Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email

Since her use of a private email account for State Department business was revealed in March, Hillary Rodham Clinton has repeatedly said she had no classified information on the account.

Comments: 277

  1. So criminal inquiry? First state the alleged crime. Seems like this a where the State Department needs to finish their review first. Everything else is politically motivated. There seems to be a discussion of criminal activity before any evidence is found. Politics not law.

  2. Do you mean to suggest, Mr. Pettit, that the politics of the Obama Justice Department predispose it to mistreat a fellow Democrat who could sing like a canary about all the lawlessness and shortcomings of a legacy-obsessed administration were she to be indicted? If so, I'd like to know where you buy your weed. Because us sober, rational folks know full well that there isn't a snowball's chance in the burning Benghazi consulate of this DOJ bringing charges against former Secretary of State Clinton. Her husband might be secretly wishing she gets 10 years so he could have a little fun chasing skirts at the senior center, but he's not calling the shots at Justice. And as far as your silly notion that prosecutors have to allege a crime before investigating whether one has been committed is absurd. This DOJ in particular has targeted any number of political opponents with harassing investigations that never resulted in indictments. Jersey's "Bridge-Gate" is a recent example.

  3. So criminal inquiry? First state the alleged crime. Seems like this a where the State Department needs to finish their review first. Everything else is politically motivated. There seems to be a discussion of criminal activity before any evidence is found. Politics not law.

  4. Do you mean to suggest, Mr. Pettit, that the politics of the Obama Justice Department predispose it to mistreat a fellow Democrat who could sing like a canary about all the lawlessness and shortcomings of a legacy-obsessed administration were she to be indicted? If so, I'd like to know where you buy your weed. Because us sober, rational folks know full well that there isn't a snowball's chance in the burning Benghazi consulate of this DOJ bringing charges against former Secretary of State Clinton. Her husband might be secretly wishing she gets 10 years so he could have a little fun chasing skirts at the senior center, but he's not calling the shots at Justice. And as far as your silly notion that prosecutors have to allege a crime before investigating whether one has been committed is absurd. This DOJ in particular has targeted any number of political opponents with harassing investigations that never resulted in indictments. Jersey's "Bridge-Gate" is a recent example.

  5. For all I know she'd be a fine president, but the Clintons reek with insincerity, money-grubbing, entitlement and manipulation. In other words, they're politicians.

  6. No more and actually less than all those on the right. Trump is the current heart of their party. Nuff said.

  7. You probably feel that way because the Right has been trying to tar the Clintons for decades.

  8. For all I know she'd be a fine president, but the Clintons reek with insincerity, money-grubbing, entitlement and manipulation. In other words, they're politicians.

  9. No more and actually less than all those on the right. Trump is the current heart of their party. Nuff said.

  10. You probably feel that way because the Right has been trying to tar the Clintons for decades.

  11. I am not a Hillary fan, and I doubt I will vote for her, but is this investigation really needed? If this was a Republican administration, I would suspect there was a partisan motive. What is Obama's motive?

  12. His motive? How about enforcing the law? That's part of the job.

  13. Justice under the law? Holding even the powerful accountable?

  14. ask anyone who has been involved in an investigation. they will tell you that record retention is at the heart of the process. you can't have parties destroying unflattering emails. simple as that. she deliberately set up her own server to circumvent the record retention requirements. there is no innocent explanation here. it's classic clinton and she's betting that most will have the reaction you do and tire of the matter before the election. she needs to be held accountable as these were not her emails - they were the property of the state dept and ultimately the people of the US. can u imagine if dick cheney had done the same thing? what would pelosi be screaming now? what would HRC be saying? this is a very very big deal

  15. I am not a Hillary fan, and I doubt I will vote for her, but is this investigation really needed? If this was a Republican administration, I would suspect there was a partisan motive. What is Obama's motive?

  16. His motive? How about enforcing the law? That's part of the job.

  17. Justice under the law? Holding even the powerful accountable?

  18. ask anyone who has been involved in an investigation. they will tell you that record retention is at the heart of the process. you can't have parties destroying unflattering emails. simple as that. she deliberately set up her own server to circumvent the record retention requirements. there is no innocent explanation here. it's classic clinton and she's betting that most will have the reaction you do and tire of the matter before the election. she needs to be held accountable as these were not her emails - they were the property of the state dept and ultimately the people of the US. can u imagine if dick cheney had done the same thing? what would pelosi be screaming now? what would HRC be saying? this is a very very big deal

  19. Just out of curiosity there is a comment that four emails apparently contained classified material and were released to the public some time ago. I wonder if anyone has analyzed the 40 emails and can discern what the FBI et al consider material worth classifying since several others who should have known what is classified and what us not. Most of us will never know and to find out something mundane U.S. considered classifiable. Her favorite restaurant?

  20. Just out of curiosity there is a comment that four emails apparently contained classified material and were released to the public some time ago. I wonder if anyone has analyzed the 40 emails and can discern what the FBI et al consider material worth classifying since several others who should have known what is classified and what us not. Most of us will never know and to find out something mundane U.S. considered classifiable. Her favorite restaurant?

  21. From NBC News:
    A Justice Department official said Friday afternoon that "The Department has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information. It is not a CRIMINAL referral.

    Also on Friday, Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, said that the State Department's inspector general told him on Thursday that he did not ask the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation into Clinton's email.

    "Instead, he told me the Intelligence Community IG notified the Justice Department and Congress that they identified classified information in a few emails that were part of the FOIA review, and that none of those emails had been previously marked as classified," he said.

    Why hasn't this story been corrected to report it correctly? The story was picked up by other major news outlets, and needs to be corrected.

  22. This sounds better. The media today and the truth are two different worlds.

  23. From NBC News:
    A Justice Department official said Friday afternoon that "The Department has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information. It is not a CRIMINAL referral.

    Also on Friday, Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, said that the State Department's inspector general told him on Thursday that he did not ask the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation into Clinton's email.

    "Instead, he told me the Intelligence Community IG notified the Justice Department and Congress that they identified classified information in a few emails that were part of the FOIA review, and that none of those emails had been previously marked as classified," he said.

    Why hasn't this story been corrected to report it correctly? The story was picked up by other major news outlets, and needs to be corrected.

  24. This sounds better. The media today and the truth are two different worlds.

  25. Let us hope the DOJ declines this request. We have so many real problems in this country right now. Hillary's emails are not one of them.

  26. Let's hope DoJ takes on the investigation and lays blame where it belongs: on USG agency officials who want to block public access to information, even if the information is mildly embarrassing or critical of allies. I wouldn't be surprised if they would like to retroactively classify some State officers' joke at Bibi's expense; that ain't classified, sorry dudes.

  27. Let us hope the DOJ declines this request. We have so many real problems in this country right now. Hillary's emails are not one of them.

  28. Let's hope DoJ takes on the investigation and lays blame where it belongs: on USG agency officials who want to block public access to information, even if the information is mildly embarrassing or critical of allies. I wouldn't be surprised if they would like to retroactively classify some State officers' joke at Bibi's expense; that ain't classified, sorry dudes.

  29. This story is more embarrassing for the NY Times than for Sec. Clinton.

    Facts first, please. Did Sec. Clinton mishandle classified information? Or did someone send her an e-mail that should have been classified?

    This e-mail brouhaha has always been more about lax and outdated record policies and procedures than about malfeasance. It is an important issue but pales in comparison to other issues like nuclear weapon control, Terrorism, the economy, etc. it is understandably easier for many to grasp the "complexities" of e-mail problems than nuclear weapon control, but shouldn't the NY Times devote more space to the important albeit complex issues, even if those stories aren't as much fun?

  30. Rita, I suppose you don't work for an agency that deals with classified information, otherwise you would know the answer to your first question.

    Even if the classified information was merely sent to her by a third party, it's still a problem for her, because she used an external non-governmental server. If she had used the governments systems, they have measures to remove classified spillage. This was simply not possible due to her decision to use her own server.

    Impartially, it would take an act of God to not get fired/reprimanded/criminally prosecuted if a normal, average GS employee conducted business in a similar fashion. I know it's natural reaction to defense political candidates, especially in a crucial election, but we must maintain objectivity here.

  31. Wouldn't have been a problem if she had done what she was supposed to do in the first place, which is to use the State Department email she was given.

  32. If she was sending official State Dept business on her personal Email accounts, then yes, that could include subjects like nuclear weapon control, terrorism, the economy, etc and most likely did since she never used offical government communications systems, but personal instead. That's the whole point of this problem. She ignored protocol. I know others abused the system, but she is running for POTUS. I was all for her in 2008, but not anymore.

  33. This story is more embarrassing for the NY Times than for Sec. Clinton.

    Facts first, please. Did Sec. Clinton mishandle classified information? Or did someone send her an e-mail that should have been classified?

    This e-mail brouhaha has always been more about lax and outdated record policies and procedures than about malfeasance. It is an important issue but pales in comparison to other issues like nuclear weapon control, Terrorism, the economy, etc. it is understandably easier for many to grasp the "complexities" of e-mail problems than nuclear weapon control, but shouldn't the NY Times devote more space to the important albeit complex issues, even if those stories aren't as much fun?

  34. Rita, I suppose you don't work for an agency that deals with classified information, otherwise you would know the answer to your first question.

    Even if the classified information was merely sent to her by a third party, it's still a problem for her, because she used an external non-governmental server. If she had used the governments systems, they have measures to remove classified spillage. This was simply not possible due to her decision to use her own server.

    Impartially, it would take an act of God to not get fired/reprimanded/criminally prosecuted if a normal, average GS employee conducted business in a similar fashion. I know it's natural reaction to defense political candidates, especially in a crucial election, but we must maintain objectivity here.

  35. Wouldn't have been a problem if she had done what she was supposed to do in the first place, which is to use the State Department email she was given.

  36. If she was sending official State Dept business on her personal Email accounts, then yes, that could include subjects like nuclear weapon control, terrorism, the economy, etc and most likely did since she never used offical government communications systems, but personal instead. That's the whole point of this problem. She ignored protocol. I know others abused the system, but she is running for POTUS. I was all for her in 2008, but not anymore.

  37. Can we all say: Bengaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazi? The RNC can't field a real candidate or accomplish anything, so they attack. The party of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.

  38. Benghazi? I'd not be surprised if the Vince Foster murder investigation wasn't reopened! Republicans going after Hillary? Dog bits man. As with her husband, they've long ago reached the point where most Americans see rough this. Bill's approval rating soared thanks to his impeachment. We'll be calling Hillary's version the Benghazi Bump.

  39. Just part of some vast right-wing conspiracy, right?

  40. The three candidate that the GOP has fielded, that are currently beating Hillary in 3 battle ground states, seems to disagree with much of your assertion. Just saying objectively speaking...

  41. Can we all say: Bengaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazi? The RNC can't field a real candidate or accomplish anything, so they attack. The party of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.

  42. Benghazi? I'd not be surprised if the Vince Foster murder investigation wasn't reopened! Republicans going after Hillary? Dog bits man. As with her husband, they've long ago reached the point where most Americans see rough this. Bill's approval rating soared thanks to his impeachment. We'll be calling Hillary's version the Benghazi Bump.

  43. Just part of some vast right-wing conspiracy, right?

  44. The three candidate that the GOP has fielded, that are currently beating Hillary in 3 battle ground states, seems to disagree with much of your assertion. Just saying objectively speaking...

  45. a partner in a sleezy law firm in little rock AR
    principal architect of a disastrous healthcare plan which couldn't even get a vote from a dem controlled congress and died of its own weight
    a central figure in every scandal of the clinton white house - travelgate, filegate, etc.
    she turned $1000 into $100K trading cattle futures in 11 months. she was referred to her broker, red bone of refco, by jim blair, attorney for the largest employer in the state in which her husband was sitting AG and about to be governor. she never traded before or since and claims she made all of the investment decisions. alas, the records were "lost"
    she was first lady. so what?
    she leveraged her political celebrity into a senate seat in NY where she did little but prepare to lose to an unknown from chicago with a limited track record.
    after a mediocre tenure as Sect State, we find she broke her own department's rules on email use and never turned over her records upon her departure.
    i don't get how people are fundamentally willing to overlook this sort of ethical track record. there is simply no innocent explanation for her cattle futures windfall other than a small time bribe. and she was an attorney at the time !! the email scandal is par for the course with HRC. one more obfuscation, one more nixonian decision by a woman who isn't really all that qualified in the first place. indisputable facts. does anyone out there care ??

  46. Poor Nixon being compared to Clinton.

  47. a partner in a sleezy law firm in little rock AR
    principal architect of a disastrous healthcare plan which couldn't even get a vote from a dem controlled congress and died of its own weight
    a central figure in every scandal of the clinton white house - travelgate, filegate, etc.
    she turned $1000 into $100K trading cattle futures in 11 months. she was referred to her broker, red bone of refco, by jim blair, attorney for the largest employer in the state in which her husband was sitting AG and about to be governor. she never traded before or since and claims she made all of the investment decisions. alas, the records were "lost"
    she was first lady. so what?
    she leveraged her political celebrity into a senate seat in NY where she did little but prepare to lose to an unknown from chicago with a limited track record.
    after a mediocre tenure as Sect State, we find she broke her own department's rules on email use and never turned over her records upon her departure.
    i don't get how people are fundamentally willing to overlook this sort of ethical track record. there is simply no innocent explanation for her cattle futures windfall other than a small time bribe. and she was an attorney at the time !! the email scandal is par for the course with HRC. one more obfuscation, one more nixonian decision by a woman who isn't really all that qualified in the first place. indisputable facts. does anyone out there care ??

  48. Poor Nixon being compared to Clinton.

  49. why don't you change the headline. the news that there was no criminal inquiry on anyone has been out for two hours. The new information should be at the top of the page not the bottom

  50. why don't you change the headline. the news that there was no criminal inquiry on anyone has been out for two hours. The new information should be at the top of the page not the bottom

  51. Of course it's more convenient to send emails on an account that can shield her from congressional and Freedom of Information Act requests, and more than likely her account was more secure than a government one, but if there was no clear precedent than a witch-hunt is quite unseemly and should call for a precedent to be set and not someone to be pilloried for being the focus of the issue.

  52. Of course it's more convenient to send emails on an account that can shield her from congressional and Freedom of Information Act requests, and more than likely her account was more secure than a government one, but if there was no clear precedent than a witch-hunt is quite unseemly and should call for a precedent to be set and not someone to be pilloried for being the focus of the issue.

  53. Were these Secretaries General appointed by Bush?

  54. They are Inspectors General not Secretaries General.

  55. Were these Secretaries General appointed by Bush?

  56. They are Inspectors General not Secretaries General.

  57. This was. It a request for a criminal investigation. Why don't you get your facts straight.

  58. It's not a criminal investigation. It's a dispute between State and other agencies on what is classified and what isn't. It's all subjective and in the eyes of the beholder. When the emails were written and exchanged, the info was all unclassified in the eyes of the authors. Later, others could now wish that it had been classified -- and prevented from being in the public. There is a tendency to overclassify; FOIA is about freedom of information, not restricting information thru an over-abundance of caution and heaps of hindsight.

  59. This was. It a request for a criminal investigation. Why don't you get your facts straight.

  60. It's not a criminal investigation. It's a dispute between State and other agencies on what is classified and what isn't. It's all subjective and in the eyes of the beholder. When the emails were written and exchanged, the info was all unclassified in the eyes of the authors. Later, others could now wish that it had been classified -- and prevented from being in the public. There is a tendency to overclassify; FOIA is about freedom of information, not restricting information thru an over-abundance of caution and heaps of hindsight.

  61. To Hillary:
    ALL lives matter. ALL lives matter. ALL lives matter. ALL lives matter. ALL lives matter. ALL lives matter. ALL lives matter. ALL lives matter.

  62. No one life matters all that much.

  63. To Hillary:
    ALL lives matter. ALL lives matter. ALL lives matter. ALL lives matter. ALL lives matter. ALL lives matter. ALL lives matter. ALL lives matter.

  64. No one life matters all that much.

  65. I am puzzled by the NYT's obsession with a Clinton. I lived through the Whitewater years. The Press at that time did not distinguish itself. The NYT's aggressive reporting came to naught. Then you had the debacle of Judith Miller. And some in your current crop of journalists seems to be doing no better. Have you people not learned anything? This article distorts issues - andRepr Elijah Cummings has spoken on that topic. Accurate reporting is an art. Get your editors to remind journalists of their obligation. Otherwise you will find readers turning away. There are simply too many other sources of information: your anti-Clinton obsession will drive some of us away.

  66. An internal government review found that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent at least four emails from her personal account containing classified information during her time heading the State Department.
    Here's some accurate reporting for you, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal:

    In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, the inspector general of the intelligence community concluded that Mrs. Clinton’s email contains material from the intelligence community that should have been considered “secret”—the second-highest level of classification—at the time it was sent. A copy of the letter to Congress was provided to The Wall Street Journal by a spokeswoman for the inspector general.

  67. operative word is "should have been." It wasn't. so all the corresponders on these and other emails passed unclassified info back and forth. With hindsight some subjectively believe the info coulda/shoulda been classified. Happens a lot in FOIA in the foreign affairs community.

  68. I have just read the NYT's correction. Now one can take a position before or after the inquiry is complete. You may have faith in the NYT and the WSJ. But over time both papers have been found wanting on the issue of accurate reporting. And Congressional committees are notorious for selective leaking. I'd wait to see the full report of the IG of the Intelligence Agency before I accept anything a newspaper says on matters involving people like the Clintons and the Bush family. They are not perfect. But neither are our newspapers and journalists.

  69. I am puzzled by the NYT's obsession with a Clinton. I lived through the Whitewater years. The Press at that time did not distinguish itself. The NYT's aggressive reporting came to naught. Then you had the debacle of Judith Miller. And some in your current crop of journalists seems to be doing no better. Have you people not learned anything? This article distorts issues - andRepr Elijah Cummings has spoken on that topic. Accurate reporting is an art. Get your editors to remind journalists of their obligation. Otherwise you will find readers turning away. There are simply too many other sources of information: your anti-Clinton obsession will drive some of us away.

  70. An internal government review found that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent at least four emails from her personal account containing classified information during her time heading the State Department.
    Here's some accurate reporting for you, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal:

    In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, the inspector general of the intelligence community concluded that Mrs. Clinton’s email contains material from the intelligence community that should have been considered “secret”—the second-highest level of classification—at the time it was sent. A copy of the letter to Congress was provided to The Wall Street Journal by a spokeswoman for the inspector general.

  71. operative word is "should have been." It wasn't. so all the corresponders on these and other emails passed unclassified info back and forth. With hindsight some subjectively believe the info coulda/shoulda been classified. Happens a lot in FOIA in the foreign affairs community.

  72. I have just read the NYT's correction. Now one can take a position before or after the inquiry is complete. You may have faith in the NYT and the WSJ. But over time both papers have been found wanting on the issue of accurate reporting. And Congressional committees are notorious for selective leaking. I'd wait to see the full report of the IG of the Intelligence Agency before I accept anything a newspaper says on matters involving people like the Clintons and the Bush family. They are not perfect. But neither are our newspapers and journalists.

  73. I have high regard for Mrs. Clinton and would doubtless vote for her if she is the Democratic Party nominee. I do, however, confess my weariness with the Clinton/Rodham insistence on straddling ethical lines at every opportunity and constantly handing the barbaric Republicans opportunities for their evil mischief. Her feckless behavior certainly distracts us from the pursuit of progress at a crucial time in our national life. Can't we come up with SOMEONE else to carry the banner and lead us in the quest? Her grandchild needs her, and the rest of our grandchildren need for her to take her husband and get out of their way!

  74. Yes, Bernie Sanders, a genuine Democrat from the FDR mold.

  75. I have high regard for Mrs. Clinton and would doubtless vote for her if she is the Democratic Party nominee. I do, however, confess my weariness with the Clinton/Rodham insistence on straddling ethical lines at every opportunity and constantly handing the barbaric Republicans opportunities for their evil mischief. Her feckless behavior certainly distracts us from the pursuit of progress at a crucial time in our national life. Can't we come up with SOMEONE else to carry the banner and lead us in the quest? Her grandchild needs her, and the rest of our grandchildren need for her to take her husband and get out of their way!

  76. Yes, Bernie Sanders, a genuine Democrat from the FDR mold.

  77. No worries. The Clintons are so utterly and perfectly corrupt that they inoculated against all this.

  78. More accurately, after twenty years of Republicans smear campaigns aimed at the Clintons, they are still unscathed.

  79. And after twenty years of Democrats making excuses for Bill Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagall and gave us the disaster that is NAFTA and he still refuses to accept any responsibility for them but when has anything ever been his fault.

    And you really want another Clinton in the White House?

    What is wrong with Jim Webb, a decent and honorable man?

    I am a moderate Independent, but I hope that he wins the Democrat nomination or I won't be voting in the election at all.

  80. No worries. The Clintons are so utterly and perfectly corrupt that they inoculated against all this.

  81. More accurately, after twenty years of Republicans smear campaigns aimed at the Clintons, they are still unscathed.

  82. And after twenty years of Democrats making excuses for Bill Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagall and gave us the disaster that is NAFTA and he still refuses to accept any responsibility for them but when has anything ever been his fault.

    And you really want another Clinton in the White House?

    What is wrong with Jim Webb, a decent and honorable man?

    I am a moderate Independent, but I hope that he wins the Democrat nomination or I won't be voting in the election at all.

  83. I haven't adequate words to describe the disappointment I have in the Times, whom I've trusted and promoted, to be so totally wrong. This lack of truth and correct focus needs to be investigated, not by the DOJ, but by someone honest at the newspaper. Not even local 'rags' botch a story this badly.

    Don't you ever verify before publishing? A once trusted newspaper ... so sorry.

  84. This article and the clarifying article in Bloomberg,July 24,2015 by Justin Sink, and Del Quentin Wilber,4th paragraph of their story."Officials stressed that the inspector general had not made a criminal referral-contrary to statements made,and then retracted by Justice Department officials"only confirm that the Clinton*s are to subjected to "Clinton Rules"As initiated back in the 90*s with Howell Raines,Jill Abramson(then a reporter)Stephen Labaton,Maureen Dowd-all at the Times,MIchael Isikoff(Washington Post)Sally Quinn(Washington Post).Because the Clinton*s "aren*t fit"

  85. "So sorry"....that's how I feel, too. Apparently, the Times does not.

  86. I haven't adequate words to describe the disappointment I have in the Times, whom I've trusted and promoted, to be so totally wrong. This lack of truth and correct focus needs to be investigated, not by the DOJ, but by someone honest at the newspaper. Not even local 'rags' botch a story this badly.

    Don't you ever verify before publishing? A once trusted newspaper ... so sorry.

  87. This article and the clarifying article in Bloomberg,July 24,2015 by Justin Sink, and Del Quentin Wilber,4th paragraph of their story."Officials stressed that the inspector general had not made a criminal referral-contrary to statements made,and then retracted by Justice Department officials"only confirm that the Clinton*s are to subjected to "Clinton Rules"As initiated back in the 90*s with Howell Raines,Jill Abramson(then a reporter)Stephen Labaton,Maureen Dowd-all at the Times,MIchael Isikoff(Washington Post)Sally Quinn(Washington Post).Because the Clinton*s "aren*t fit"

  88. "So sorry"....that's how I feel, too. Apparently, the Times does not.

  89. On one hand, being sloppy with classified information is a serious concern. On the other, it's hard to imagine an honest, non-politically-motivated prosecution of Mrs. Clinton, particularly while she's running for president, so I have my doubts. The Republicans keep crying wolf.

  90. On one hand, being sloppy with classified information is a serious concern. On the other, it's hard to imagine an honest, non-politically-motivated prosecution of Mrs. Clinton, particularly while she's running for president, so I have my doubts. The Republicans keep crying wolf.

  91. Wow New York Times. This is the kind of reporting you'd like me to subscribe to online and in print? The correction barely describes the kind of hit pieces headline and lede your news organization ran with last night, in an effort to be the first news outlet to smear Secretary Clinton.

    So, where is the Justice Department criminal investigation on Secretary Clinton that your original headline cried out about, like a clarion call? And how did your editors give the green light for that original outrageous pronouncement and then have enough conflicting information just an hour after first publishing the piece to transform it into some mealy-mouth piece of journalistic excellence? And you're subscription department is wondering why you're losing readers.

    Why not focus on some Republican candidates (besides Mr. Trump) or some local races or something like that. This obvious witch hunt you're on with Secretary Clinton is truly unbecoming.

  92. It's going to be fun seeing some twist themselves into ideological pretzels - sprinkled with hypocrisy - over the investigation into the mishandling of classified documents by the former Secretary of State. An actual 'willing suspension of disbelief' (pun intended see: http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0907/Clinton_Believing_Petraeus_a....

    Lest convenient amnesia set it, mishandling of classified documents was the exact scenario that resulted in the federal prosecution of another former cabinet official...CIA Director David Petraeus.

    If it was good enough for the gander, you'd think it would be good enough for the goose.

  93. Wow New York Times. This is the kind of reporting you'd like me to subscribe to online and in print? The correction barely describes the kind of hit pieces headline and lede your news organization ran with last night, in an effort to be the first news outlet to smear Secretary Clinton.

    So, where is the Justice Department criminal investigation on Secretary Clinton that your original headline cried out about, like a clarion call? And how did your editors give the green light for that original outrageous pronouncement and then have enough conflicting information just an hour after first publishing the piece to transform it into some mealy-mouth piece of journalistic excellence? And you're subscription department is wondering why you're losing readers.

    Why not focus on some Republican candidates (besides Mr. Trump) or some local races or something like that. This obvious witch hunt you're on with Secretary Clinton is truly unbecoming.

  94. It's going to be fun seeing some twist themselves into ideological pretzels - sprinkled with hypocrisy - over the investigation into the mishandling of classified documents by the former Secretary of State. An actual 'willing suspension of disbelief' (pun intended see: http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0907/Clinton_Believing_Petraeus_a....

    Lest convenient amnesia set it, mishandling of classified documents was the exact scenario that resulted in the federal prosecution of another former cabinet official...CIA Director David Petraeus.

    If it was good enough for the gander, you'd think it would be good enough for the goose.

  95. Could we ask for an overview of the Bush regime for violations of law?

  96. If you were interested in deflecting attention from HRC, yes, of course you could. But Obama has been in office for almost 7 years, during two of which the Dems controlled the Exec & Congress. And during all that time, there's been no investigation So, time to stop with the false equivalencies and move on.

  97. How about checking FDR, LBJ and Jimmy Carter while you're at it? Comparing one bad situation to justify another is stupid.

  98. Could we ask for an overview of the Bush regime for violations of law?

  99. If you were interested in deflecting attention from HRC, yes, of course you could. But Obama has been in office for almost 7 years, during two of which the Dems controlled the Exec & Congress. And during all that time, there's been no investigation So, time to stop with the false equivalencies and move on.

  100. How about checking FDR, LBJ and Jimmy Carter while you're at it? Comparing one bad situation to justify another is stupid.

  101. The Times' 64-word 'clarification' doesn't undo the damage of the original lie.

  102. The Times' 64-word 'clarification' doesn't undo the damage of the original lie.

  103. The headline and article remain egregiously misleading. One has to read half way through to understand that Secretary Clinton did not send any emails that were classified at the time. This is one of the most irresponsible articles I have ever seen in the Times and I am shocked that, despite numerous comments calling attention to this, the article hasn't been appropriately fixed. Pull it if you have to, but fix it now.

  104. The headline and article remain egregiously misleading. One has to read half way through to understand that Secretary Clinton did not send any emails that were classified at the time. This is one of the most irresponsible articles I have ever seen in the Times and I am shocked that, despite numerous comments calling attention to this, the article hasn't been appropriately fixed. Pull it if you have to, but fix it now.

  105. While so far nothing serious seems to have come of consequence of Hillary Clinton's inappropriate e-mail habits, I believe that the overall matter does indeed raise very serious questions about her judgment. Rather than systematically use official channels for work-related material, she used private ones, which she could control access to. What sort of example does this set for accountability? (And what sorts of problems will it create at the State Department, for people trying to figure out just what she did?)

    Inspectors General are generally pretty independent, and if two of them (under a Democratic administration) feel concerned that Ms. Clinton's fast-and-loose approach to sensitive official information may have crossed a line, I'd say that's a news story. Of course, we'd like to know just what their concerns were.

  106. While so far nothing serious seems to have come of consequence of Hillary Clinton's inappropriate e-mail habits, I believe that the overall matter does indeed raise very serious questions about her judgment. Rather than systematically use official channels for work-related material, she used private ones, which she could control access to. What sort of example does this set for accountability? (And what sorts of problems will it create at the State Department, for people trying to figure out just what she did?)

    Inspectors General are generally pretty independent, and if two of them (under a Democratic administration) feel concerned that Ms. Clinton's fast-and-loose approach to sensitive official information may have crossed a line, I'd say that's a news story. Of course, we'd like to know just what their concerns were.

  107. Is anyone calling for an investigation of the previous Secretaries of State who used their own private email as well, such as Colin Powell? This is political, that is all. The only Secretary of State not to use private email is John Kerry, because the rules changed just as he took over.

  108. Lynn, Colin Powell is not running for president. There's a difference.

  109. Really: so you are hit with a double standard because you are running for the Presidency? And Colin gets a pass??? because he is not running for the Presidency???

  110. @Josh
    But buffoons like Trump are indeed running for President.

  111. Is anyone calling for an investigation of the previous Secretaries of State who used their own private email as well, such as Colin Powell? This is political, that is all. The only Secretary of State not to use private email is John Kerry, because the rules changed just as he took over.

  112. Lynn, Colin Powell is not running for president. There's a difference.

  113. Really: so you are hit with a double standard because you are running for the Presidency? And Colin gets a pass??? because he is not running for the Presidency???

  114. @Josh
    But buffoons like Trump are indeed running for President.

  115. I find myself wondering if the "senior government official" was the chairman of a House committee charged with the Hillary witch hunt.

  116. You could wonder that. Or, you could read the article, which says that the request was made by two Inspectors General, and not "the chairman of a House committee charged with the Hillary witch hunt."

  117. No, they were IG's appointed by the Obama Administration. Sorry if you're disappointed.

  118. I find myself wondering if the "senior government official" was the chairman of a House committee charged with the Hillary witch hunt.

  119. You could wonder that. Or, you could read the article, which says that the request was made by two Inspectors General, and not "the chairman of a House committee charged with the Hillary witch hunt."

  120. No, they were IG's appointed by the Obama Administration. Sorry if you're disappointed.

  121. This is one one of the most garbled stories the NYT has published in my reading lifetime. Lead says two inspectors requested something vague in connection with the handling of Clinton's e-mails. So does that mean Hillary is being investigated or some other person or persons connected with handling her e-mails?

    And though the story says two investigators are seeking the inquiry, it then goes on to say IGs from the State Department and intelligence agencies (note the plural agencies, ergo at least two AGs) plus the State AG makes at least three, not two investigators.

    If this e-mail business sinks Hillary, so be it but vague allegations should be coming from Republicans not the Gray Lady.

  122. This is one one of the most garbled stories the NYT has published in my reading lifetime. Lead says two inspectors requested something vague in connection with the handling of Clinton's e-mails. So does that mean Hillary is being investigated or some other person or persons connected with handling her e-mails?

    And though the story says two investigators are seeking the inquiry, it then goes on to say IGs from the State Department and intelligence agencies (note the plural agencies, ergo at least two AGs) plus the State AG makes at least three, not two investigators.

    If this e-mail business sinks Hillary, so be it but vague allegations should be coming from Republicans not the Gray Lady.

  123. We have so many laws that don't mean what they say anymore. Public officials are not supposed to do official business so that it will ALWAYS be secret. That was kinda a post-Nixon notion.

    Other laws have caught the virus of not meaning what they actually say. A long time ago I was taught that when an old law seems vague in a modern context, it is acceptable to conjecture what the original intent of the original lawmakers might be.

    Who knew that lawmakers in 1866, 1964, and 1967 intended to give us same-sex marriage? Probably nobody would be more amazed than those old timers to find out that was what they intended.

    Even Hillary and Obama have been around long enough to have had periods when they were really for or against something, but then they converted.

    For Obama such issues might be same-sex marriage, the value of perfectly opaque government, minimizing the influence of lobbyists, etc. etc. For Hillary we can add that she was for the invasion of Iraq before she was against it.

    Now wouldn't it be useful if the public had a right to look at official communications at some later date and see how phase changes in policy are actually coming about? At one time many thought so.

    Democrats, whatcha gonna do if someday (say, Jan. of 2017) you are facing a Republican White House and Congress? A lot of really questionable precedents have been set here. Some elements of the GOP are certainly on fire to have an Attorney General who will be as partisan as Obama's have been.

  124. Perhaps.
    But maybe if they considered John Ashcroft and that other non-partisan followup guy they'd be too embarrassed to ever say that in public.

  125. We have so many laws that don't mean what they say anymore. Public officials are not supposed to do official business so that it will ALWAYS be secret. That was kinda a post-Nixon notion.

    Other laws have caught the virus of not meaning what they actually say. A long time ago I was taught that when an old law seems vague in a modern context, it is acceptable to conjecture what the original intent of the original lawmakers might be.

    Who knew that lawmakers in 1866, 1964, and 1967 intended to give us same-sex marriage? Probably nobody would be more amazed than those old timers to find out that was what they intended.

    Even Hillary and Obama have been around long enough to have had periods when they were really for or against something, but then they converted.

    For Obama such issues might be same-sex marriage, the value of perfectly opaque government, minimizing the influence of lobbyists, etc. etc. For Hillary we can add that she was for the invasion of Iraq before she was against it.

    Now wouldn't it be useful if the public had a right to look at official communications at some later date and see how phase changes in policy are actually coming about? At one time many thought so.

    Democrats, whatcha gonna do if someday (say, Jan. of 2017) you are facing a Republican White House and Congress? A lot of really questionable precedents have been set here. Some elements of the GOP are certainly on fire to have an Attorney General who will be as partisan as Obama's have been.

  126. Perhaps.
    But maybe if they considered John Ashcroft and that other non-partisan followup guy they'd be too embarrassed to ever say that in public.

  127. I'm not a Clinton hater but the constant swirl of ethical issues around Hillary are making me demoralized and concerned about the Democratic Party's performance in the 2016 Presidential election. Right now I'm supporting Bernie Sanders.

    Even more troubling than the current distasteful revelations about the Clintons and my jogged memory of past issues, was the report on Politico of changes the NY Times made to this article after being contacted by Hillary Clinton's campaign. Essentially, Politico reported, the article's content and headline were both rewritten to comply with changes sought by Mrs. Clinton's campaign.

    I never realized the NY Times and it's reporters were so responsive to complaints made by political campaigns. Very troubling.

  128. You're concerned about Clinton's performance in 2016 so you're supporting Sanders? That's the most illogical statement I've read in a while. Sanders has about as much chance as I do of ever being elected President. Sanders is the far-lefts version of Ted Cruz. How about supporting someone that actually is concerned about governing?

  129. Politico is right leaning so be careful what you believe. Media is committed to creating uproar rather than accurately reporting the news or doing genuine investigative reporting. Media is in a hurry to be first in reporting at the expense of doing due diligence.

    Or maybe you are one of those people who are trying to create doubt about Hillary.

  130. Here's the question: were the changes made because the Clinton campaign requested the changes or were the changes made because the Clinton campaign voiced complaints about the accuracy of the statements which were justified? Given that other news venues are reporting that the inquiry isn't criminal and that Hillary Clinton herself is not the subject of the inquiry, it would seem that the New York Times was ethically obligated to make the correction.

  131. I'm not a Clinton hater but the constant swirl of ethical issues around Hillary are making me demoralized and concerned about the Democratic Party's performance in the 2016 Presidential election. Right now I'm supporting Bernie Sanders.

    Even more troubling than the current distasteful revelations about the Clintons and my jogged memory of past issues, was the report on Politico of changes the NY Times made to this article after being contacted by Hillary Clinton's campaign. Essentially, Politico reported, the article's content and headline were both rewritten to comply with changes sought by Mrs. Clinton's campaign.

    I never realized the NY Times and it's reporters were so responsive to complaints made by political campaigns. Very troubling.

  132. You're concerned about Clinton's performance in 2016 so you're supporting Sanders? That's the most illogical statement I've read in a while. Sanders has about as much chance as I do of ever being elected President. Sanders is the far-lefts version of Ted Cruz. How about supporting someone that actually is concerned about governing?

  133. Politico is right leaning so be careful what you believe. Media is committed to creating uproar rather than accurately reporting the news or doing genuine investigative reporting. Media is in a hurry to be first in reporting at the expense of doing due diligence.

    Or maybe you are one of those people who are trying to create doubt about Hillary.

  134. Here's the question: were the changes made because the Clinton campaign requested the changes or were the changes made because the Clinton campaign voiced complaints about the accuracy of the statements which were justified? Given that other news venues are reporting that the inquiry isn't criminal and that Hillary Clinton herself is not the subject of the inquiry, it would seem that the New York Times was ethically obligated to make the correction.

  135. Just the fact that this is a story today is why I am having a very hard time feeling any enthusiasm about Hillary Clinton. I don't know if there was any wrong doing here, deliberate or inadvertent. What I do know is that Republicans will/have and do, expend tremendous energy trying to find and prove that there was. Mrs. Clinton certainly should know this. She coined the term "vast right wing conspiracy".

    It demonstrates very poor judgement to me that by her own actions, she has handed Republicans another quiver of arrows that they will happily shoot at her. If she's the nominee I'll shake my head vote for her, considering the alternative. Still - fervently hoping I won't have to.

  136. Poor judgement? Colin Powell did the same with similar advice. Why are you all obsessing over the minutae? Look at what she has done as a Senator and as secretary of state. She restored American influence overseas after 8 years of idiocy, violence, lies and terror all caused by Cheney?Rumsifeld and the puppet Bush. Note that this investigation grudgingly admitted by the NYTs is not of Mrs Clinton herself. In other words not really mush of a story. I almost wish America would elect another Bush or Trump or Koch minion. Then we could finally forget about an pretence of America being a democracy in this post Citizens United World.

  137. Just the fact that this is a story today is why I am having a very hard time feeling any enthusiasm about Hillary Clinton. I don't know if there was any wrong doing here, deliberate or inadvertent. What I do know is that Republicans will/have and do, expend tremendous energy trying to find and prove that there was. Mrs. Clinton certainly should know this. She coined the term "vast right wing conspiracy".

    It demonstrates very poor judgement to me that by her own actions, she has handed Republicans another quiver of arrows that they will happily shoot at her. If she's the nominee I'll shake my head vote for her, considering the alternative. Still - fervently hoping I won't have to.

  138. Poor judgement? Colin Powell did the same with similar advice. Why are you all obsessing over the minutae? Look at what she has done as a Senator and as secretary of state. She restored American influence overseas after 8 years of idiocy, violence, lies and terror all caused by Cheney?Rumsifeld and the puppet Bush. Note that this investigation grudgingly admitted by the NYTs is not of Mrs Clinton herself. In other words not really mush of a story. I almost wish America would elect another Bush or Trump or Koch minion. Then we could finally forget about an pretence of America being a democracy in this post Citizens United World.

  139. In these days of Snowden and wikileaks, just what does "classified" really mean? And these people have become sainted. Double standards, anybody?

  140. In these days of Snowden and wikileaks, just what does "classified" really mean? And these people have become sainted. Double standards, anybody?

  141. What is a "potentially classified email?" Either the information in the email was classified when the email was sent, or it wasn't. If it was, then there's a problem. If it wasn't, and if it wasn't obvious from the subject matter that it ought to be or would soon be classified, then there is no additional problem beyond the character-disordered use of a private email account.

  142. But how do you properly classify information contained in an email, that generated from your own intelligence, when your email server does not comply with DOD cyber standards? If you've ever used a gov't email system, you know that each email you send, brings up a box that requires you to classify the email as to some standard (FOUO/Classified/Sec/TS/TS:SBI). This system did not exist on Mrs. Clinton's email server, and thus the State Department could not properly classify information as required. This is not good for everyone involved, including republicans, and especially Americans.

  143. Clearly, she was (implicitly or explicitly) accepting the responsibility to self-censor classified messages from her private account. Not unreasonable for the SoS to do, but it raised a lot of questions in hindsight. She should have gone by the book, inefficiency & all.

  144. Another pitfall of using a private EMail. Rules are for little people.

  145. What is a "potentially classified email?" Either the information in the email was classified when the email was sent, or it wasn't. If it was, then there's a problem. If it wasn't, and if it wasn't obvious from the subject matter that it ought to be or would soon be classified, then there is no additional problem beyond the character-disordered use of a private email account.

  146. But how do you properly classify information contained in an email, that generated from your own intelligence, when your email server does not comply with DOD cyber standards? If you've ever used a gov't email system, you know that each email you send, brings up a box that requires you to classify the email as to some standard (FOUO/Classified/Sec/TS/TS:SBI). This system did not exist on Mrs. Clinton's email server, and thus the State Department could not properly classify information as required. This is not good for everyone involved, including republicans, and especially Americans.

  147. Clearly, she was (implicitly or explicitly) accepting the responsibility to self-censor classified messages from her private account. Not unreasonable for the SoS to do, but it raised a lot of questions in hindsight. She should have gone by the book, inefficiency & all.

  148. Another pitfall of using a private EMail. Rules are for little people.

  149. I think it's time as a nation, that we step back, take off our rose colored glasses, and re-examine whether we have become too fanatical in our politics? It appears to me that our political environment is now bleeding over into apolitical agencies. It's concerning that our only impartial oversight of the government, the OIG, is now slung around in the political mud.

  150. I think it's time as a nation, that we step back, take off our rose colored glasses, and re-examine whether we have become too fanatical in our politics? It appears to me that our political environment is now bleeding over into apolitical agencies. It's concerning that our only impartial oversight of the government, the OIG, is now slung around in the political mud.

  151. So I guess this article is the Re-Re-Re-Re- Reintroducing Hilary Clinton.
    I'm getting tired already!

  152. So I guess this article is the Re-Re-Re-Re- Reintroducing Hilary Clinton.
    I'm getting tired already!

  153. For all of you who instantly blame a vast right-wing conspiracy, here's some helpful information, straight from the second paragraph.

    "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.” "

    These inspector generals are acting for Obama's State Department and agencies. They are not GOP operatives or conservative boogeymen. Sorry to disappoint.

  154. For all of you who instantly blame a vast right-wing conspiracy, here's some helpful information, straight from the second paragraph.

    "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.” "

    These inspector generals are acting for Obama's State Department and agencies. They are not GOP operatives or conservative boogeymen. Sorry to disappoint.

  155. The Republican Party is running scared. They're terrified of Hillary and know if she is elected it could be by a landslide. Good, they should live in fear considering how they have chosen not to participate in governing our country. It's quite delightful to see these scared and vicious dogs tear into their own. By the time they regurgitate a candidate they'll be so much blood on the ground, they will be all out wandering in the wilderness for 40 years, during which time they won't be missed one bit!

  156. I pray that you are right.

  157. The Republican Party is running scared. They're terrified of Hillary and know if she is elected it could be by a landslide. Good, they should live in fear considering how they have chosen not to participate in governing our country. It's quite delightful to see these scared and vicious dogs tear into their own. By the time they regurgitate a candidate they'll be so much blood on the ground, they will be all out wandering in the wilderness for 40 years, during which time they won't be missed one bit!

  158. I pray that you are right.

  159. If Hillary Clinton is guilty of sending information that was classified only after she sent it, then she is being punished by an ex post facto law, which is unconstitutional under Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.

  160. if that's true then that's a blatant loophole. For example, I can write a letter with tons of sensitive information to Russia. I can't be accused of leaking classified information since the letter was classified only *after* I sent it. Espionage sentence avoided!

    In reality, the classification level is determined at the onset, which means Hillary should know whether an email is classified or not based on the the information in it. Also, there's another comment in here that says that because Hillary was using a private server, she had no mechanism to classify the documents like those on a regular server (which was why the documents were classified afterwards). It's not like the emails somehow became classified information from when it was sent til now; they were *always* classified information.

  161. Can't let a manufactured crisid go to waste with details like that. Benghazi!

  162. Not correct at the time Hillary handled the e-mails the information was not classified... reread the article it says so quite plainly.

  163. If Hillary Clinton is guilty of sending information that was classified only after she sent it, then she is being punished by an ex post facto law, which is unconstitutional under Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.

  164. if that's true then that's a blatant loophole. For example, I can write a letter with tons of sensitive information to Russia. I can't be accused of leaking classified information since the letter was classified only *after* I sent it. Espionage sentence avoided!

    In reality, the classification level is determined at the onset, which means Hillary should know whether an email is classified or not based on the the information in it. Also, there's another comment in here that says that because Hillary was using a private server, she had no mechanism to classify the documents like those on a regular server (which was why the documents were classified afterwards). It's not like the emails somehow became classified information from when it was sent til now; they were *always* classified information.

  165. Can't let a manufactured crisid go to waste with details like that. Benghazi!

  166. Not correct at the time Hillary handled the e-mails the information was not classified... reread the article it says so quite plainly.

  167. This would not be an issue if Hillary was not running for president. The criminal charge has been trumped up, politically motivated to taint her bid.

  168. This would not be an issue if Hillary was not running for president. The criminal charge has been trumped up, politically motivated to taint her bid.

  169. A generation ago, ethical, moral lapses like these would disqualify someone from running for higher office. Shame on us for not holding those who seek these high positions to a higher standard.

  170. I guess that it again depends upon the meaning of the word "is."

  171. Colin Powell did the same thing as Sec. of State. Are you bothered by his actions.

  172. Then explain eight years of George Bush.

  173. A generation ago, ethical, moral lapses like these would disqualify someone from running for higher office. Shame on us for not holding those who seek these high positions to a higher standard.

  174. I guess that it again depends upon the meaning of the word "is."

  175. Colin Powell did the same thing as Sec. of State. Are you bothered by his actions.

  176. Then explain eight years of George Bush.

  177. The vast right wing conspiracy is back!

    Republicans hoping to damage Mrs. Clinton with this issuse are going nowhere unless something really solid and egregious is turned up. She has been in the public eye for a quarter century, and no one looks to her or to anyone or anything Clinton for transparency or honesty. Obviously, those are not her strengths. She has a following for other reasons -- her depth, her persistence, her poise, her breadth of vision, her devotion to her cause. That she is secretive and manipulative is just not news. Using the email issue to show for the umpteenth time that the Clintons are secretive and duplicitous ought not change anybody's opinion of her, whether they are her supporters or her opponents.

  178. Uh, it's not the Republicans driving this investigation. It's the State Departments inspectors general.

  179. The vast right wing conspiracy is back!

    Republicans hoping to damage Mrs. Clinton with this issuse are going nowhere unless something really solid and egregious is turned up. She has been in the public eye for a quarter century, and no one looks to her or to anyone or anything Clinton for transparency or honesty. Obviously, those are not her strengths. She has a following for other reasons -- her depth, her persistence, her poise, her breadth of vision, her devotion to her cause. That she is secretive and manipulative is just not news. Using the email issue to show for the umpteenth time that the Clintons are secretive and duplicitous ought not change anybody's opinion of her, whether they are her supporters or her opponents.

  180. Uh, it's not the Republicans driving this investigation. It's the State Departments inspectors general.

  181. The GOP is trying to deflect attention from the disaster that is Donald Trump.

  182. The GOP doesn't have anything to do with this.

    Inspectors General are independent and wouldn't be doing anything at the behest of either political party.

  183. Boy, are you naive. Just as the Federalist Society has infiltrated the federal judiciary, do you really think that there aren't some IG's with the same bent?

  184. Uh, you got it backward, the GOP is the disaster. Donald is its poster child.

  185. The GOP is trying to deflect attention from the disaster that is Donald Trump.

  186. The GOP doesn't have anything to do with this.

    Inspectors General are independent and wouldn't be doing anything at the behest of either political party.

  187. Boy, are you naive. Just as the Federalist Society has infiltrated the federal judiciary, do you really think that there aren't some IG's with the same bent?

  188. Uh, you got it backward, the GOP is the disaster. Donald is its poster child.

  189. The Public Editor is going to be swamped by a torrent of readers expecting more accurate titles and reporting than was found here.

  190. The Public Editor is going to be swamped by a torrent of readers expecting more accurate titles and reporting than was found here.

  191. Always sad when the Times slips into tabloid journalism.

  192. Always sad when the Times slips into tabloid journalism.

  193. The Republicans are like junkyard dogs with a bone on this Hillary Clinton email issue. They won't let go of it ever, especially leading up to the presidential election they so desperately want to win at any cost. Discrediting and maligning the character of the opposition is the one thing Republicans do very well.

  194. Can we add Benghazi to the junkyard dogs?

  195. Actually, Republicans don't need to be anywhere near this. Hillary is discrediting and maligning herself. Why isn't another Democrat stepping up?

  196. As I said earlier, Hillary is the "the gift that keeps on giving" almost every time she speaks. The's the best theing the GOP has going for them.

  197. The Republicans are like junkyard dogs with a bone on this Hillary Clinton email issue. They won't let go of it ever, especially leading up to the presidential election they so desperately want to win at any cost. Discrediting and maligning the character of the opposition is the one thing Republicans do very well.

  198. Can we add Benghazi to the junkyard dogs?

  199. Actually, Republicans don't need to be anywhere near this. Hillary is discrediting and maligning herself. Why isn't another Democrat stepping up?

  200. As I said earlier, Hillary is the "the gift that keeps on giving" almost every time she speaks. The's the best theing the GOP has going for them.

  201. This headline/story still seems wrong after the correction. From an afternoon DOJ: " It is not a criminal referral” (according to NBC's John Harwood and Bradd Jaffy on Twitter). So why does the headline still say "Criminal"? Correction needs an update.

  202. This headline/story still seems wrong after the correction. From an afternoon DOJ: " It is not a criminal referral” (according to NBC's John Harwood and Bradd Jaffy on Twitter). So why does the headline still say "Criminal"? Correction needs an update.

  203. Nice work botching this story, NYT. You were salivating so hard to get another swing at Hillary that you kind of forgot to, you know, do your job as journalists. I expect better.

  204. Nice work botching this story, NYT. You were salivating so hard to get another swing at Hillary that you kind of forgot to, you know, do your job as journalists. I expect better.

  205. You folks need to check out USA Today's home page - the justice department has back tracked on this charge.

  206. Or the "sources" for the original story had it wrong all along. Given that the Inspectors General who asked for the investigation were focused on the people in the State Department who released the emails without deleting the parts that had been subsequently classified, the clear answer is that the "sources" were wrong. The question is why were they wrong. Of course, there is also the possibility that the Times "reporters" didn't report what they were told correctly.

  207. You folks need to check out USA Today's home page - the justice department has back tracked on this charge.

  208. Or the "sources" for the original story had it wrong all along. Given that the Inspectors General who asked for the investigation were focused on the people in the State Department who released the emails without deleting the parts that had been subsequently classified, the clear answer is that the "sources" were wrong. The question is why were they wrong. Of course, there is also the possibility that the Times "reporters" didn't report what they were told correctly.

  209. National Archives and Records Administration regulations in effect at the time Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State specifically state that "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system." As head of the Department of State, Clinton violated regulations by not preserving her emails on agency servers or data storage systems. The whole point of preserving official records of government business is to have this material controlled by the government, not by the individual official or employee.

  210. You do realize the quote and your later assertion in your comment are contradicting each other? Having a private server is not illegal... Or Colin Powell would have been in trouble too, now wouldn't he?

  211. National Archives and Records Administration regulations in effect at the time Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State specifically state that "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system." As head of the Department of State, Clinton violated regulations by not preserving her emails on agency servers or data storage systems. The whole point of preserving official records of government business is to have this material controlled by the government, not by the individual official or employee.

  212. You do realize the quote and your later assertion in your comment are contradicting each other? Having a private server is not illegal... Or Colin Powell would have been in trouble too, now wouldn't he?

  213. Nothing new here just Hilary being Hilary and her supporters will turn a blind eye (the myopic one) and vote blindly for her. Except for the possibility of her choosing as many as three Supreme Court Justices, I could live with her dishonesty (she's a politician, after all). I think she would make a better president than the lightweight, inexperienced one we elected seven years ago.

    What is sad in viewing this 2016 run from abroad is the absence of a good candidate with some new ideas and without the baggage. America has definitely turned too far to the left and requires a Supreme Court with less of a leftist bent.

  214. Stan, if you think this Supreme Court has a leftist bent, you have been out of the states too long.

  215. Uh, except for those Obamacare decisions.

  216. Nothing new here just Hilary being Hilary and her supporters will turn a blind eye (the myopic one) and vote blindly for her. Except for the possibility of her choosing as many as three Supreme Court Justices, I could live with her dishonesty (she's a politician, after all). I think she would make a better president than the lightweight, inexperienced one we elected seven years ago.

    What is sad in viewing this 2016 run from abroad is the absence of a good candidate with some new ideas and without the baggage. America has definitely turned too far to the left and requires a Supreme Court with less of a leftist bent.

  217. Stan, if you think this Supreme Court has a leftist bent, you have been out of the states too long.

  218. Uh, except for those Obamacare decisions.

  219. Behind the make-up and the mask lies what? Why does she want to run? She seems to be disintegrating before our very eyes yet no credible candidate has stepped forward to challenge her. Credit her for caution and consistency but the absence of dissent in the Democratic party is beginning to look suspicious as if there is something to hide. The Republicans are having a merry free-for-all while the Democrats offer only canned blandness. Something's got to give.

  220. Behind the make-up and the mask lies what? Why does she want to run? She seems to be disintegrating before our very eyes yet no credible candidate has stepped forward to challenge her. Credit her for caution and consistency but the absence of dissent in the Democratic party is beginning to look suspicious as if there is something to hide. The Republicans are having a merry free-for-all while the Democrats offer only canned blandness. Something's got to give.

  221. Bottom line up front, Ms Clinton shouldn't have been sending official emails on her own server.

    I'm going to vote for her over whomever the Republicans run, but I'm not happy about it. The Clintons just aren't the type of people I want running the country. Unfortunately, the ones I'd like run it are sane and therefore too smart to run.

  222. Sorry, you're just foolish.

  223. Bottom line up front, Ms Clinton shouldn't have been sending official emails on her own server.

    I'm going to vote for her over whomever the Republicans run, but I'm not happy about it. The Clintons just aren't the type of people I want running the country. Unfortunately, the ones I'd like run it are sane and therefore too smart to run.

  224. Sorry, you're just foolish.

  225. Petraeus was convicted for far less. No one however expects the current Justice Department to do the right thing, it is simply a political arm of the current administration.

  226. Far less ?

    The head of National Intelligence mishandling National Intelligence ?

    I don't know if Petraeus needed to be subject to what he went through, but his error is orders of magnitude worse than this, which means that this is a complete non-issue.

  227. Petraeus was convicted for far less. No one however expects the current Justice Department to do the right thing, it is simply a political arm of the current administration.

  228. Far less ?

    The head of National Intelligence mishandling National Intelligence ?

    I don't know if Petraeus needed to be subject to what he went through, but his error is orders of magnitude worse than this, which means that this is a complete non-issue.

  229. Mrs. Clinton like her or not ------is terribly divisive with high negatives. I just do not see how anyone can think she will unite the country and work with Congress if elected. The time of the Clintons has passed. Fresh faces are needed in Washington.

  230. Fresh faces? Who in their right mind would subject themselves to this kind of scrutiny on a voluntary basis?

  231. Mrs. Clinton like her or not ------is terribly divisive with high negatives. I just do not see how anyone can think she will unite the country and work with Congress if elected. The time of the Clintons has passed. Fresh faces are needed in Washington.

  232. Fresh faces? Who in their right mind would subject themselves to this kind of scrutiny on a voluntary basis?

  233. If, as you state in the correction at the end of this article, The Times was originally "using information from senior government officials" who "misstated the nature of the referral to the Justice Department regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state" don't you think you now owe it to both your readers and to the victim of this "misinformation" to publically reveal who those sources are? They gave you false information. Fox News has been using the original story all day to bash Clinton. The damage to her (and those who support Clinton) is 100% on The Times for not checking that information before going to print.

  234. Only the semantics of what the DOJ has been asked to do has changed and only after pressure from Hillary mind you. They're still doing the same thing; determining if any classified information was exchanged using Hillary's private email account.

  235. If, as you state in the correction at the end of this article, The Times was originally "using information from senior government officials" who "misstated the nature of the referral to the Justice Department regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state" don't you think you now owe it to both your readers and to the victim of this "misinformation" to publically reveal who those sources are? They gave you false information. Fox News has been using the original story all day to bash Clinton. The damage to her (and those who support Clinton) is 100% on The Times for not checking that information before going to print.

  236. Only the semantics of what the DOJ has been asked to do has changed and only after pressure from Hillary mind you. They're still doing the same thing; determining if any classified information was exchanged using Hillary's private email account.

  237. Whatever the facts, I will never have sympathy for Hillary in this matter because it was a dumb (and entitled) thing for her to use her own email instead of State's.

  238. Same for Colin Powell, Karl Rove, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, all while in office?

  239. SO that makes it OK? BTW, I don't believe Karl Rove has ever held office and the others released the Emails when requested. She on the other hand destroyed 90% of hers.

  240. But they didn't have their own server.

  241. Whatever the facts, I will never have sympathy for Hillary in this matter because it was a dumb (and entitled) thing for her to use her own email instead of State's.

  242. Same for Colin Powell, Karl Rove, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, all while in office?

  243. SO that makes it OK? BTW, I don't believe Karl Rove has ever held office and the others released the Emails when requested. She on the other hand destroyed 90% of hers.

  244. But they didn't have their own server.

  245. Hillary may be a lot of things, but she's not a criminal.

  246. Not sure how old you are, but I've been watching the same Clinton avoidance techniques since the 1990s. She doesn't have enough integrity to be the leader of the free world.

  247. How do you know that?

    I, for one, have a lot of questions about the Clinton Foundation.

  248. Yes, she is. She just hasn't been enough evidence. She's good at covering her tracks to put it mildly.

  249. Hillary may be a lot of things, but she's not a criminal.

  250. Not sure how old you are, but I've been watching the same Clinton avoidance techniques since the 1990s. She doesn't have enough integrity to be the leader of the free world.

  251. How do you know that?

    I, for one, have a lot of questions about the Clinton Foundation.

  252. Yes, she is. She just hasn't been enough evidence. She's good at covering her tracks to put it mildly.

  253. Why the attacks on republican? the referrals were made by "Two inspectors general ... "

    Is this another one of those "vast right wing conspiracies" ... or just the normal diversion we see from the paid Clinton spin machine?

  254. I think to answer the question of whether or not this is an attck from the right, we need to know who are the "senior givernmental officials" who gave the false information to The Times, don't you? Seems like a basic question The Times should answer in the face of this, don't you think?

  255. I believe the 2 government officials were appointed by Mr Obama.

  256. Maybe I was't clear. I wasn't referring to the inspectors, but the two "senior government officials" who (who don't go on the record and give their names, nor what position they hold--could be senators?--) who gave the incorrect information to the NYTimes.

  257. Why the attacks on republican? the referrals were made by "Two inspectors general ... "

    Is this another one of those "vast right wing conspiracies" ... or just the normal diversion we see from the paid Clinton spin machine?

  258. I think to answer the question of whether or not this is an attck from the right, we need to know who are the "senior givernmental officials" who gave the false information to The Times, don't you? Seems like a basic question The Times should answer in the face of this, don't you think?

  259. I believe the 2 government officials were appointed by Mr Obama.

  260. Maybe I was't clear. I wasn't referring to the inspectors, but the two "senior government officials" who (who don't go on the record and give their names, nor what position they hold--could be senators?--) who gave the incorrect information to the NYTimes.

  261. You've done a remarkably poor job in reporting this story. You have fundamentally mischaracterized the nature of the inquiry, and in a case where language counts and the stakes are high, you have chosen sensationalistic words over a more accurate accounting (which could readily have been obtained by more thorough reporting, as done by other reputable outlets). I am profoundly disappointed in the sloppiness displayed here from such a venerable news organization. There are, perhaps, well-founded concerns about how the Clintons handle their private affairs, and an arguable lack of transparency, but this piece illustrates why they may constantly feel embattled and compelled to operate as if they are under siege. Further, your corrections were not posted in the lede, which itself contains a flagrant error, but rather buried, as if it were a simple typo or misspelled name, at the bottom of the article. Please conduct yourself in worthier manner, or I will discontinue reading your publication; I suspect there are a great many other highly intelligent, rational individuals who feel the same way.

  262. You've done a remarkably poor job in reporting this story. You have fundamentally mischaracterized the nature of the inquiry, and in a case where language counts and the stakes are high, you have chosen sensationalistic words over a more accurate accounting (which could readily have been obtained by more thorough reporting, as done by other reputable outlets). I am profoundly disappointed in the sloppiness displayed here from such a venerable news organization. There are, perhaps, well-founded concerns about how the Clintons handle their private affairs, and an arguable lack of transparency, but this piece illustrates why they may constantly feel embattled and compelled to operate as if they are under siege. Further, your corrections were not posted in the lede, which itself contains a flagrant error, but rather buried, as if it were a simple typo or misspelled name, at the bottom of the article. Please conduct yourself in worthier manner, or I will discontinue reading your publication; I suspect there are a great many other highly intelligent, rational individuals who feel the same way.

  263. This is just another Benghazi hustle by the minions of the stinking rich who want to continue running the country.

  264. When you say "minions of the sticking rich," you are of course referring to the two independent Inspectors General referred to in the story, who work for, and were appointed by, the Obama Administration.

  265. In case you're not aware, it's been proven Hillary knew the Benghazi attack was not caused by a video the day after the attack. She LIED to us. And she looked the families of the victims in the eyes and lied to them. She is beyond reprehensible.

  266. Sorry, but Hillary dances to the tune of the stinking rich just as much as her opposite numbers.

    And an ad hominem attack does little to rebut the substance of what is being discussed her. Which is serious.

  267. This is just another Benghazi hustle by the minions of the stinking rich who want to continue running the country.

  268. When you say "minions of the sticking rich," you are of course referring to the two independent Inspectors General referred to in the story, who work for, and were appointed by, the Obama Administration.

  269. In case you're not aware, it's been proven Hillary knew the Benghazi attack was not caused by a video the day after the attack. She LIED to us. And she looked the families of the victims in the eyes and lied to them. She is beyond reprehensible.

  270. Sorry, but Hillary dances to the tune of the stinking rich just as much as her opposite numbers.

    And an ad hominem attack does little to rebut the substance of what is being discussed her. Which is serious.

  271. We must not give Hillary Clinton the Presidency! She is corrupt.

  272. We must not give Hillary Clinton the Presidency! She is corrupt.

  273. It's amazing to me how many supposedly "informed" readers of the NYT posting here know nothing of a Clinton alternative! Sanders anyone? Beuhler? Beuhler?

  274. It's amazing to me how many supposedly "informed" readers of the NYT posting here know nothing of a Clinton alternative! Sanders anyone? Beuhler? Beuhler?

  275. Still misleading headline and incredibly poor article