The NYT's Michael Schmidt (pictured) strikes me as one helluva loose journalistic cannon — and if I were Matt Apuzzo, I'd steer clear of him. I suspect Schmidt's days at the Times are numbered. Politico:
The New York Times made small but significant changes to an exclusive report [co-written by Schmidt and Apuzzo] 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."
My only quibble with Politico's Dylan Byers is that the changes made were huge and significant. There's an immense difference between the potential opening of a criminal investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton" did this or that and the opening of a mere investigation into something expressed in the passive voice.
I have listened to Schmidt discuss his blockbuster journalism several times on "Hardball," and his comments usually come down, upon questioning, to shifting and indeed shifty combinations of innuendo and "Well, that I don't know."
I also wonder if Schmidt has, well, I don't know, maybe a NYT editor?
The Hill Reports: "Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) is rebutting reports that the State Department has formally requested a federal criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of State.
"I spoke personally to the State Department inspector general on Thursday, and he said he never asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation of Secretary Clinton's email usage,” Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said Friday in a statement." http://thehill.com/policy/defense/249077-top-dem-refutes-reports-of-criminal-probe-of-clintons-emails
The Michael S. Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo piece is cited.
Posted by: Bob | July 24, 2015 at 01:21 PM
Schmidt is a log cabin repub. Clinton derangement syndrome has returned to the NYT..looks like the NYT is back to its awful biased coverage of Clinton i...its Whitewater all over again
Posted by: Franco | July 24, 2015 at 06:18 PM
This is nothing new. The Times has been publishing erroneous stories about the Clintons since the early 1990s. It's what they do.
Posted by: Jon Ponder | July 24, 2015 at 08:39 PM