Here’s what we know now on the story of a possible criminal investigation (as reported by the New York Times late last night) into the handling of emails by the State Department and Hillary Clinton.
The inspectors general for the intelligence community (IC) and State Department are now saying this was a “counterintelligence referral, not criminal” which contradicts what the NYT reported earlier:
But this “counterintelligence referral” is still a big deal and was prompted by government investigators discovering potentially classified emails on Hillary Clinton’s private server as well as the thumb drive of Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall:
In other words:
Exactly. And contrary to what Team Hillary wants you to believe, this story isn’t going away:
It should be noted that the New York Times article from last night, written by Michael S. Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo, still has the “Criminal Inquiry” headline:
Will the NYT change the headline? It doesn’t look like it…
A new article by Schmidt and Apuzzo was just posted to NYTimes.com where they write, “Regardless of the terminology, the referral raises the possibility of a Justice Department criminal investigation” and that it was the DOJ that called this a “criminal referral” in the first place:
John Sexton of Breitbart News adds a little more clarity to the whole “criminal” vs. “counterintelligence” debate:
David Brock is a partisan. It is not surprising that he is unhappy with some of our aggressive coverage of important political figures. We are proud of that coverage and obviously disagree with his opinion.
We shall see if the “aggressive coverage” continues or if the paper cracks under pressure from Clinton and her minions.