This year, alone, Time Inc., the organization behind Time<\/em> \u2014 one of the most prestigious American weekly news magazines in history \u2014 donated nearly $15,000 to the Clinton campaign<\/a>. A second organization, Time Warner, which was deeply tied to Time<\/em> until 2014<\/a>, is also a major Clinton fan. The company\u00a0gave her campaign<\/a> $327,308 in individual contributions in 2016, alone.<\/p>\n But perhaps most telling of the organization\u2019s preferences is the presence of Nancy Gibbs as Time<\/em>\u2019s managing editor. At the tender age of 53, she \u201cshattered a glass ceiling<\/em><\/a>\u201d by taking over for Richard Stengel<\/a>, who in 2013 \u201c[stepped] down from his news magazine job to join the Obama administration at the Department of State<\/em>,\u201d\u00a0Politico<\/em> reported.<\/p>\n Gibbs is a competent writer, whose impressive resume includes<\/a> writing for\u00a0Time<\/em> for 28 years. This makes her \u201cone of the most published writers in the history of the magazine, having been an essayist and lead writer on virtually every major news event of the past two decades<\/em>,\u201d according to Magazine.org.<\/p>\n But Time<\/em>\u2019s praise for Clinton<\/a> since Gibbs became managing editor, much like her former colleague Stengel\u2019s dedication to President Obama as the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs<\/a>, is also part of her legacy<\/a>. Gibbs, herself, has praised Clinton<\/a> in her articles<\/a>, and on one occasion, she participated in<\/a> a Clinton Foundation annual meeting.<\/strong><\/p>\n Keeping that in mind, it\u2019s apparent the writers under her watch are likely steered toward writing pieces she would see fit, ignoring facts<\/a> and reporting<\/a>\u00a0hearsay as\u00a0truth<\/a> despite a lack of evidence.<\/p>\n The magazine\u2019s latest effort to paint Clinton and the DNC\u2019s leadership as the victims of media bias comes in the form of a cover piece entitled \u201cHow Russia Wants to Undermine the U.S. Election<\/a>.\u201d<\/strong><\/u><\/p>\n Amid reports of electoral fraud perpetrated by the Democratic Party, which places Clinton as the top beneficiary<\/a>, the story suggests<\/a> the Obama administration, along with U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, have \u201cseen mounting evidence of an active Russian influence operation targeting the 2016 presidential election<\/em>.\u201d The article does not acknowledge the DNC\u2019s own meddling and manipulation.<\/strong><\/p>\n Admitting \u201cthe Russians\u201d would have a hard<\/a> time \u201c[swaying] the actual vote count, because our election infrastructure is decentralized and voting machines are not accessible from the Internet<\/em>,\u201d Time<\/em>\u2019s Massimo Calabresi<\/a> argues they may still \u201csow disruption and instability up to, and on, Election Day<\/em>.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Basing an entire report on testimonials given to Time by \u201ca dozen senior U.S. officials\u201d who were left unnamed, the piece mostly dwells in metaphysical \u201cmumbo-jumbo,\u201d claiming the dangerous Russians could \u201c[undermine] faith in the result [of the elections] and in democracy itself.\u201d [emphasis added]<\/strong><\/em><\/u><\/p>\n Still, Calabresi adds<\/a> that U.S. officials do not have evidence to support their allegations regarding Russia\u2019s role in \u201crigging the election.\u201d Instead, the article suggests that \u201cwhile U.S. officials have \u2018high confidence\u2019 that Russia is behind what they describe as a major influence operation, senior U.S. officials tell TIME, their evidence would not yet stand up in court.<\/em>\u201d He added that the two main hacking groups, believed to be tied to Russian intelligence, prove Russia is involved in rigging the election.<\/p>\n Despite Time<\/em>\u2019s wishful thinking, the only three characteristics officials have used to connect the hackers to Russia are<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201c[E]xpensive digital tools, suggesting state sponsorship; an interest in pursuing sensitive, embarrassing or strategically significant information, rather than financially beneficial data; and a choice of targets that align with Russian political objectives<\/em>.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Further, Calabresi adds<\/a>, \u201cU.S. law-enforcement agencies are scrambling to uncover the extent of the Russian operation, counter it and harden the country\u2019s election infrastructure<\/em>.\u201d This is all while \u201ca murky network of Russian hackers and their associates\u201d<\/em> works to \u201c[step] up the pace of leaks of stolen documents designed to affect public opinion and give the impression that the election is vulnerable, including emails from the computers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC)<\/em>.\u201d Here, he effectively but subtly ties Julian Assange, the Australian computer programmer, publisher, journalist, and editor-in-chief of the organization he founded, WikiLeaks, to \u201cthe Russians.\u201d<\/p>\n In an August interview, Assange gave a compelling explanation<\/a> as to why members of the mainstream U.S. media, who are often backers of Democratic presidential nominees<\/a>, have repeatedly accused him of being a Russian intelligence plant.<\/p>\n \u201cEveryone accepts that the emails that we published, the 20,000 leaked DNC emails, are accurate. Nobody is saying that they did not say something that was listed in the emails<\/em>,\u201d he told RT.com<\/em><\/a>. Over the past ten years, Assange added, \u201cWikiLeaks has [had] a perfect \u2026 record of never getting it wrong \u2014 it is an impressive record and it is the reason why it takes a while before we publish information \u2014 because we want to keep that record<\/em>.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He continued<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201cGiven that the real source is known, in this case it is the DNC, it is Debbie Wasserman Schultz, it is Luis Miranda the Communications Director \u2014 we know these are their emails so there\u2019s quite a difficulty for the Clinton campaign to try to outmaneuver WikiLeaks. The content itself is unquestionable so instead you have to bring in another actor, so they had to bring in Russian intelligence agencies<\/em>.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Unfortunately for Time<\/em> and its managing editor, these emails<\/a>, which come from the DNC and its top-ranking officials, \u201cshow the<\/em> DNC rigged and manipulated the Democratic primary<\/em><\/a> in favor of Hillary Clinton<\/em>,\u201d and that is a problem for the Clinton campaign and its narrative.<\/p>\n Instead of discussing these matters \u2014 which would all be tied to the story\u2019s main theme of \u201celection rigging\u201d \u2014 Time<\/em>\u2019s Calabresi chooses to slam Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump for comments made after the DNC leak was publicized.<\/strong><\/p>\n After being part of a classified intelligence briefing on the Russian \u201cthreat,\u201d Calabresi admits<\/a>, Trump said \u201cnobody knows with definitive certainty that [the hackers behind the DNC leak were] in fact [from] Russia. It may be, but it may also be China, another country or individual<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n Ignoring the fact the presidential nominee had been part of a classified briefing on the matter, Time<\/em>\u2019s Calabresi still condemns the candidate for choosing not to blame Russia without evidence \u2014 again choosing to ignore facts and, instead, using solely speculative arguments to defend his story.<\/strong><\/p>\n President Obama once mocked<\/a> 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney for claiming Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat facing America. At the time, Obama hit the candidate by saying<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201cThe 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War\u2019s been over for 20 years<\/em>.\u201d<\/strong><\/u><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Well President Obama, how about that? Ronald Reagan called and asked you to bring that wall down<\/a> and wipe that smirk off your face. You\u2019re now a cold war instigator, and your mouthpieces can\u2019t wait for Mrs. Clinton to win. After all, her campaign has already promised<\/a> to go full force against Syria, prompting the beginning of a conflicting period that could put the United States and Russia on a warpath<\/a>.<\/p>\n Unless solid proof linking these hacks to Russian intelligence is produced, former National Security Administration (NSA) contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden once tweeted, it\u2019s hard to believe Russia is behind all this. After all, if the Kremlin were behind it, the NSA would know<\/a>. And if the NSA knows, why won\u2019t it show us proof?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n![](\"http:\/\/www.zerohedge.com\/sites\/default\/files\/images\/user3303\/imageroot\/2016\/10\/08\/20161008_time.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n