Outkick’s Clay Travis Challenges WNBA Team to Play HS Boys’ Basketball Team for...
The GOP Must Focus on the Cost of Living
Dem Pete Buttigieg Proposes ‘Normal’ Things Like Ending the Electoral College and Altering...
Viewers Heed Brian Stelter’s Advice and Hold Two CNN Anchors to Account With...
Forbes: Canadian Singer Doesn't Outright Deny MAGA Association
Mehdi Hasan Reminds Ron DeSantis That 90,000 Floridians Died During the COVID Crisis
These 'Republican Moms' Are All Voting for James Talarico: 'I Find Him to...
Francesca Hong Notes Her Proximity to Whiteness Continues Through Her Half-White Son
Jezebel: ‘MAGA Barbie’ Sophie Cunningham Working to Be WNBA’s Worst Player
LIVE Election Results on Twitchy: Primary Night in MI, MO, VA, KS, and...
A Very Masculine James Talarico Wields a 'Blowtorch'
Rage Return?: Politico ‘Journo’ Declared COVID Damage Repaired Until Fauci Forced to Testi...
Drama Queen Gavin Newsom Declares Congress Dead, Democracy Over If Dems Don't Win
Bring in the Bulldozers: Madison and State Police Dismantle Black Lives Matter Encampment
Mamdani Gets Caught As Grocery ID Policy Backfires

What we know now about the IG investigations into Hillary Clinton's emails (Hint: It's not any better for Hillary)

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.

Advertisement

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:

Advertisement

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:

NYT_1

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:

Advertisement

NYT_2

John Sexton of Breitbart News adds a little more clarity to the whole “criminal” vs. “counterintelligence” debate:

The NYT also responded to David Brock’s call for the Times to launch an internal investigation into its “flawed” reporting on Hillary Clinton:

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.

Advertisement

***

Related:

‘Orange is the new pantsuit’: DOJ asked to open criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email account

‘Wrong’: Ron Fournier demolishes Hillary Clinton’s email excuses & scapegoats

Pathetic: Hillary Clinton’s campaign ‘steamrolled NYT for a rewrite’ (and got it)

What makes Hillary Clinton’s rapid response steamrolling of NYT even worse? THIS shattering perspective

‘OH SNAP!’ Actor Adam Baldwin sums up just how foul Hillary Clinton is with only 3 letters

‘They have a criminal referral’: Rep. Cummings’ spin for Hillary brought to an abrupt halt

So Good: ‘BOOM!’ This GIF nutshells (emphasis on nut) media’s lapdoggery for Hillary Clinton

Crazy from the heat: Hillary just blamed WHAT for her email deception? (Brace yourselves!)

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement