The NY Times Just Did Something Stunning At Hillary’s Request, Immediately Paid A Big Price

Feedback from fellow reporters has been less than stellar after it was revealed that the New York Times made significant edits (including changing the headline) to a story it wrote about two inspector generals’ requests that the Justice Department open a criminal investigation regarding the use of a private email server by former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

Politico reports that the original headline ran by the Times Thursday was “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email.” However, that headline was changed sometime after midnight to the less damning “Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account.”

Likewise, the lead sentence was changed from saying that the probe would be “into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state,” to “into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state.”

One of the writers of the story, Michael Schmidt, explained to Politico early Friday that the Clinton campaign had complained about the story to the Times.

“It was a response to complaints we received from the Clinton camp that we thought were reasonable, and we made them,” Schmidt said.

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, released a statement on Twitter on Friday: “Contrary to the initial story, which has already been significantly revised, she followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials. As has been reported on multiple occasions, any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted.”

Mediaite’s Alex Griswold points out: “What [Merrill] left off was that the story had been “significantly revised” because of pressure from the Clinton camp.”

In March at a press conference at the U.N., Clinton insisted that she was careful in her handling of sensitive information with her private account. “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” she said. “There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”

A former senior State Department official found Clinton’s claim lacked credibility. He told the New York Times in March: “’I would assume that more than 50 percent of what the secretary of state dealt with was classified…Was every single email of the secretary of state completely unclassified? Maybe, but it’s hard to imagine.’”

On Friday, the Times finally decided to inform its readers of the change to its Thursday story.

An earlier version of this article and an earlier headline, using information from senior government officials, misstated the nature of the referral to the Justice Department regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state. The referral addressed the potential compromise of classified information in connection with that personal email account. It did not specifically request an investigation into Mrs. Clinton.

Mediaite chronicled the critical responses of some in the media–from both Left and Right–to the Times’ “stealth edit.”

NY Times changes Hillary Story III - Tweet 1

Perhaps the hardest hitting rebuke came from Ricochet’s Stephen Miller:

NY Times changes Hillary Story - Tweet 1As reported by Western Journalism, one of Clinton’s claims from her U.N. press conference about her emails has been shown to be false. The State Department confirmed last month that she did not turn over all her work-related emails. Select Committee on Benghazi chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said in a statement regarding the revelation: “This has implications far beyond Libya, Benghazi and our committee’s work. This conclusively shows her email arrangement with herself, which was then vetted by her own lawyers, has resulted in an incomplete public record.”

According to the Times, the Justice Department has not decided whether to open a criminal investigation into the transmission of classified material through Clinton’s private email accounts.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

BREAKING: Hillary’s Hopes For The Presidency May Now Lie With Obama’s New Attorney General

The scandal surrounding emailgate — then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account managed on a personal server — has just been escalated to a higher level that could prove extremely damaging to Mrs. Clinton’s hopes for the White House.

The New York Times reports that the Justice Department has been asked 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 it’s not a Republican politician or a conservative watchdog group that’s requesting the criminal probe of Mrs. Clinton’s email practices. It’s two inspectors general working for the federal government who have reportedly asked for the inquiry into whether Hillary included classified information — sensitive government secrets — in the emails she sent. Mrs. Clinton has denied that she ever included any classified material in her many thousands of official emails when she was the country’s top diplomat.

However, as The Times article points out, when Mrs. Clinton turned over to the State Department the digital communications she had held and controlled on her private server, the review of those emails raised serious and troubling questions.

In the course of the email review, State Department officials determined that some information in the messages should be retroactively classified. In the 3,000 pages that were released, for example, portions of two dozen emails were redacted because they were upgraded to “classified status.” But none of those were marked as classified at the time Mrs. Clinton handled them.

So now, President Obama’s new Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, will have a huge say in whether a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s controversial email practices will be undertaken. Such a criminal probe would almost certainly further damage Mrs. Clinton’s already shaky image for being an honest and trustworthy person.

Just a couple of days ago, Western Journalism reported on a new poll from Quinnipiac that showed Mrs. Clinton losing serious ground to potential Republican challengers in three key swing states. The survey confirmed what other polls have found in recent weeks — the frontrunner for the 2016 Democrat nomination for president is not seen as particularly honest and trustworthy.

Mrs. Clinton recently drew a fair share of snickers and snide comments when she boasted to a CNN interviewer, “People should and do trust me.” Should Obama’s attorney general decide that a criminal probe is warranted into Hillary’s emails and their possibly classified content, even the presidential candidate herself would be hard-pressed to make that statement again with a straight face.

Should a criminal investigation be launched over Hillary Clinton’s controversial email practices? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: Donald Trump Sends A Huge Message With 4 BOLD Words On His Strange Hat

Decked out in a white hat with his campaign slogan, “Make America Great again,” in blue lettering, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump reaffirmed his confidence in winning the GOP nomination, adding he will “probably” face former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“I’m a Republican, I’m a conservative, I’m running,” Trump said Thursday on the U.S.-Mexico border in Laredo, Texas, Thursday. “I’m in first place by a lot it seems, according to all the polls. I want to run as a Republican. I think I’ll get the nomination, we’ll see soon enough, but I think I’ll get the nomination.”

Four of the last five national polls in the RealClearPolitics average show Trump in first place among GOP presidential candidates. He is almost assured a place in the first Republican presidential debate early next month. “The best way to win is for me to get the nomination and run, probably against Hillary,” Trump continued. “Hillary is the worst – look, easily – she’s the worst secretary of state in the history of our country. She’s going to be beaten, and I’m the one to beat her, and I will take jobs back.”

Trump slammed the former first lady earlier this month in a Facebook post, calling Clinton a “[f]ailing candidate” after she criticized him for his immigration stance. He also advised Clinton to “spend more time producing her illegally hidden emails and less time trying to obfuscate a statement by me that is totally clear and obviously very much accepted by the public as true.”

The real estate mogul also boasted his bonafides with Hispanics. “And the reason I won with the Hispanic vote – and I win all over with the Hispanic vote – is because they know I’ll take jobs back from China,” Trump said.

I’ll take jobs back from Japan, and every other country that’s killing us. I’ll bring the jobs back. And you know, the Hispanics are going to get those jobs, and they’re going to love Trump. And they already do.

Although one poll in Nevada had Trump dominating the Hispanic vote, more than two-thirds of Hispanics disapproved of his remarks on illegal immigrants, said a recent Univision poll.

h/t: Fox News

Do you support Donald Trump? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: Millennials’ Jaws Drop When They Learn A Fact About Hillary That Horrifies Them

Campus Reform correspondent Cabot Phillips recently headed to D.C. to conduct impromptu interviews with passersby. Armed with a list of all presidential candidates and the logos of four recognizable Wall Street financial institutions, Phillips asked young adults to pick which White House hopeful they believe received the biggest donations from each corporation.

A clear majority picked Republicans, specifically Scott Walker, Jeb Bush and Donald Trump.

“Let’s go Jeb,” one participant guessed. “Jeb’s got to be doing something. I know he’s doing something.”

Another individual picked a Republican for each of the corresponding financial insitutions.

When asked about his choices, he replied: “Yeah, yeah. I just kind of figured, big banks, you know, always going with the Republicans.”

One woman recognized an underlying partisanship in the answers she and a man with her provided.

“Every person we’ve picked so far has been Republican,” she said. “And we’re both Democrats.”

After each contestant made his or her choices, Phillips revealed that Hillary Clinton is the correct response in all four cases.

A few of the shocked reactions included: “Oh, dang,” “I was not expecting that,” and “Are you serious?”

More than one participant accused Clinton of hypocrisy, a charge addressed in the video via the inclusion of a quote from a previous campaign speech.

“Prosperity can’t be just for CEOs and hedge fund managers,” Clinton said. “Democracy can’t be just for billionaires and corporations.”

At least one of the passersby revealed that she will no longer consider Clinton when preparing to vote next year.

“I don’t vote for hypocrites,” she said. “None of that. Yep, not voting for Hillary.”

Is Hillary a hypocrite? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

BREAKING: The Way Hillary Was Just Scorched Has Leftist Media All Shook Up About 2016

It’s the big topic of stunned conversation among those media types attuned to politics as the 2016 presidential race continues to take shape. “It” is the shocking new poll just released that shows Hillary Clinton continuing to lose ground in key swing states — so much ground, in fact, that if the election were held today, the Democrat front runner would likely lose in a landslide.

Panelists on left-leaning MSNBC, according to the Washington Free Beacon, were stunned at the incredibly poor showing for Mrs. Clinton, whom survey respondents in battleground states say they don’t trust — they really don’t trust — not in the least.

“A Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday morning spelled ‘trouble’ for her campaign. The poll found Clinton losing to major Republican candidates Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and Marco Rubio in the swing states of Colorado, Iowa, and Virginia.

“’Hillary is upside down by 23 in Iowa?’ host [of Morning Joe] Joe Scarborough said. ‘She’s upside down by nine in Virginia which she has to win. She’s upside down by 23 in Colorado!’”

Adding his two cents to the Morning Joe political panel, the host of NBC’s Meet the Press, Chuck Todd, was brutal in his assessment of the Clinton campaign’s big problem. As the Free Beacon article notes of Todd’s analysis:

“’This fits another pattern of hers,’ Todd said. ‘Whenever she’s been out front as the face of the Democratic Party, her numbers have gone down. They always have, whenever she is the focal point.’

“’You could just simply say she doesn’t wear well,’ Todd said.”

CNN’s morning coverage of the shocking new poll results from Quinnipiac was equally breathless as it cited surprising details from the findings.

In Colorado, Clinton trails Rubio 38%-46%, Bush 36%-41% and Walker 38%-47%. In Iowa, she trails Rubio 36%-44%, Bush 36%-42% and Walker 37%-45%. And in Virginia, Clinton has the narrowest margins between her and her Republican opponents, where she lags behind Rubio 41%-43%, Bush 39%-42% and Walker 40%-43%.

As CNN notes, a spokesman for the Quinnipiac University Poll delivered excruciatingly bad news for Hillary Clinton as he described what the survey found:

“‘Do Colorado voters trust Hillary? No, they do not. Do they think she cares about their needs? No, they do not,’ he said. ‘So the door is open to a GOP candidate voters can believe in.’”

And what does the far-left Huffington Post have to say about the terrible polling news for Hillary? Nothing, as of this writing.

However, in what many might see as a telling sign of HuffPo’s horse (not yet) in the presidential race, the site’s top political post was about Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and how she really gave it to a hotshot, GOP-favoring financial executive during a little-noticed hearing on retirement savings.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth