The public editor of the New York Times, whose job it is to excuse the enormities found in the biased articles of the Times on a weekly basis, had, for once, the reverse of his usual task.  Instead of explaining away a slanted article (which can be a full-time job, if there are serious takers), the public editor was apologizing for the Times having "erroneously" reported that Hillary was under investigation for having classified information on her private email server.

It wasn’t really Mrs. Clinton directly who was the focus of the request for an investigation. It was more general: whether government information was handled improperly in connection with her use of a personal email account.

This is tremendous sophistry, even by Times standards.  It is two ways of saying the exact same thing.  It is not "more general."  If government information was handled improperly with regard to the use of her personal email, who, then, is still the subject of this investigation?  Changing the word "Clinton" to "her" does not change a thing.

Much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a “criminal inquiry,” instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a “security” referral.

The investigation is to determine if any laws were broken.  How is this not a criminal investigation?

That development was that several instances of classified information had been found in Mrs. Clinton’s personal email – although, in fairness, it’s doubtful whether the information was marked as classified when she sent or received those emails. 

The new standard, according to the Times: if information is passed on without the word "classified" in it, it's not classified.  If a confidential negotiating position doesn't have the word "classified" in it, it's not.  How ridiculous is that?

The rest of the piece talked about various ways the article could have been watered down to deflect blame from Mrs. Clinton, and emails from liberals who were enraged that the Times would dare report on even one of Hillary's nefarious schemes.

What's amazing here is not what Hillary has done, which is by now well-known, but the degree of groupthink the Times engages in to absolve one of its own.

This article was produced by NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.