Some articles on the AP feed are empty and should simply be ignored.
This was one of them.
Assange does have to answer for what he has been accused of. I do hope that US prosecutors will ignore the political pressure from Trump and John BARRon and charge Assange with crimes relating to the two indictments in which Wikileaks is prominently featured (GRU + Roger Stone).
Assange’s trial should be interesting. He should subpoena Trump as a character witness. And he should also claim some of what he did was at the public encouragement of the President. The President was talking to him, through his television.
October 10, 2016 in Wilkes-Barre, PA: “This just came out,” Trump said. “WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks.”
October 12, 2016 in Ocala, FL: “This WikiLeaks stuff is unbelievable,” Trump said. “It tells you the inner heart, you gotta read it.”
October 13, 2016 in Cincinnati, OH: “It’s been amazing what’s coming out on WikiLeaks.”
October 31, 2016 in Warren, MI: “Another one came in today,” Trump said. “This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove.”
November 4, 2016 in Wilmington, OH: “Getting off the plane, they were just announcing new WikiLeaks, and I wanted to stay there, but I didn’t want to keep you waiting,” said Trump. “Boy, I love reading those WikiLeaks.”
I can’t believe I’m going to say this: This idiotic utterance by Hillary Clinton has finally made me start to think that she herself needs to answer for what she has done. Mock her up!
She was asked a stupid question and she gave an anodyne answer. Not her fault, really.
But the AP did not have to gin up an article out of it, nor did TPM have to pass it on.
Â
Your comment is far more interesting and useful than the article that occasioned it!
(Not that this is a rare occurrence.)
Uh, she’s a former presidential candidate whose campaign was harmed by an international conspiracy that included Assange and Russian intelligence. It’s fairly standard that she’d be asked how she feels about his arrest, even if the answer’s fairly predictable. If you’re not interested don’t click through and comment, maybe?
In other words, no one learned anything from the question and answer?
I agree.
She’s been respectfully quiet for a long time. She was definitely wronged. She can say what the hell she wants, when she wants, to whomever she wants and it is news worthy enough to report no matter what any peanut gallery thinks about it.
Well, I’ve never required her to be “respectfully quiet” about anything.
As I said, I found this particular interaction useless but I don’t blame her for it.
Â
If you say so, I guess!
You can guess all you want to. She’s more than earned it.
The right to have her words reported (in general)? Sure, I agree with that.
We were wronged, every one of us. I’m feeling pretty wronged myself.
Content-wise empty, yes. But it’s spun to portray Hillary as vindictive and self-focused, so roll the presses!
Probably another reason to ignore it, but it may be useful to keep an eye on the ongoing narrative. Hillary, obviously, ought to.
Yes, there’s that, too, if one looks for it.
Also noticeable is that the article is “By Associated Press.” No author’s name is given. This is not unique, of course, but I found it interesting (and separate from the zero content of the article).
Looking for absolution in all the wrong places. Sigh.
Why did you make me read your post? It was 3 sentences long and now I have to comment that commenting on it is a waste of my time. I blame you.
All of which drives up my back-end metrics and looks like approving interest. More similar posts! Careful what you don’t wish for!
The indictment has nothing to do with the 2016 election. This is just more malpractice by the Royal Court Stenographers that pass themselves off as journalists…
This pretty much ensures the Trump DOJ will look into dropping all charges and issuing a Medal of Freedom…