According to Julian Assange, Bernie Sanders Was Threatened into Pulling out of the Democratic Race
Take this for what you will, but Julian Assange has recently confirmed that Bernie Sanders' (not the Steemit user) wife was physically threatened by goons of the Democratic Party, in order to get Bernie drop out of the race.
This is from an interview Assange did with a journalist named John Pilger.
When asked:
“Julian, we cut you off earlier when you were talking about what you felt were the most significant emails that you have released. Is there any last one that you’d like to mention? And also, do you have any thoughts on Bernie Sanders? I mean what is your opinion why Bernie Sanders drop out of the race?”
Assange responded:
“Look, I think—you know, we know how politics works in the United States. Whoever—whatever political party gets into government is going to merge with the bureaucracy pretty damn fast. It will be in a position where it has some levers in its hand. And Bernie Sanders was independent candidate trying to get the nomination trough the Democratic Party and if you ask me he did get the nomination, but he was threatened to drop out.”
I'm not someone who would have voted for Bernie Sanders in a presidential election, but obviously Sanders was, or would have been a very anti-establishment candidate. It's also curious that they did this, if true, since even Stevie Wonder could see that Bernie was a much more popular politician than Hillary, who is a sheer charisma vaccuum, and therefore stood no chance against the very charismatic and flamboyant Trump.
So, clearly, it wasn't just about getting a Democrat to win - it was about getting Hillary to win. It could be that they were just misguided and had a lot of baseless trust in Hillary, or perhaps it was something else.
Interesting to see what comes of this.
Thoughts?
I think the idea that Bernie Sanders was somehow "anti-establishment" is a little off. He was very much an establishment candidate. He just wanted to use the establishment to move things further to the "left." He would simply cloak his ideas as organic or "decentralized," but if you read between the lines, everything would require more government/bureaucracy - more force - of the same variety that currently exists.
Oh, I agree in essence. But he was somewhat anti-establishment when compared to Hillary. Meaning that Hillary was (or seemed to be) the Golden Choice.
Obviously Bernie's a socialist.
Right. I agree with you there. Sanders wasn't totally part of the current establishment (the Clinton brigade), but he certainly would have had his own establishment, which would have been even more socialist than Hillary and her gang advocate.
In reality, none of it matters anyway. The bureaucracy is entrenched and no single candidate will ever change that. But an outright socialist and career politician claiming to be anti-establishment was a total farce in the first place.
Yeah, Sanders it's no more anti-establishment than Obama or Trump. It's just rhetoric needed to be seen as "outsiders", to catch more votes.
Trump is.
Why?
Look at how much the establishment dislikes him.
True, establishment is anti-Trump, but is Trump anti-establishment?
We had a similar situation here with Berlusconi... I hope Trump will be different
Not a surprise really. There was a lot of money behind Killary.
https://twitter.com/Soul_Eater_43/status/840681549033013248
Disclaimer: I am just a bot trying to be helpful.
I looked it up,and this article that you refer to is fabricated according to snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/julian-assange-bernie-sanders-was-threatened/
Thanks, good call.
wikileaks/assange works for Russia.
More important here is paying attention to the Putin/Trump links. Trumps history of accepting russian money for real estate projects. The gutting of our State Dept. Knowing Flynn was working on Turkey's behalf yet given head of NSA spot. Making money for the family biz thru the office of the prez. The list goes on.
Some good journalists to follow are David Fahrenthold, Louise Mensch, Sarah Kendzior, Jason Kander, John Schindler, Malcolm Nance, Evan McMullin
I'm inclined to agree that skepticism to everything Russia related is very important. Especially Putin. That's also why I made a point to state that if this is true.
I don't have a strong opinion on Assange, one way or the other.
I'm just trying to keep my eye on the ball. what's going on in the WH is a travesty :-(
The way I look at it, to do business on a global scale, privately or as a member of the government, you are going to have to deal with Russia. That is just a fact. Hillary did it at least once through The Clinton Foundation and herself in whatever position that was she held under Obama. I keep getting her position wrong and people point to that fact as reason to dismiss all the other proof (I am just a messenger on this).
My concern is more in what business relations, private or government, did the person have with Russia. If it was political donations or giving them Uranium or whatever then yeah, I have a problem with that. If it was just to get a business license/permit/whatever Russia requires to build motels or whatever you want there then I find that a lot less worrisome.
With Trump, I could see concern over "when" relations began with Russia, if they ever did. For instance, if he had relations with them in the 90's then I don't give a crap. We were friends with them then and a lot of American businesses worked with them. Would you condemn McDonald's today for working with them then?
If he began relations after announcing, or it became clear even, that he was running for president then we have a problem because their willingness to work with him would not be solely based on business at that point.
The problem is, I don't think we will ever know the 100% truth as far as this subject goes. Governments cover things up, departments lie for each other. Things get classified for no apparent reason to citizens.
I'm not much into US politics, but as far as I know Sanders never say a word about threats or Hillary/democrats emails scandal. So, if this stuff is true, it is not going to be good to Sanders image, IMO.
Sanders has only been on the attack of Trump, before/during/after his attempt to get the nomination from the Democrats. After he lost/gave it up, Sanders has only said positive things about Hillary, even to day. He has never discussed the email scandal directly, that I know of, and won't discuss it.
I do know if you look at his professional and personal life, some things changed in a very positive manner for Sanders.
Come on, Assange has become a non entity, he just surfaces every once in a while, I think at this moment he is being paid for the supposed leaks he makes. i think his credibility was blown quite a while back.
Not like we had any good choices, politicians don't change things or help anything. People organizing and voting with money(boycotts) is what makes things happen. Most things in the U.S happen when large groups of people force it on the politicians. The best way to get on welfare in the U.S. is to become a politician. Once that happens you can just walk around talking about things you are going to do and never do them! Both parties are so similar its hard to know what lie to believe.
Why does this not surprise me.
Bernie Sanders is a very strong man and I doubt very much he would be scared off by any threats. He simply saw the wisdom of not splitting the Democrat vote and frankly Hilary deserved to be President, it was good for all women as well.