Russian Hack Conspiracy Theory Fails to Overturn the Election

The Electoral College has voted and attempts to subvert it have failed.  Donald Trump won, as he should have. 

russians-did-it-dogBut, in an eleventh hour effort to overturn the election the political-media establishment has been in total eruption mode with commentators and websites howling that Russia somehow “hacked the election” and urging Republican Electors to vote against Trump.  They claim Russian ruler Vladimir Putin intervened to help Trump snatch what was supposed to have been, what all the left’s most respected, establishment glitterati predicted would be, Hillary Clinton’s unstoppable march to victory.  On December 15 Mrs. Clinton, echoing hysterical media headlines, told an audience of high-end donors who wanted to know why their money was wasted…

Vladsmall-hillary-3imir Putin himself directed the cyber attacks against our electoral system, against our democracy, apparently because he has a personal beef against me.

This incendiary language, “cyber attacks against our electoral system” is obviously intended to plant the perception that Putin directed a squad of diabolical techno-goons who somehow reached into local polling precincts to change vote counts, thus changing the outcome of the election. 

But, there is absolutely no report from any federal, state or local government agency indicating that there is even a suspicion that Russia or anyone else “hacked” or altered any voting machine or vote tabulating system. Period.

The only substance behind all this uproar is that in the weeks leading up to the election Wikileaks published thousands of emails that had been stolen from Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta’s personal Gmail account.  Many of them were damaging to the public image of the candidate and her team.  Some revealed that Podesta and his staff harbored elitist, condescending attitudes toward millions of voters, even including some they thought would vote for Hillary.

Podesta’s Gmail wasn’t “hacked” in the sense most of us understand the word.  No outsider broke through Gmail firewalls.  Instead, Podesta stupidly fell for a phishing scam that sent him to a fake page where he voluntarily entered his password, thus allowing whoever initiated the phishing to simply log in to his Gmail account and download copies of all the emails therein.

The media-manufactured crisis began with this breathless, opening paragraph in a December 9 Washington Post front page article titled “Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House”:

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the electoral system.

The source of the content of a secret CIA assessment?  Unidentified “officials” who “spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters” [sic] who, the Post claims, knew something about a “closed-door briefing on Capital Hill” with “key senators.”  So far the CIA has not presented evidence to support this conclusion.  So far no “key senators” have acknowledged being briefed.

Then the Post tucked this bit of detail into the eleventh paragraph of the same article:

…intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said.

Wow! What if the Washington Post really wanted to present unbiased news in proper context?  Would it not put the eleventh paragraph first?  Then, the second paragraph might say that unnamed, unidentified, “officials” nevertheless say Russian government officials directed the WikiLeaks publication of emails, and helping Trump win was their motive. An honest headline to the article might have been: “CIA and other Officials Disagree About Russian Middling in the Election.”

There have since been more articles and TV reports expanding on the Post’s claims.  Now, we’re told that the directors of the FBI and the CIA and their boss, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, all agree that Putin personally directed the project that stole Podesta’s emails and provided them to Wikileaks in order to help Trump.

But none of these articles or reports include hard evidence or Congressional testimony from anyone in the Intelligence Community.  The last time we were offered anything close to evidence was an October statement from Director Clapper:

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.

“Consistent with methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts”?  Well, how many methods are there?  Again, Podesta was the victim of a phishing scam, a method so common almost all of us have received similar emails.  So Clapper’s assertion is like saying the police are confident that Sam robbed the gas station because even though the robber wore a mask his method, pointing a gun at the clerk and running away with the money, was “consistent” with Sam’s.

The Democrats’ apparent argument is that publishing Podesta’s emails on Wikileaks was the deciding factor that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.  But Hillary herself exposed the elitism, the scorn for Middle America, the arrogance of her campaign in her own vile accusations while speaking to an audience of elite, liberal donors at the posh Cipriani Club 55 on Wall Street:

little-hillary-flipflopYou could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic?—?you name it…Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable. But thankfully they are not America.

Republican candidates are routinely called racist and those other ists and ics in Mrs. Clinton’s rant.  But it is unusual for a politician to revile tens of millions of private citizens with such venom.

Good, decent people believe that racism – prejudice or antagonism or government sanctions against people of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior – is evil. Thus they consider an accusation that they are racist to be a deeply offensive accusation that they are evil.

Good, decent people who have suffered losses in the Obama economy are especially offended when they hear themselves attacked as evil in front of a giggling, cheering audience of the smug, government-media-Wall Street elite, the guys who presume to be superior to the rest of us, and seek the power to direct our culture and our economy, and, who also are fully insulated by our tax dollars from the consequences of their own stupidity and malfeasance.

In a video that went viral and was seen by millions on TV, Hillary told another group of pompous elites that “deep seeded religious beliefs have to change.”  These would of course be the Christian and Jewish beliefs that fail to conform with the latest, trendy, progressive “values.”  On the other hand, Donald Trump, who appears to have little knowledge of the Bible and whose personal life does not seem to indicate a desire to be Christ-like, emphatically promised to protect Evangelicals’ First Amendment right to freedom of religion.  Is it any wonder then, that he was the overwhelming favorite of Evangelical voters?  Is there any doubt he would have been even if there had been no exposure of the mocking, sneering emails?

Neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Podesta has disputed the authenticity of the emails that were published by Wikileaks.  In reality this “hacking” served only to confirm what voters who were paying attention already knew about Hillary and her arrogant staff and her imperious donors.

However, it is important to clear the air regarding possible Russian involvement with possible direction by Putin.  If the Intelligence community has genuine proof, in the form of intercepted communication between top Russian government officials, or Putin himself, and someone who is verified to be the individual who operated the phishing scam against Podesta we the people have a right to see it. If they do not have such proof they should step up and say so.

What is NOT acceptable is continued attempts to overturn the election and discredit the President based on leaked rumor and unconfirmable conspiracy theories.

 

No Comments

Comments are closed.