The New York Times reports that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Clinton used as secretary of state.
The request for a criminal investigation results from “an assessment” of the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Hillary’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.”
The State Department is still reviewing some 55,000 pages of Hillary’s emails some of which are problematic:
In the course of the email review, State Department officials determined that some information in the messages should be retroactively classified. In the 3,000 pages that were released, for example, portions of two dozen emails were redacted because they were upgraded to “classified status.” But none of those were marked as classified at the time Mrs. Clinton handled them.
This would be a good time to remember that Gen. David Petraeus was sentenced to serve two years on probation and to pay a $100,000 fine for “mishandling” classified information.
It is fascinating that the story originated with New York Times, always a Hillary supporter. The Times already seems to have some second thoughts about its big scoop. According to Politico’s Dylan Byers, The Times altered the story in the dead of night without notification of or explanation:
The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation “into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state.”
That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry “into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state.”
The Times also changed the headline of the story, from “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email” to “Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account,” reflecting a similar recasting of Clinton’s possible role. The article’s URL was also changed to reflect the new headline.
As of early Friday morning, the Times article contained no update, notification, clarification or correction regarding the changes made to the article.
So what do we have here? Is this some palace revolt in the State Department? Is Secretary of State Kerry going after Hillary? Is Obama going after her? Or is this all a subterfuge to help Hillary? Maybe the Hillary folk think they can get the Obama/Lynch Justice Department to whitewash Hillary’s email fiasco and rehabilitate her faltering presidential campaign. Perhaps the Democrat elite are fearful that their “presumptive nominee” is in trouble in light of the polling showing her losing to several Republican candidates in key swing states.
I’m a little embarrassed to mention things that sound like conspiracy theories. But when Obama Administration Inspectors General go after Hillary, one really wonders.
Just this morning, the Washington Post’s Lisa Rein reported on the latest Obama Administration effort to control inspectors General. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has released a 58-page ruling that requires the watchdogs to get permission from the agency they’re monitoring for access to wiretaps, grand jury and credit information.
Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’ inspector general, said the ruling will undermine his ability to do his job rooting out fraud and corruption:
Without such access, our office’s ability to conduct its work will be significantly impaired, and it will be more difficult for us to detect and deter waste, fraud, and abuse, and to protect taxpayer dollars.
Congress meant what it said when it authorized Inspectors General to independently access ‘all’ documents necessary to conduct effective oversight.
According to Rein, the Obama Administration effort to rein in Inspectors general goes back to its efforts to “delay” the Fast and Furious investigation into the administration’s the failed sting operation that lost track of more than 1,000 government-issued guns, one of which was used to kill a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
What do you think? Is the requested criminal inquiry/investigation serious, or an effort to clear Hillary of her email debacle?