We’ve noted on a couple of occasions that WorldNetDaily’s favorite former Soviet Bloc spy, Ion Mihai Pacepa, is supporting Donald Trump despite Trump’s history of close ties with Russia and its leader Vladimir Putin — himself a former spymaster who Pacepa considers at least somewhat dangerous — apparently clinging to the kneejerk right-wing argument that Hillary Clinton is axiomatically worse.
After our second post on the subject, we had a Twitter conversation about this with Pacepa’s co-author and apparent public face, Ronald Rychlak. Here’s how it went:
ConWebWatch: Hey @rrychlak, why won’t your ex-Soviet bloc spymaster discuss Trump’s coziness with Russia & Putin?
Rychlak: He has.-in recent ebook & book review. He’s convinced that Trump will be tough on Russia & Putin.
ConWebWatch: Does he know all the nice things he’s said about Putin & his business dealings in Russia? Is he speaking without that evidence?
Rychlak: Yes, he knows of the statements.
ConWebWatch: He seems to have a disconnect. How can someone with such a close relationship w/Russia & Putin be expected to be tough on them?
Rychlak: Twitter is not the place for this, but P knows advisors & attitudes. He also looks beyond the surface headlines.
ConWebWatch: Agree this is not best forum. But it’s strange to be told not to believe our own eyes re Trump. Pacepa looks like he’s being used.
Rychlak: P says see [here] Lt. Gen. Flynn may be Trump’s CIA head. coziness w: Russia wont be policy.
ConWebWatch: Point is, if Hillary had these Russia connections, you & P would be using them against her. Why does Trump get a free pass?
Rychlak: Look past headlines and optics.
ConWebWatch: Did you & P did that [sic] re Hillary? Not that I’ve seen. You haven’t given me a reason not to believe what I see in Trump.
ConWebWatch: It still looks like P’s claimed expertise is being appropriated for partisan purposes that contradict the record.
As you can see, Rychlak doesn’t really offer any suitable answers to our questions about Pacepa, and non-answers like “Look past headlines and optics” are completely meaningless.
We have heard nothing further from Rychlak in the more than two weeks since that conversation, but interestingly, neither Pacepa nor Rychlak have surfaced at WND or anywhere else since then to discuss the election or anything else.
There remains a disconnect between Pacepa’s Cold War history and his endorsement of a presidential candidate whose ties with another Cold War relic are unambiguous and disturbing. Having weighed in on the election already, Pacepa and Rychlak need to further explain why we shouldn’t believe our own eyes regarding Trump.