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

Ted Cruz Vs The New York Times, Round Two: Look Who Just Won For This STUNNING Reason

Here’s an incredible dark cloud-silver lining story about Sen. Ted Cruz and his new book A Time for Truth – a story rich in irony that shows how something that appears to be a terribly disappointing defeat can turn into a surprising and satisfying victory.

Just a few days ago, Western Journalism reported on the controversy that arose when The New York Times left Cruz’s Truth off its coveted bestsellers list despite the book having sold an impressive 11,854 copies during its first week in release. The GOP presidential candidate’s new biography was omitted from the liberal paper’s published list, despite the fact that the book had sold more copies in its first week than all but two of the Times’ bestselling titles.

This omission raised suspicions among many on the right who speculated that the Times was ignoring the book and its sales success because of its outspoken, conservative author. The newspaper’s excuse for dismissing A Time for Truth? A spokesperson for the liberal paper said, “In the case of this book, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases.”

The Times never offered its “overwhelming” evidence of those “strategic bulk purchases,” and as Politico has since reported, “Both HarperCollins, the book’s publisher, and Amazon, the largest Internet retailer in the country, said last week that they had found ‘no evidence’ that bulk purchases drove the book’s sales numbers.” The Politico piece also notes that a Cruz spokesperson says that another major bookseller, Barnes & Noble, has disputed the “bulk purchases” excuse offered by the Times.

Fast forward about a week, and the situation has changed dramatically — changed in favor of Ted Cruz and his popular new book. Not only is The New York Times letting its readers know that the conservative candidate’s memoir “will appear at No. 7 on the Times’ list for hardcover nonfiction,” as Politico observes, the reason for the book’s strong second-week sales is being attributed to the flap over its first-week omission from the bestsellers list.

The Politico article says: “Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy said that the newspaper made no changes to its selection process, and so the fact that Cruz’s book is being included now suggests a rise in individual purchases, spurred by his public battle with the paper.”

The description of Ted Cruz’s book on the Amazon website says: “Liberals love to hate Ted Cruz. The outspoken Texas Senator has a knack for getting under their skin.” Now, it would seem, that getting under the skin of The New York Times may have just proven to be a net positive for the politician “liberals love to hate.”

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

Obama Just Responded To Attacks On Iran Nuke Deal In A Way That Could Worry Critics Even More

In an interview published Wednesday, President Obama said it was “doubtful” many current Republicans would support the Iran nuclear deal. The president also argued the “yardstick” for success cannot be whether or not Iran can obtain a nuclear weapon.

Speaking to Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times after the terms of the deal were announced, Obama, when asked if any of the “400 Republican candidates” running for president would support the deal, said, “I think it’s doubtful that we get a lot of current Republican elected officials supporting this deal.”

“I think there’s a certain party line that has to be towed, within their primaries and among many sitting members of Congress,” he continued. “But that’s not across the board. It’ll be interesting to see what somebody like a Rand Paul has to say about this. But I think that if I were succeeded by a Republican president — and I’ll be doing everything that I can to prevent that from happening — but if I were, that Republican president would be in a much stronger position than I was when I came into office, in terms of constraining Iran’s nuclear program.”

Obama also did not mince words after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the deal “an historic mistake for the world.” The two world leaders spoke on the phone Tuesday after the deal was announced.

“[I] think it’s fair to say that under my administration, we’ve done more to facilitate Israeli capabilities,” Obama said. “And I’ve also said that I’m prepared to go further than any other administration’s gone before in terms of providing them additional security assurances from the United States.” He continued:

The thing I want to emphasize is that people’s concerns here are legitimate. Hezbollah has tens of thousands of missiles that are pointed toward Israel. They are becoming more sophisticated. The interdiction of those weapon flows has not been as successful as it needs to be. There are legitimate concerns on the part of the gulf countries about Iran trying to stir up and prompt destabilizing events inside their countries…

Now, Prime Minister Netanyahu would prefer, and many of the critics would prefer, that they don’t even have any nuclear capacity. But really, what that involves is eliminating the presence of knowledge inside of Iran. Nuclear technology is not that complicated today, and so the notion that the yardstick for success was now whether they ever had the capacity possibly to obtain nuclear weapons — that can’t be the yardstick. The question is, Do we have the kind of inspection regime and safeguards and international consensus whereby it’s not worth it for them to do it? We have accomplished that.

Netanyahu, Obama added, “perhaps thinks he can further influence the congressional debate, and I’m confident we’re going to be able to uphold this deal and implement it without Congress preventing that. But after that’s done, if that’s what he thinks is appropriate, then I will sit down, as we have consistently throughout my administration, and then ask some very practical questions: How do we prevent Hezbollah from acquiring more sophisticated weapons? How do we build on the success of Iron Dome, which the United States worked with Israel to develop and has saved Israeli lives? In the same way I’m having conversation with the gulf countries about how do we have a more effective interdiction policy, how do we build more effective governance structures and military structures in Sunni areas that have essentially become a void that [the Islamic State] has filled or that, in some cases, Iranian activities can exploit?”

“So they’re not just being paranoid,” he continued. “Iran is acting in an unconstructive way, in a dangerous way in these circumstances. What I’ve simply said is that we have to keep our eye on the ball here, which is that Iran with a nuclear weapon will do more damage, and we will be in a much worse position to prevent it.”

Obama later stated that, “what I’ve also tried to explain to people, including Prime Minister Netenyahu, is that in the absence of a deal, our ability to sustain these sanctions was not in the cards. Keep in mind it’s not just Iran that paid a price for sanctions. China. Japan. South Korea. India — pretty much any oil importer around the world that had previously import arrangements from Iran — found themselves in a situation where this was costing them billions of dollars to sustain these sanctions.”

h/t: TheBlaze

Do you agree with Netanyahu or Obama? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

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

NY Times Accused Ted Cruz Of Cheating – But Guess Who Just Got The Last Laugh

As Western Journalism reported last week, presidential candidate Ted Cruz’s latest book, A Time for Truth, was omitted from the New York Times best-sellers list despite its strong first-week sales numbers. Reports indicate the book outsold all but the top two entries on the list; however, the Times suggested those sales were unduly influenced by “strategic bulk purchases” and refused to rank it.

In response to that allegation, Amazon has since released a statement indicating there is no evidence of any improper sales meant to artificially boost the book’s numbers.

Amazon spokesperson Sarah Gelman said Cruz’s book was ranked the number 13 book this weekend.

Publisher HarperCollins conducted a similar investigation and came to the same conclusion.

Cruz has capitalized on the recent findings, issuing a statement lambasting the newspaper’s apparent slight.

“The Times is presumably embarrassed by having their obvious partisan bias called out,” said campaign spokesperson Rick Tyler. “But their response – alleging ‘strategic bulk purchases‘ – is a blatant falsehood. The evidence is directly to the contrary. In leveling this false charge the Times has tried to impugn the integrity of Senator Cruz and of his publisher HarperCollins.”

In its first week on shelves, A Time for Truth sold nearly 12,000 copies – enough to earn it a number 3 spot on the best-sellers list for the first week in July.

While some Politico readers reacted to the news by continuing to believe Cruz attempted to cheat his way onto the list, others saw a blatant partisan motivation in the Times’ decision.

“Sad that leftists project their own sins on their contrived ‘enemies,’” one critic wrote.

h/t: Politico

Was Cruz’s book left off of the list for political reasons? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

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