Molly, you missed the key point even though you quoted it verbatim: On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 3:31 PM Molly Hankwitz <mollyhankw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But the government’s case against Assange has nothing to do with his role > in laundering documents stolen by Russian spies to help Trump win the 2016 > election. Instead, it focuses on his earlier work, which brought new light > to the dark corners of the war on terror. > It's like this writer is being willfully blind. Trump doesn't even believe, or act like he believes, that the Russians were involved in this at all. It's the Trump-Putin spinners who now run the justice department, and there's no way they're going to bring charges on something that proves Trump & Co were in bed together with Poppa Vlad all along. It boggles my mind how someone can be surprised by this or fail to connect the dots. But I'm not sure Trump is driving this particular train at all. When asked about the arrest, he said "I don't know anything about Wikileaks" which is exactly what he said when asked about David Duke's endorsement: "I don't know anything about white supremacists." It's what he says when one of his buddies get busted - he sells them down the river immediately, until he sees how it plays out and then he'll say something more substantial if cornered for an extended period. His personal "I love Wikileaks" attitude is at odds with this arrest, just like he's been expressing resistance to sanctions on Russia despite them being passed into law, or pretending that Assad is the good guy in Syria. These are US policies but not Trump policies. He's on his own alt-right kick that happens to know how to honey-coat the talking points for radical leftists, except in a few issues like rape and racism which they are pathologically unable to finesse. A few left writers have done somersaults, for instance, trying to explain why non-intervention in Syria is a good leftist policy even though Trump, Putin and Assad are its most powerful advocates and chief beneficiaries. As for this: I have absolutely no truck with anyone who wants to further condemn Assange > for leaking any f**king emails. IMHO this is not why Trump got elected. > Trump got elected because in the USA - "anyone" can run for President and > win. Clinton was a weak candidate beyond those emails. It's not just leaking the emails. It's about coordinating with Trump's campaign. It's taking sides with Trump at all. Why would I want to support someone who is so asinine as to believe that Trump is better than Clinton? It beggars belief. A "weak" candidate vs an authoritarian crook? A centre-leftist vs an extreme right firebrand? What kind of jerk makes that choice for Trump? And it's further unbelievable that the Wikileaks emails had no effect on the election. I mean if that's your attitude, prove to me that ANYTHING had an effect on the election. I mean if Trump isn't the very gold-plated engraved example of a weak candidate, then who the hell is?? No experience, brags about sexual assault, his charity was busted for fraud, he lied about donating to veterans, he's an unapologetic racist, his university was a scam, he doesn't know anything about policy or history, three-times divorced... I mean what in god's name has Hillary ever done to add up to any of that? https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wikileaks-hillary-clinton/ https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/wikileaks-hilary-clinton-progressives-230009 People are so willing to argue Hillary was a weak candidate outside the leaked emails - but she not only won the popular vote, she was also far far ahead just as the emails were leaked. After weeks of drip drip leaks, she finally fell behind.
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
