The NYT's Michael Schmidt (pictured) strikes me as one helluva loose journalistic cannon — and if I were Matt Apuzzo, I'd steer clear of him. I suspect Schmidt's days at the Times are numbered. Politico:
The New York Times made small but significant changes to an exclusive report [co-written by Schmidt and Apuzzo] about a potential criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's State Department email account late Thursday night, but provided no notification of or explanation for of the changes.
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."
My only quibble with Politico's Dylan Byers is that the changes made were huge and significant. There's an immense difference between the potential opening of a criminal investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton" did this or that and the opening of a mere investigation into something expressed in the passive voice.
I have listened to Schmidt discuss his blockbuster journalism several times on "Hardball," and his comments usually come down, upon questioning, to shifting and indeed shifty combinations of innuendo and "Well, that I don't know."
I also wonder if Schmidt has, well, I don't know, maybe a NYT editor?