Clinton's E-mail Cover Is So Full of Holes, Even the NYT Noticed

Well, noticed as in, 'Let's do a really soft takedown.'

New York Times' journalists Eric Lipton and Michael S. Schmidt suddenly noticed that Hillary Clinton's explanations surrounding her e-mail scandal have "evolved over time" and wrote up an analysis about it in Wednesday's edition.

While it can't be labeled a full takedown, the piece at least notes a pattern of deceit, even if their conciliatory language is an obvious attempt to protect the Democratic candidate.

The statements are broken up over six sections that begin with a pertinent question. Clinton's initial statement is printed and dated, followed by dated comments months later by her or the campaign, which in each case shows variance.

At the end of each section, Schmidt and Lipton provide their analysis, carefully using language like "critics say." By doing so, the journalists simultaneously cut and then bandage Mrs. Clinton. But what the NYT does well in spite of its attempts otherwise, is cutting out the he-said-she-said and simply publishing what she in fact has said all along. 

But that's not to imply that the biased NYT is any less so, as the proof is always in the pudding.

The headline reads, "How the Story of Hillary Clinton's Emails Has Changed." Which is kind of funny seeing as just a few months ago, Schmidt was involved in changing his own story about Clinton's e-mail debacle. He ended up altering his headline and a sentence in order to soften the blow against Clinton (notice a pattern?). Schmidt admitted that pressure from within the Clinton camp forced him to "accommodate" their requests to change some of the wording and he deemed them "reasonable."

The 'S' in Michael S. Schmidt clearly stands for "Softy."

Issues

People

Organizations