Who knew Time Magazine was a RW smear rag?

[SheenaR]

http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/?xid=homepage


They buried their heads in the sand for months. This is real.


I want to win fair and square, but if she committed a crime, it looks like she actually may be held responsible

[FreakinDJ]

1. Her own arrogance did this - nothing else

[corkhead]

2. Why do I want to do a Snoopy happy dance for the indictment of a person I might have to vote for

in November?

What a country.

[thereismore]

3. Comey looks like he won't be laughed away easily. I trust him. nt

[felix_numinous]

4. You're innocent if you don't get caught

what is the matter with these people, haven't they been paid enough?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. Indeed who knew?

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. Ruh Roh! Marc Rich was prosecuted by COMEY! Bill Clinton pardoned him!

That must have pissed him off!

I wouldn't want to be Hillary Clinton...I'm just saying.

Comey parlayed the Whitewater job into top posts in Virginia and New York, returning to Manhattan in 2002 to be the top federal prosecutor there. One of his first cases as a line attorney in the same office 15 years earlier had been the successful prosecution of Marc Rich, a wealthy international financier, for tax evasion. But on his last day as President in 2001, Bill Clinton pardoned Rich. “I was stunned,” Comey later told Congress. As top U.S. prosecutor in New York in 2002, appointed by George W. Bush, Comey inherited the criminal probe into the Rich pardon and 175 others Clinton had made at the 11th hour.

Despite evidence that several pardon recipients, including Rich, had connections to donations to Bill Clinton’s presidential library and Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, Comey found no criminal wrongdoing. He was careful not to let the investigation be used for political purposes by either party. When pressed for details in one case, he said, “I can’t really go into it because it was an investigation that didn’t result in charges. That may be a frustrating answer, but that’s the one I’m compelled to give.”

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[GreatGazoo]

8. "an investigation that didn’t result in charges" = they made a deal

interesting

[leftcoastmountains]

7. It just shows poor judgement on her part.

Why else would she do something that has created
all this controversy?

[Kalidurga]

9. Well Time has conservative leanings...

I would never say it's a smear rag though. It's actually a pretty good magazine as far as being well written and I have never seen a bad cover.

Long and short of it I trust them to report as honestly at least as honestly as most MSM sources and more honestly than most.

[dorkzilla]

10. It seems, as my nephew would say "shit just got real"

This may be the reason why Mrs. President was so unhinged at SUNY Purchase today...

[Babel_17]

11. Ah, so today's finger pointing, and angry retort, in the face of the young person ...

now has some extra context. As I said in another thread:

"Not sure who uploaded this new point release to Hillary 10.0, but it will backfire. Her campaign thinks directing anger at Senator Sanders for pointing out the obvious is smart. Strike that, maybe they don't, but they're out of good options and are getting desperate. Maybe they're thinking they can conflate the FBI investigation, the Inspectors General investigations, and Sanders competing with her, into one giant amorphous blob, an evolution of all the meanies who've been out to get her. It won't work, and the nail in the coffin to this new strategy is when her aides start filing in, repeatedly, to give statements to all the inquiries, and investigations, that have the right to call them in."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280162758

This was the video: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/clinton-so-sick-of-the-sanders-campaign-lying-about-me/2016/03/31/9e22887c-f77e-11e5-958d-d038dac6e718_video.html

That might have been a Greenpeace activist.

Hillary Clinton on Thursday accused Bernie Sanders's campaign of lying about her in a heated exchange with an environmental activist.
“I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me. I’m sick of it,” the visibly angry Democratic presidential hopeful said, pointing a finger in a woman’s face, in a video posted by Greenpeace.
The exchange came as the woman pressed Clinton on taking donations from the fossil fuel industry and asked if she would reject their campaign contributions in the future.
“I do not have — I have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies,” Clinton responded, before calling the rival campaign's claims lies.

Clinton’s campaign has accepted sums from fossil fuel companies. According to a Huffington Post report from July of last year, most of her campaign’s largest bundlers at the time were lobbyists for the industry.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/photos-greenpeace-uses-seattle-skyline-send-message-clinton/

We flew our thermal airship over a Clinton campaign event in Seattle asking Hillary to say no to fossil fuel money.

©Marcus Donner/Greenpeace

Greenpeace flew its thermal airship last week in Seattle before the Washington State Democratic caucus with a message urging Secretary Clinton to “Say No To Fossil Fuel Money.” Joined by more than 20 partners, Greenpeace has been campaigning for Secretary Clinton to drop her fossil fuel connections since January.

Google this: Clinton 'so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me'

She broke the internet! Lots of links and videos. That activist may have the last laugh. The media is running with this in a way not good for Secretary Clinton's campaign.

This could be very important, maybe even crucially important as it seems like the Clinton campaign has decided to portray Senator Sanders campaign as taking an unfair "tone" with her. Imo it's likely her demeanor and talking points in the upcoming debate will key on that. If that strategy is already blowing up on her, look out! If her campaign can't recalibrate, there may be no debate.

We elected HRC here in NY to be our Senator. I remember when the Democratic woman deemed likely to run for the seat graciously stepped aside for that to happen. But know this, it's important to remember that when Caroline Kennedy, who is beloved here, thought about running for Clinton's vacated seat, New Yorkers said "No" partly because we'd had enough of outsiders.

Clinton has lots of devoted supporters here, but New York also has many hard core activists. We shouldn't rule much out, in the way of protests against her record, and what she stands for. I've been canvassing for Sanders and I've heard people yell "Hell no!" to the idea of Secretary Clinton as our candidate. Vociferously opposed to her, is how I'd characterize a large percentage of people who came to the door.

Granted, I don't live in an upscale area, like parts of Manhattan, where her support is near legendary. Still, even there, the younger voters are another story ...

[Babel_17]

12. TIME Person of (Interest of) the Year?

I doubt I'm the first to think of that, but I haven't seen it yet, and I think it might apply.

I've frequently speculated that there won't be a recommendation for indictment of Secretary Clinton, but some of her technical staff might not be as lucky. They were employed to follow the regulations. If time stamps can show they took material marked "Classified", or higher, off of secure servers, condensed it and sent that over non-secure means, they could be in for a world of legal hurt.

If that happens then (and IANAL) the DOJ might feel compelled to tell Clinton she is a person of interest in this matter.

Yadda, yadda, yadda, Clinton might not have any problems because there's no way to prove she directed, with criminal intent, her subordinates to do anything wrong.

"Get me that XYZ information" might mean a subordinate has to get a file marked secret and send it to Clinton over non-secure means, and the subordinate could testify to that, but then you have to prove Clinton knew she was asking for something illegal to happen.

Yes, she was briefed on the regulations, but the vibe from the administration is that enforcement of the regs stop at a certain pay grade. So the question boils down to what can the FBI/DOJ prove about criminal intent.

Now, imo, who actually instructed who about the private server, and what can be proven about that, is the real possible downfall for somebody in the inner circle. If the FBI builds a case around that, then the DOJ will have to ask pointed questions. And then the stakes become enormously high.

Clinton isn't having the great as hoped luck with portraying herself as the victim of baseless accusations as she'd hoped. So if she or anyone very close to her feels compelled to invoke their right not to answer DOJ questions, that could come with a devastating cost.