Boy, it’s hard to believe what has followed my previous post on Julian Assange’s interview with Richard Engel.
I hoped there’d be follow up on certain things Assange said. And there is follow up and follow up, for part of which I must thank Donald Trump.
American intelligence agencies cautioned that they are uncertain whether the breach was an effort to manipulate the 2016 presidential election.
And then, of course, there was this astonishing wadddyacallit from Donald Trump. Does the man understand what he’s saying? Which deserves another couple of ?????
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, essentially encouraging a foreign power’s cyberspying.
Then there was the Times piece presenting Assange’s delusion that he has somehow emerged from hiding as a sovereign state with “policies,” and highlighting his childish and petulant whine about how Hillary Clinton is his sworn enemy. Really, he needs a shrink to help him with his mommy problems and his not unrelated propensities to abuse women sexually.
Assange sounds like a 7-year-old pre-psychotic brat, the neighbor’s kid whom you refused to play with because he was weird and nasty. The Times abstract gives him far too much credibility by saying he “opposes her on policy grounds…”??? He doesn’t have “policy;” he has paranoia.
Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, suggested in a June interview that he opposed Mrs. Clinton on policy grounds and saw her as a personal foe.
And here’s an opinion from the moderate (yeah, sorry all you people who think the Times is a bastion of left-wing-ism) Nicholas Kristof. Before the abstract and link, I copied in one sharp paragraph, for everyone who’s commented in the Times that how the emails got out wasn’t important; what was important was the anti-Bernie content indicating conspiracy, never mind that there was no conspiracy:
Look, Democratic Party leaders exchanged inappropriate emails showing bias for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, and a hacker’s disclosure has properly triggered a ruckus. But that scandal pales beside an effort apparently by a foreign dictatorship to disrupt an American presidential election.
The evidence from the hacking of the Democratic committee’s computers points to Russia, and it had reason to favor Trump.
Yeah, I said I wouldn’t comment but…if those Times commenters who are outraged over Bernie understood anything, and I mean anything about history and governance and politics, they would not so expose their ignorance by their comments.
Or they are simply neo-Stalinists.
This is the first time I say this but it will not be the last: if you want me to read and consider your opinions, do not hide beyond cutesy internet pseudonyms. I have no idea what you think you’re doing–or who you really are–but we don’t have or need a samizdat culture in this country. We have the First Amendment.
And one more I just picked up from the Times, from The Interpreter — which I think is a fairly new column by Max Fisher. I’ve found it useful in clarifying the news:
There is simply no precedent for a presidential candidate publicly appealing to a foreign adversary to intervene in the election on his behalf.