Why is the New York Times acting so guilty over the Clinton Family Foundation donation to its pet charity?

The New York Times is doing an excellent imitation of an institution with something to hide.  Or, in the charitable interpretation, incompetent.

The story began yesterday, as I noted here.  The Free Beacon dug through records and discovered the inconvenient truth that a major ($100k) donation to the NYT’s pet charity, The Neediest Cases Fund, happened in the same year, 2008, that the Times unexpectedly endorsed Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, for president.  But when the Free Beacon asked the Times for the date of the check, the Times dummied up to the Free Beacon, which broke the story.

Instead, the Times sought out another friendlier outlet, Buzzfeed, which headlined:

Clinton Family Foundation Donation To New York Times Charity Came After Endorsement

Case closed, right?  Well, not really:

A charity administered by the New York Times received a $100,000 check from the Clinton Family Foundation on July 24, 2008, months after the paper endorsed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, according to a New York Times spokesperson.

However, the check was a “replacement check” for one that had been sent in 2007 that the Times never received, the spokesperson said.

“The Neediest Cases Fund received a $100,000 check from the Clinton Family Foundation on July 24, 2008,” Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy said in an email to BuzzFeed News on Monday. “It was a replacement check for one dated June 22, 2007, that was apparently sent to an incorrect address and never received.”

So somewhere – the post office? the Times? – the check was “lost.”  I guess we are to believe that the Clinton Family Foundation noticed that the check hadn’t been cashed and sent another one.  But apparently nobody bothered to communicate about it; they just cut another $100k check.

That’s downright odd.

In fact, I don’t believe it.  Nobody, not even the super-rich Clintons, simply sends a second check for a hundred large without asking a few questions.  Somebody at the Times heard from somebody at the CFF that a check had been sent, but there was no acknowledgement, not to mention endorsement.  Might that contact leave no footprints because it was somebody at the top named Sulzberger who ran into a fellow super-elitist with the name of Clinton and who said something like, “No, we didn’t ever get such a check,” in the course of cocktail party/charity gala chitchat?

Iowahawk has it nailed:

Hat tip: Instapundit

The New York Times is doing an excellent imitation of an institution with something to hide.  Or, in the charitable interpretation, incompetent.

The story began yesterday, as I noted here.  The Free Beacon dug through records and discovered the inconvenient truth that a major ($100k) donation to the NYT’s pet charity, The Neediest Cases Fund, happened in the same year, 2008, that the Times unexpectedly endorsed Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, for president.  But when the Free Beacon asked the Times for the date of the check, the Times dummied up to the Free Beacon, which broke the story.

Instead, the Times sought out another friendlier outlet, Buzzfeed, which headlined:

Clinton Family Foundation Donation To New York Times Charity Came After Endorsement

Case closed, right?  Well, not really:

A charity administered by the New York Times received a $100,000 check from the Clinton Family Foundation on July 24, 2008, months after the paper endorsed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, according to a New York Times spokesperson.

However, the check was a “replacement check” for one that had been sent in 2007 that the Times never received, the spokesperson said.

“The Neediest Cases Fund received a $100,000 check from the Clinton Family Foundation on July 24, 2008,” Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy said in an email to BuzzFeed News on Monday. “It was a replacement check for one dated June 22, 2007, that was apparently sent to an incorrect address and never received.”

So somewhere – the post office? the Times? – the check was “lost.”  I guess we are to believe that the Clinton Family Foundation noticed that the check hadn’t been cashed and sent another one.  But apparently nobody bothered to communicate about it; they just cut another $100k check.

That’s downright odd.

In fact, I don’t believe it.  Nobody, not even the super-rich Clintons, simply sends a second check for a hundred large without asking a few questions.  Somebody at the Times heard from somebody at the CFF that a check had been sent, but there was no acknowledgement, not to mention endorsement.  Might that contact leave no footprints because it was somebody at the top named Sulzberger who ran into a fellow super-elitist with the name of Clinton and who said something like, “No, we didn’t ever get such a check,” in the course of cocktail party/charity gala chitchat?

Iowahawk has it nailed:

Hat tip: Instapundit