for the State Department and the intelligence community are finding the 55,000 emails now under review that it cites in its new story? Are officials breaking into Clinton’s house in the middle of the night to examine them by flashlight? Nope. They are pulling them off of the system under the department’s control.
Then there is accusation by false association. If a sentence read, “Bill shot Ted, and Ted died,” any responsible journalist who wrote that would understand the implication was that Bill killed Ted. But if the truth is that Bill accidentally shot Ted when they were on a hunting trip, and 30 years later Ted died from heart disease, the implied accusation is true in its fact yet false in its statement.
This unforgivable journalistic sin turns up in paragraphs 13 and 14 in the Times story. They read:
The inspectors general also criticized the State Department for its handling of sensitive information, particularly its reliance on retired senior Foreign Service officers to decide if information should be classified, and for not consulting with the intelligence agencies about its determinations.
In March, Mrs. Clinton insisted that she was careful in her handling of information on her private account. “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” she said.
No reader could possibly know that the two paragraphs, jammed together and using similar phrases—handling of information and handling of sensitive information—have nothing to do with each other. The first paragraph is once again based on the inspectors general’s memos. And again, what those memos are actually discussing is the way that the FOIA office is handling its review of the former secretary of state’s emails for public release. They in no way discuss Clinton, her handling of emails or anything approaching those topics.
But by slapping those two paragraphs together and using the same words, the Times—again, either out of recklessness, ignorance or intentional deception—makes it seem as if the inspectors general are saying Clinton mishandled classified information. They didn’t.
In our hyper-partisan world, many people will not care about the truth here. That the Times story is false in almost every particular—down to the level of who wrote what memo—will only lead to accusations that people trying to set the record straight are pro-Hillary. I am not pro-Hillary. I am, however, pro-journalism. And this display of incompetence or malice cannot stand without correction.
And to other reporters: Democracy is not a game. It is not a means of getting our names on the front page or setting the world abuzz about our latest scoop. It is about providing information so that an electorate can make decisions based on reality. It is about being fair and being accurate. This despicable Times story was neither.
[…] ready for Hillary means more than simply casting your vote for her. It means being prepared for the onslaught – already in progress – to discredit and defeat her. It means being informed and ready to refute misinformation and outright lies. Here are some […]
[…] New York Times stirred up a hornets nest late Thursday night with a stunningly inaccurate smear on Hillary Clinton’s character and State Department […]
[…] In an editorial in the New York Times Saturday, Margaret Sullivan compared Clinton stories to a luggage carousel where the bags are never collected and hence perpetually pile up. One might say the same for the way the NYT handled its response to the reprehensible, damaging, and unfounded story of July 23. […]
This private blog is about Hillary Clinton's work. It is intended to support, promote, and appreciate Hillary Clinton's efforts and initiatives, all of them – past, current, and future. Onward together! “Resist, insist, persist, enlist.” - Hillary Rodham Clinton
Search this blog
The Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton
Welcome to the Office of
Hillary Rodham Clinton
*Read about Hillary's life
*See Hillary's current projects
*Learn about Hillary's vision for America
*Send Hillary a note
Onward Together
“Resist, insist, persist, enlist.” Hillary Rodham Clinton
Hillary Clinton on Facebook
Hillary Clinton on Facebook
@HillaryClinton on Twitter
Follow Hillary on Twitter!
What Happened
Hillary Clinton's 2016 election memoir
Too Small to Fail
“One of the best investments we can make is to give our kids the ingredients they need to develop in the first five years of life.” — Hillary Rodham Clinton
The Clinton Foundation on Facebook
Like the Clinton Foundation on Facebook!
Flint Child Health & Development Fund
"If you can, please chip in to support the Flint Child Health & Development Fund, which is working to provide health care and educational support to families in Flint affected by this crisis." - Hillary Clinton
Thank you for everything, Mme. Secretary!!!!
Thank you for all of your dedicated service and brilliant leadership!
Hillary Clinton’s Cover Letter to Congress on the ARB Report
Hillary because…
She would NEVER have allowed social safety nets to be "on the table."
Read the unclassified ARB Report on Benghazi here.
@U.S. Senate: Time to ratify LOST!
"... ratify the Law of the Sea Convention, which has provided the international framework for exploring these new opportunities in the Arctic. We abide by the international law that undergirds the convention, but we think the United States should be a member, because the convention sets down the rules of the road that protect freedom of navigation, provide maritime security, serve the interests of every nation that relies on sea lanes for commerce and trade, and also sets the framework for exploration for the natural resources that may be present in the Arctic." -HRC, 06-03-12, Tromso Norway
"I deeply resent those who attack our country, the generosity of our people and the leadership of our president in trying to respond to historically disastrous conditions after the earthquake." - HRC 01-26-10
Good Advice!
“You can’t keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbors. Eventually those snakes are going to turn on whoever has them in the backyard.” HRC
Hillary! Leadership we need!
Politics & Foreign Policy
"What I have always found is that when it comes to foreign policy, it is important to remember that politics stops at the water's edge." -HRC 11-04-10
What a difference one woman can make!
"...whether it’s here, in the absolute best embassy in the world, or whether it’s in Washington, or whether it’s elsewhere, what a difference one woman can make. And that woman is right here, the woman who needs no introduction, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton." 07.05.10 - Unidentified speaker, Embassy Yerevan
Most Respected
"So, ladies and gentlemen, I give you your Secretary of State, and perhaps the most respected person on the world stage today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton." - Jon Huntsman 05-23-2010
Hillary Clinton Express Facebook Group
Your one stop spot for Hillary Clinton News!
Supporters of “The People’s President,” Hillary Rodham Clinton
Together 4 us! Facebook Page
Uppity Woman
The place to go if you feel like you're the only woman who wants to punch her own TV set.
Jenny’s Jumbo Jargon
Elephant Watch
Favorite Quote
“When people attack you, you always have to remember that a lot of what others say about you has a lot more to do about them than you.” – Hillary Rodham Clinton
Still4Hill 
Excellent point. The headlines on this were total distortion and misrepresentation. NYTimes is walking it back but not before they sent out e-mail alerts and published their misleading lede. What a toxic waste the media are!
LikeLike
And, of course, when they do walk it back it doesn’t get the splash the initial shocker received.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If all you have to go by is the NYT story, you need powers of detection worthy of Sherlock Holmes just to figure out what the fuss is about. The Times keeps referring to Hillary’s “private account”, but that appears to be irrelevant to the IG’s concerns. Apparently, those center on State’s handling of classified or sensitive info in responding to Freedom of Information requests. Hillary’s emails just tipped them off that there may be a problem with the review process. It wouldn’t matter if Hillary used a private account, the State Department unclassified email system, or carrier pigeon. The concern is that material that should be classified by State is not being classified, and, therefore getting into the public domain. This would, of course, apply to info handled by many people, not just the SOS.
LikeLike
The Times’ original source was probably (yet again!) some staffer on the so-called Benghazi Committee which has less and less to do with the tragic attack there.
LikeLike
Undoubtedly, because Elijah Cummings came out with a really strong rebuttal statement today. He’s been wonderful.
LikeLike
Sometime I wonder why Hillary even bothers being in public life anymore. I don’t know how she she takes it. And I’m getting really sick and tired of the NYT serving as Trey Gowdy’s PR firm and then having to backtrack. They should be ashamed.
LikeLike
Different day sa me stuff does anyone at Nytimes gave any integrity?
LikeLike
NO!
LikeLike
LikeLike
I saw the headlines earlier and didn’t click on any of them. I got to work phone banking for hours now. I just stopped for a break and came here first. Glad to see it was all BS as usual. I just am so sick of them I don’t read it, I don’t give a rats ass at this point if they do find something! After decades of her being falsely accused they owe her one freebie!
I don’t care anymore what they do, what she does, what all the noise is.
I just work hard so she can win ANOTHER POTUS primary. With even more than 18 million votes this time. 20 million sounds like a nice round number.
LikeLike
Still, very eloquent. Blah Blah is perfect!
I am going to call the whole damn state of Florida – they get me so mad.
lol. I keep finding people who love her to pieces. TOO BAD NYT.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Correct the Record – attacking back at the smears of the liars at the NYT:
http://correctrecord.org/correct-the-record-statement-on-bogus-new-york-times-story-on-secretary-clintons-emails/
LikeLike
Yes, and they want Hillary supporters to tweet and retweet their articles. (If you are signed up as a Corrector, you probably got an email about this.)
#iTrustHillary
LikeLike
Newsweek demolishes NY Times
US Edition
Try NewsweekSign in
How The New York Times Bungled the Hillary Clinton Emails Story
BY KURT EICHENWALD 7/24/15 AT 5:21 PM
OPINION
Hillary Clinton speaking at a town hall meeting in Dover, New Hampshire, on July 16. BRIAN SNYDER/REUTERS
FILED UNDER: Opinion
What the hell is happening at The New York Times?
In March, the newspaper published a highly touted article about Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email account that, as I wrote in an earlier column, was wrong in its major points. TheTimes’s public editor defended that piece, linking to a lengthy series of regulations that, in fact, proved the allegations contained in the article were false. While there has since been a lot of partisan hullaballoo about “email-bogus-gate”—something to be expected when the story involves a political party’s presidential front-runner—the reality remained that, when it came to this story, there was no there there.
Then, on Thursday night, the Times dropped a bombshell: Two government inspectors general had made a criminal referral to the Justice Department about Clinton and her handling of the emails. The story was largely impenetrable, because at no point did it offer even a suggestion of what might constitute a crime. By Friday morning, the Times did what is known in the media trade as a “skin back”—the article now said the criminal referral wasn’t about Clinton but about the department’s handling of emails. Still, it conveyed no indication of what possible crime might be involved.
Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week
The story seemed to further fall apart on Friday morning when Representative Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) issued a statement saying that he had spoken to the inspector general of the State Department and that there had been no criminal referral regarding Clinton’s email usage. Rather, Cummings said, the inspectors general for State and the intelligence community had simply notified the Justice Department—which issues the regulations on Freedom of Information Act requests—that some emails subject to FOIA review had been identified as classified when they had not previously been designated that way.
So had the Times mixed up a criminal referral—a major news event—with a notification to the department responsible for overseeing FOIA errors that might affect some documents’ release? It’s impossible to tell, because the Times story—complete with its lack of identification of any possible criminal activity—continues to mention a criminal referral.
But based on a review of documents from the inspectors general, the problems with the story may be worse than that—much, much worse. The reason my last sentence says may is this: There is a possibility—however unlikely—that the Timescited documents in its article that have the same dates and the same quotes but are different from the records I have reviewed. I emailed Dean Baquet, the Times’s executive editor, to ask if there are some other records the paper has and a series of other questions, but received no response. (Full disclosure: I’m a former senior writer for the Times and have worked with Baquet in the past.)
So, in an excess of caution, I’m leaving open the possibility that there are other documents with the same quotes on the same dates simply because the other conclusion—that The New York Times is writing about records its reporters haven’t read or almost willfully didn’t understand—is, for a journalist, simply too horrible to contemplate.
Indeed, if the Times article is based on the same documents I read, then the piece is wrong in all of its implications and in almost every particular related to the inspector generals’ conclusions. These are errors that go far beyond whether there was a criminal referral of Clinton’s emails or a criminal referral at all. Sources can mislead; documents do not.
First, what did the Times article say? To be charitable, let’s use the skinned-back version and quote the first two paragraphs:
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.
The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management.
The words in those paragraphs would lead any rational reader of the Times story to conclude that sensitive government information was mishandled, that this mishandling raised concerns about criminal activity, and that these concerns related somehow to classified information in Clinton’s email account.
Here are the words that were left out: Freedom of Information Act. At no point in the story does theTimes mention what this memo—and the other it cited—was really all about: that the officials at the Freedom of Information office in the State Department and intelligence agencies, which were reviewing emails for release, had discovered emails that may not have been designated with the correct classification. For anyone who has dealt with the FOIA and government agencies, this is something that happens all the time in every administration. (Advice to other journalists: That is why it’s smart to file multiple FOIA requests for the same document; different FOIA officials will declare different items unreleasable, so some records can be turned over where a sentence has been blacked out because one reviewer decided it was classified, while another deemed it unclassified.)
The problem is, it is not as if the real purpose of this memo was hard to discern. Here is the subject heading: “Potential Issues Identified by the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community Concerning the Department of State’s Process for the Review of Former Secretary Clinton’s Emails under the Freedom of Information Act (ESP-15-05)”
Get it? This is about the process being used by FOIA officials in reviewing former Secretary Clinton. And former government officials have nothing to do with how FOIA officials deal with requests for documentation. To jump from this fact to a conclusion that, somehow, someone thinks there is a criminal case against Clinton (the original story) requires a level of recklessness that borders on, well, criminal behavior.
Yes, there is memo after memo after memo, which the Times gloats were given to it by a senior government official. (For those who have thoughts of late-night meetings in parking garages or the Pentagon Papers, they were unclassified documents. Reporters obtain those kinds of records through the complex, investigative procedure of asking the press office for them.) And all of them are about the exact same thing: the process being used by current FOIA officials reviewing the emails of a former official is messed up. That’s like criticizing the former owner of a car for the work conducted by the new owner’s mechanic.
So what was the point of the memo written by Linick and McCullough? The memo itself is very clear: “The Department should ensure that no classified documents are publically released.”
In terms of journalism, this is terrible. That theTimes article never discloses this is about an after-the-fact review of Clinton’s emails conducted long after she left the State Department is simply inexcusable. That this all comes from a concern about the accidental release of classified information—a fact that goes unmentioned—is even worse. In other words, the Times has twisted and turned in a way that makes this story seem like something it most decidedly is not. This is no Clinton scandal. It is no scandal at all. It is about current bureaucratic processes, probably the biggest snooze-fest in all of journalism.
The heavy breathing of deception or incompetence by the Times doesn’t stop there. In fact, almost every paragraph at the top of the story is wrong, misleading or fundamentally deceptive.
The third paragraph states: “It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them. No, in fact, it is quite clear. All of the memos are about emails that the officials say may not have been properly designated as classified, meaning it would be improper to release them. If a document is marked as classified, it is certainly not difficult to determine if it has been marked as classified. Paragraph three is false.
Paragraph four: “But since her use of a private email account for official State Department business was revealed in March, she has repeatedly said that she had no classified information on the account.” Mmmm-kay. A point that would seem to be reinforced by the fact that this whole issue is about whether emails should have been designated as classified by FOIA officials. The but makes it seem as if there is a contradiction, when in fact the two points are completely consistent.
Then there are a couple of paragraphs that are a short summary of the past and a comment from the Clinton campaign saying any released emails deemed classified were designated that way after the fact. Yah—that’s what the memos are talking about.
All of this is bad enough, but then there is the ultimate disaster, paragraph seven: “At issue are thousands of pages of State Department emails from Mrs. Clinton’s private account. Mrs. Clinton has said she used the account because it was more convenient, but it also shielded her correspondence from congressional and Freedom of Information Act requests.”
Wow. The first time that the story—which readers cannot possibly know is about FOIA requests—finally mentions FOIA requests, it just manufactures a reality out of thin air. Using a private account would not, in any way, shield Clinton’s correspondence from congressional or FOIA requests.
Start with the rules. Under the FOIA, any document that is not specifically exempted and that falls “under the control of the Department” at the time the request for those records is submitted must be produced. By legal definition, the secretary of state qualifies as part of “the Department,” and thus anything that official writes as part of the job—whether by email, telegraph or handwritten on personal stationery—is subject to a FOIA request. Same goes for Congress. That’s why congressional hearings sometimes produce personal handwritten documents—the fact that they might not be in an email server does not limit the requirement that they be turned over.
Second, contrary to the implication from the first Times story, Clinton’s emails sent in her role as secretary of state were automatically saved into a secure data system under the control of the department. In fact, where does the Times think the FOIA offices for the State Department and the intelligence community are finding the 55,000 emails now under review that it cites in its new story? Are officials breaking into Clinton’s house in the middle of the night to examine them by flashlight? Nope. They are pulling them off of the system under the department’s control.
Then there is accusation by false association. If a sentence read, “Bill shot Ted, and Ted died,” any responsible journalist who wrote that would understand the implication was that Bill killed Ted. But if the truth is that Bill accidentally shot Ted when they were on a hunting trip, and 30 years later Ted died from heart disease, the implied accusation is true in its fact yet false in its statement.
This unforgivable journalistic sin turns up in paragraphs 13 and 14 in the Times story. They read:
The inspectors general also criticized the State Department for its handling of sensitive information, particularly its reliance on retired senior Foreign Service officers to decide if information should be classified, and for not consulting with the intelligence agencies about its determinations.
In March, Mrs. Clinton insisted that she was careful in her handling of information on her private account. “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” she said.
No reader could possibly know that the two paragraphs, jammed together and using similar phrases—handling of information and handling of sensitive information—have nothing to do with each other. The first paragraph is once again based on the inspectors general’s memos. And again, what those memos are actually discussing is the way that the FOIA office is handling its review of the former secretary of state’s emails for public release. They in no way discuss Clinton, her handling of emails or anything approaching those topics.
But by slapping those two paragraphs together and using the same words, the Times—again, either out of recklessness, ignorance or intentional deception—makes it seem as if the inspectors general are saying Clinton mishandled classified information. They didn’t.
In our hyper-partisan world, many people will not care about the truth here. That the Times story is false in almost every particular—down to the level of who wrote what memo—will only lead to accusations that people trying to set the record straight are pro-Hillary. I am not pro-Hillary. I am, however, pro-journalism. And this display of incompetence or malice cannot stand without correction.
And to other reporters: Democracy is not a game. It is not a means of getting our names on the front page or setting the world abuzz about our latest scoop. It is about providing information so that an electorate can make decisions based on reality. It is about being fair and being accurate. This despicable Times story was neither.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“despicable” — wow.
LikeLike
[…] ready for Hillary means more than simply casting your vote for her. It means being prepared for the onslaught – already in progress – to discredit and defeat her. It means being informed and ready to refute misinformation and outright lies. Here are some […]
LikeLike
[…] New York Times stirred up a hornets nest late Thursday night with a stunningly inaccurate smear on Hillary Clinton’s character and State Department […]
LikeLike
Reblogged this on The Department of Homegirl Security and commented:
Cross-posted at Still4Hill,com
LikeLike
[…] In an editorial in the New York Times Saturday, Margaret Sullivan compared Clinton stories to a luggage carousel where the bags are never collected and hence perpetually pile up. One might say the same for the way the NYT handled its response to the reprehensible, damaging, and unfounded story of July 23. […]
LikeLike
[…] Blah blah + (Hillary) Clinton + Blah blah + Criminal = Header Formula […]
LikeLike