Don’t expect a retraction any time soon. And don’t expect a “mea culpa” that essentially says that the New York Times misled their readers and the public about Hillary’s “felonious” email behavior.
The Times essentially tried and convicted Hillary of breaking federal law because she used a private email account instead of a government email account. Reduced to its essence, that was “the story,” the “bombshell,” the “gotcha” that the Times wanted all of us to know about.
Minor problem, however: the Times reporting was wrong, incomplete, and deliberately misleading.
In a Huffington Post article, Bombshell New York Times Report On Hillary Clinton Email Account Disputed, we learn that employees were not told about the new email rule strongly encouraging the use of federal email accounts until October, 2014. Hillary left the State Department in February, 2013. So the nonexistent federal law that the Times accuses her of violating did not exist when she was there, at least not in way the Times described it.
But we are not learning something now that the Times did not know when they published their bombshell. They buried the facts for two obvious reasons: 1) It made for a more compelling story to claim she broke a federal law, and 2) They want to ruin Hillary’s chances as a presidential candidate.
What other reasons could there be?
What is fascinating to me is the next line of argument against Hillary’s use of a private email account. It’s the “Well, what about?” follow-up question that someone on the losing side of an argument raises in desperation. In this case, the concern is that Hillary is not giving up all her emails, that she has something to hide, and that basically, we can’t trust her.
Maybe the reporters asking that question can’t trust her. We can assume that the puppeteers at the Times don’t trust her. I happen to be one of millions of voters who does trust her.
Understand this. There is nothing — absolutely nothing, ever! — that Hillary can do or say that will change the mind of someone who is paranoid enough to run a front-page story that is essentially a half-truth and a non-story. Rather than raising questions about trusting Hillary, the article raises more serious questions about trusting the New York Times.