Anonymous Strikes Again
Anonymous Strikes Again
Or at least tries to.
You remember Anonymous. The so-called former senior member of the Trump Administration who published the New York Times hit piece. The same Anonymous who spun that piece into the book, A Warning. Now Anonymous has taken to Reddit to spread the word and, well, the best I can say is he/she/it should be writing fiction.
Now, anyone with two working brain cells had to look askance at the notice that Anonymous would be answering questions on the “Ask Me Anything”. After all, how could we know this really was the author of the op-ed piece and the book that followed? Ready to reassure those who might take part, publisher Sean Desmond promised it would really be Anonymous. Trust him.
But there’s more. The AMA was Anonymous’ first chance to:
respond to questions about their decision to keep their identity secret, reactions to the book, the impeachment hearings, and to make an announcement regarding the 2020 election.”
Oooh, aren’t you intrigued?
No? Me neither.
Why was the AMA Anonymous’ first chance to do all this? The book had to be one of the most hyped books in years. Every morning news show and almost every talk show would have given just about anything to have an interview with the author. Can’t you just imagine the way the women of The View could have fawned over him — or her? Their identity could have been hidden through makeup effects or by simply wearing a hood or sitting behind a screen. But no. Reddit is so much more effective to get the word out.
That sound you hear is my eyes rolling around in my head and falling onto the carpet where the cat is currently playing with them.
So what did Anonymous have to say? (And why should we care?)
Let’s start with their opening comment. In an attempt to explain away why they haven’t revealed their identity, Anonymous had this to say:
[A]nonymity has a long tradition in American politics, as far back as the birth of our Republic. When debating whether or not to ratify the new Constitution, for instance, the Founding Fathers wrote public essays about the controversial subject and disguised their names under pseudonyms. They hid their identities, not because they were scared to debate the issue openly, but because they wanted the public to focus on the message and not the messenger. They didn’t want their personal involvement to be a distraction. . . I don’t believe they were cowards for using anonymity as a tool to refocus the debate. Trump thrives on distractions, and anonymity is a way to deprive him of his favorite weapon of mass distraction–personal attacks–and force the discussion to center on the substance, his character.”
Wow, so much WTF-ery there. The Founding Fathers had more reason for using anonymity than just wanting to focus on the message. They were technically committing treason against the Crown. Had their identities been known, especially before we were formally at war with the Crown, they faced imprisonment and possibly death. That’s a far cry from the situation today. We haven’t morphed into the Soviet Union–yet.
Then there is the sidestep away from the original premise. He’s doing it to keep Trump from attacking him. Oh, he says it is to keep the message first but is that really the case? Or is it more of a ploy to keep folks talking about the book? After all, this was supposed to be yet another nail in Trump’s political coffin. If you have any doubt about that, ask yourself about the timing of the book’s release.
Anonymous labels himself (herself?) a “concerned American”. He does his best to paint himself as a warrior for truth, honor and the American way. Except, much like Michael Wolff’s book, Fire and Fury, I have seen nothing from either Anonymous’ op-ed piece or excerpts from the book that offer facts to support his contentions. There’s a great deal of someone said this, or we all know that. But no hard evidence. Yet, according to Anonymous and most of the media, we are to take his allegations to heart and use them as reasons to vote Trump out of office (assuming he isn’t impeached before then).
Oh, the media. They have done everything except throw a parade for Anonymous. How they must be cheering to read this comment from the AMA last night:
My motive in writing this is not financial, and I’m not seeking to profit off of this warning. If there are royalties from the sale of this book, I’ve pledged to donate them substantially to nonprofit organizations focused on government accountability and on supporting those who stand up for the truth in repressive regimes around the world. Here at home, I hope one of the recipients will be the White House Correspondents’ Association to help support a new generation of young reporters in a time when truth is under attack. I will have more to say on this in the near future.”
Well, good for him. He’s not in this for the money. Except he isn’t donating all his royalties to charity. Or is he? His comment is just broad enough and vague enough to leave the question open. Maybe he is going to donate them all and just the substantial part will go to those nonprofits “focused on government accountability.” Or maybe he is only going to donate a substantial part, whatever that means, and keep the rest. But don’t worry, he’ll tell us more “in the near future”.
What concerns me more about this is his decision to donate to the White House Correspondents’ Association. Maybe it’s because I, like so many in our nation, have lost faith in the mainstream media and, let’s face it, the WHCA is the epitome of the MSM. Maybe its because of this little gem I came across yesterday. It seems “Tara McGowan, former CBS News and 60 Minutes staffer and founder of the liberal get-out-the-vote group Acronym” has decided to raise $25 million in order to do what the Dems would scream long and loud about if she were conservative. She plans “to fill the news deserts, deliver the facts favorable to Democrats that she thinks voters are missing, and counter right-wing spin. . . While the articles she publishes are based on facts, nothing alerts readers that Courier publications aren’t actually traditional hometown newspapers but political instruments designed to get them to vote for Democrats.” Oh, and she plans to utilize Facebook to spread these half-truths. Oh, hell, let’s call it for what it is: fake news.
But back to Anonymous, who we are supposed to trust because he says he’s one of us.
As far as anonymity is concerned, I will not keep my identity shrouded in secrecy forever. I am not afraid to use my own name to express concern about the current occupant of the Oval Office.”
So why not tell us who you are are, Mr. Anonymous, and confront Trump now? If you are such a fan of the founding principles of the Party, and assuming the Party you referred to is the Republican Party, why not come out from behind the curtain in time to show not only the Party but the voting public there truly is reason to dump Trump and field a strong, charismatic and effective Conservative?
If Anonymous truly cared for the country, he’d have come out from the shadows long ago. Doing so would allow the public to weigh his allegations against facts already known. It would also allow others who were there at the time he alleged something happened to step forward and not only discuss the events in question but whether or not he was in place to know what happened.
Anonymous didn’t present himself as a whistleblower. He is accusing Trump of actions without giving Trump the chance to question Anonymous’ own motives in doing so. While I might not like Trump much of the time, he has been the victim of a long running attempt in the media and in the House of Representatives to undermine his presidency without allowing him the same chance to defend himself they would demand if the president targeted was a liberal.
Here is the question we all should be asking Anonymous, a question he had not answered the last time I checked the thread: “If you believe that Trump is a threat, why opt to write this book instead of testifying under oath during impeachment hearings?”
A good question and one I doubt we will ever have a satisfactory answer to.
Featured Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay.
[…] Anonymous Strikes Again […]
Eventually, he or she will be outed, and most likely by his or her own side – just as Eric Ciaramella was.
Properly, that should be “s/he/it”. Pronounce it and you’ll hear why. *evil grin*
They were technically committing treason against the Crown.
Uh, no, they weren’t. He is speaking of the Constitutional debates, and those were post-successful-rebellion. Debating independence, yes. Debating the new Constitution, no.
If there are royalties from the sale of this book
Heh. Interesting “if” there.
Well, I pledged for years that I would start eating better in the new year. Pledge don’t mean nuthin’.
And, of course, the organizations (well, the sorts of organizations, since he hasn’t actually mentioned any particular ones) to which he has “pledged” are all leftist-oriented, it appears. Which really isn’t surprising.
support a new generation of young reporters
How about helping the current young generation actually gain some knowledge and perspective, first? Or are young, hungry and ignorant reporters just more helpful to your causes?
I am not afraid to use my own name to express concern
IOW, “I already publish my opinions or let them be known on the pundit shows.” He SO wants to brag.
why not … show … the voting public there truly is reason to dump Trump
If he could do that, it wouldn’t involve his being nonymous. (The ‘a’ makes it counter, right? So the opposite of “anonymous” is “nonymous”, right? Right?) He could have done that in the op-ed, or the book. He didn’t.
You know, maybe he’s staying “anonymous” because he’s embarrassed?
Doing so would allow the public to weigh his allegations against facts already known.
See, I disagree. If he had made actual allegations, we could weigh them against the facts, regardless of his identity. But he hasn’t made credible allegations. Mostly he’s waved his hat. And he’s tossed around a bunch of spoiled greens and called them a salad. But I’ve seen nothing where his identity would make him an impeachable or unimpeachable witness in such a way as to lend actual credibility to his salad.
why opt to write this book instead of testifying under oath during impeachment hearings?
Because – especially given the progressive saturation of the book industry – the book is much easier to hide any collusion, and there’s no consequences for the book (unless it stupidly crossed over into actual libel).
Donald Trump ????? Who is the other guy ??? Yeah right ..things are about to step up a notch 😉