Nancy Pelosi Says the President Does NOT Need Congressional Approval to Bomb Another...
John Fetterman Calls on His Fellow Democrats to Knock Off the Partisan Rage...
FLASHBACK-CRINGE: Obama's BILLIONS to Iran Brag Comes Back to Haunt Him As Old...
Monica Crowley Needs Just 1 Sentence to Sum Up the Loony Left's Insane...
DAMN! Ted Cruz BODIES Dave Smith for Calling Trump a Traitor in BRUTAL...
HERO --> CBS Reporter Going ROGUE When Told Not to Share Iranians Celebrating...
Pete Hegseth Drops a MOAB on Dem/Media Narratives in Opposition to the Iran...
It Stops NOW! Scott Jennings Blows the DOORS Off CNN Panelists Whining Trump...
Monday Morning Meme Madness
Clandestine Claim: Jack Schlossberg Says Repute of Biden’s Early Presidency Is Politics’ B...
Biting Criticism: Video of McDonald’s CEO Nibbling New ‘Big Arch’ Burger Casts Doubts...
@Sunnyright Has a Stinging Little Response to Headline About Sleeper Cells
Sen. Tim Scott Pays Tribute to Service Members Killed
Khamenei Post From Mid-February Talking Smack About the United States and Our Military...
WAKE UP! Watch Dana Bash's Face Closely As Democrat Iranian-American Goes Off on...

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