On Thursday night, the New York Times reported that two inspectors general are seeking a criminal investigations into Hillary’s infamous email account.

But soon after publishing their story, they quietly made significant tweaks to the headline and lede, downplaying Hillary’s involvement in the story.

The reason for these mysterious changes? The Clinton campaign didn’t like the original story. 

NYT reporter Michael Schmidt told Politico, “It was a response to complaints we received from the Clinton camp that we thought were reasonable, and we made them.”

The changes appear to distance Hillary from the investigation, reworking her involvement from active tense to passive.

The story’s opening passage initially described the proposed case as an investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state.” (emphasis added)

It’s now an investigation "into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state.” (again, emphasis added.)

Similarly, the original headline of the story read, "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email.” It’s now been changed to  "Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account.”

The Times even painstakingly edited their URL to match the new headline. They provided no notice that the story had been changed.

An NYT spokesperson told the Washington Post they didn’t publicize the changes because there was no “factual error.”'

Journalists across the political spectrum were up in arms over the deceptive edits.: