The New York Times continues its ground-breaking coverage of Hillary Clinton’s email with a look into what she said about Benghazi via email in the month after the attacks there. Although when I say “a look into” … it’s complicated. As readers learn in the seventh paragraph, after an allegedly direct quote and a sweeping characterization of Clinton’s correspondence:

The emails have not been made public, and The New York Times was not permitted to review them. But four senior government officials offered descriptions of some of the key messages, on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to jeopardize their access to secret information.

So, according to those four anonymous government officials, what was going on in Clinton’s email correspondence?

They provided no evidence that Mrs. Clinton, as the most incendiary Republican attacks have suggested, issued a “stand down” order to halt American forces responding to the violence in Benghazi, or took part in a broad cover-up of the administration’s response, according to senior American officials.

Seriously? What was the Times expecting—a “stand down” order issued via email, or an email days after the attack saying “gosh, I sure hope no one finds out we issued that stand down order”?In other shockers:

Strikingly, given that she has set off an uproar over her emails, Mrs. Clinton is not a verbose correspondent.

Gee, it’s almost like she knew that people might be reading her email at some point and didn’t want to say anything sensitive. Also, “she has set off an uproar over her emails”? (Emphasis added.) Methinks that was the New York Times, with some sloppy, sensationalized reporting.