Liberal Finger Pointing: Next up . . . Russia

So the latest attempt to delegitimize the election is by claiming the outcome is the result of Russian hackers. The first blame fell on James Comey. Then Jill Stein led the charge of the second blame in her recount movement – not to reverse the results of the election, mind you, but to reassure the American voter that we can still rely on our democratic election process. I appreciate you wanting to provide that comfort to me, Jill, but honestly, I got that affirmation when, despite the efforts of the mainstream media to crown Clinton, she was the one who gave the concession speech. I also appreciate Stein raising millions of dollars (more than her own campaign could produce) to verify that Trump indeed did win the election, but by an even wider margin than we initially thought.

So after two failed attempts to delegitimize the election, it’s time to move on to a bigger fish. The Russians. Now, the CIA and the FBI have conflicting reports about this. Both agree that there was an attempt by Putin and the Russians to disrupt our election process, but they disagree on the motive and the proof of the motive. The CIA claims Russia did this specifically to help Trump win, while the FBI claims there is no proof of that, despite what the CIA says, and that the Russian intent was to cast doubt over our election process.

Well, Trump did win, and our country is now at odds about the results of our free, democratic election process, so, if either of those was Russia’s goal, I’d say it was achieved, and Putin is raising a glass of vodka right now, smiling at the societal indigestion going on in our nation.

If you’re like me, you don’t like this. It makes you feel vulnerable – kind of like coming home to your front door ajar and realizing that someone was in your house. Maybe there isn’t anything missing, and maybe nothing was damaged or no one was hurt, but the fact that someone intruded into your personal space and could do it again is unsettling. However, despite this uneasy feeling, I truly doubt that the outcome of the election was because of Russian hacking.

First, let me touch on a little conspiracy-theory-level thinking, a place where usually only the hardest-core thinkers delve. However, this is something that just does not sit right with me and to which my thoughts keep returning, ever since I first heard the details of the story.

Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, swears that the leaked emails were not the result of Russian hacking but of a source within the DNC that leaked the information to Assange. There is a difference between hacking and leaking, which many people may not realize, so I have an analogy for that.

Imagine your grandmother has the greatest recipe for pecan pie that has been a secret family recipe for generations. Let’s say that people love the pie and want the recipe, but your family wants to keep it secret. So one day someone outside your family sneaks into your recipe book while no one is looking and copies it down. This is hacking. The recipe is completely stolen.

Now, let’s say one of your family members feels guilty that this recipe is just kept within the family and thinks everyone should be able to make it, so this relative secretly slips the recipe to someone outside the family. This is leaking. Both instances happen against your will, but in one, the information is stolen, while in the other, the information is given out by someone close to you with access to that information.

Well, Assange’s claim is that your relative gave out the recipe without your knowing. That is, if you were Hillary Clinton and the DNC, and your grandmother’s amazing pecan pie recipe was access to a bunch of incriminating emails. So, if that’s the case, the question is who would this Benedict Arnold of a relative be?

In multiple interviews, Assange has denied that the Russians had anything to do with the Wikileaks emails and has not revealed the source, but in an interview with a Dutch reporter, he hinted that one such source was Seth Conrad Rich, the DNC staffer who was shot and killed on a street in Washington, DC on July 10, 2016 at 4:20 am. Police reported that it was a robbery, although he had his wallet, cell phone, and watch still on him when he was found. Up to this point, the case is still unsolved.

Rightwing sources immediately claimed that Rich was murdered before he could meet with the FBI to disclose devastating information about Clinton. This notion was reinforced even more when Assange put up a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in this case.

The left has claimed that this is merely yet another ridiculous conspiracy theory about the Clintons and that Rich was just another tragic victim of the increase of crime in that neighborhood. No definitive proof has been revealed to the public to support one side or the other, so we may never be privy to the entire truth, yet the whole thing makes you scratch your chin in wonder.

But let’s put the conspiracy ideas aside and just go with the notion that Russia did intend to help Trump win. Clinton and Obama, the DNC, as well as the mainstream media, of course, are claiming that Clinton lost the election because Russia hacked emails from the DNC; however, as they’ve done multiple times, liberals are just deflecting the focus from the truth.

For another hypothetical, let’s say you received an envelope one day and within were indisputable photographs of your spouse cheating on you. You have just learned crucial information about your spouse that definitely reveals a truth of which you were not aware. Now let’s say that the source that provided these pictures is revealed, and it turns out to be the most despicable human being possible. You can apply any horrific qualities to make this person the most detestable human being alive – let’s say, a murderous satanic pedophile who listens to Barry Manilow – and although this is not the person having the affair with your spouse, this person wants to see your marriage destroyed.

Does the identity of the source or the intentions for sending the pictures change the content of the pictures? Does it make the fact that your spouse was cheating on you any less true? If your spouse said to you, “How can you let a murderous satanic pedophile who listens to Barry Manilow destroy our marriage?” would you just let the whole thing go because of who the source of the information was? Or would you hold your spouse accountable for the content of the pictures?

Despite the fact that your life would have been turned upside down and that maybe you wish you could unlearn all that was revealed, going back to how life was before you received the envelope is not possible, unless you could have your memory wiped clean or something. This was knowledge you needed to lift you out of your disillusionment.

Now apply this to the Russian hacking situation and the assumption that they committed the hacking with the intention of helping Trump beat Clinton. Regardless of the fact that they did it, and regardless of their intentions, factual information was revealed about Clinton, the workings of the DNC, and the mainstream media that we, the American public, needed to know to either bring us out of disillusionment or, for those of us not deluded, to confirm what we already knew.

So for those of you who claim that Trump won the election because of the Russian hack, once again, you are way short of the truth. If voters’ opinions were changed due to the information revealed, this was not just because the Russians hacked us but because of the content of the emails that were released.

If, in my hypothetical situation, the pictures you received would have simply been random pictures of your spouse, it may have been a weird thing to receive from someone, but it would not have altered your opinion about your spouse (or reinforced suspicions you may have had). Likewise, had the leaked emails revealed nothing but regular political discourse, then no one would have cared. But instead, they revealed ugly truths about the democratic nominee and those who surrounded her.

“But it’s not fair that it was only the DNC emails that were released and not information about any secret workings of the RNC or the Trump campaign,” many liberals are saying right now, which would be a legitimate gripe had Trump been portrayed as an angelic candidate with a glowing clump of halo hair on top of his head. But he wasn’t at all. Negative information about Trump, anything possible that was ugly and dirty about him, was blasted out every day through the mainstream media, not only by the DNC but also by celebrities and civil rights groups. As I see it, the leaked information helped to level the playing field when it came to devastating information about the candidates made available to the public.

To say it’s not fair that Trump won because the emails were leaked would be like saying it is not fair that one kid who was being beaten up by five other kids wound up winning after someone else jumped in to assist him and make the odds even.

So, IF the Russian hacking had an impact on the outcome of the election, that claim needs to be amended from: “Russian hacking helped Trump win” to: “the truth about the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and the mainstream media that was revealed through Russian hacking helped Trump win”.

However, I truly believe the information that came out had much less of an impact than what the left is claiming. They are basing their information off of polling of the voters leading up to the election as well as exit polling on the day of the election (not to mention their own opinions of Trump, of course). That data showed that Clinton should have won. But this polling data was inaccurate because of the fact that people did not want to admit that they would vote/voted for Trump, because they did not want to be judged/attacked by those who bought into everything they had been fed by the media. When I said once that I was supporting Trump over Clinton to a couple teachers before the election, they looked at me like I had just confessed to some heinous crime, and they hardly talk to me now. So to avoid this type of reaction, many Trump supporters just lied when polled or claimed they were undecided. This is a phenomenon never experienced in the world of polling before, and it has to be taken into account.

This presidential election, along with being the ugliest in the history of this country, brought to light a lot of serious issues with our government. Hopefully things will change with the changing of the guard, and hopefully we can shore up our nation’s cyber security, because who knows what else can happen?

But to claim that Trump won the election due just to the Russians is again the left denying that people in this country had their own reasons for not voting Clinton president, which is a continuation of the mentality that cost them the election in the first place. However, instead of the proper process of: lose, evaluate, learn, and improve, the left is keeping up their usual mode of operation: lose, cry, whine, and protest. And now that the electorates have cast their votes and made Trump’s victory official, I can’t wait to see where the liberal finger points next.

6 thoughts on “Liberal Finger Pointing: Next up . . . Russia

  1. I think you’ve got a pretty good idea of what’s really going on here-how the media and DNC are interpreting “facts” to suite their agenda. I really wish someone would thoroughly investigate the Seth Conrad Rich death and the other 15, or so, suspicious deaths over the years of people close to or threatening the Clinton machine. But the corruption is so deep that it’s almost impossible to crack the shell.
    Good blog. Keep it up!


  2. As I read this blog it amazed me how much research went into it. I appreciate that. It helps to have so much information right here in front of me.
    Thank you.
    It is very well written and breaks things down in a way that makes it easier to understand.
    I have just about had my fill of the Dems crying foul…Recount…We can’t have lost…Face it gum drops…You lost because your candidate sucks.

    You did almost lose me with the Barry Manilow crack. That was pretty low.


  3. I have two problems with your blog here. First is that you use the word “Left” to describe the Dimocratic Party. The DNC is far from being a “Left” party, as it is very much a Pro-Capitalist party, whereas The Left is anti-Capitalist (this, in fact, is the difference between Left and Right when used in a political sense.)

    The Bernistas were approaching center, as they were calling for some level of socialist reform (Single Payer, Socialized higher education, etc), but as there was no talk about nationalizing the banks, they are still center-right.

    Secondly, the purpose of Stein’s recount efforts was to shed some light on the farce that counting votes with proprietary voting machines running proprietary software is. As her recount effort documented several voting machines with broken seals, several instances where the machine count did not match the actual number of ballots, and some instances where hand counts and machine counts gave different results, as well as forcing Michigan to admit that frighteningly large numbers of their vote counting machines just did not work at all, if one looks beyond the superficialities of the recount, it does paint a rather frightening picture, that should make any rational person want to correct such problems going forward. (I.e. hand counted paper ballots with multiple observers of all parties, rather than secret programming on machines that are hackable, often with no verifiable paper trail.)

    Neither of these, however, in any way, negate your main point, which is spot on.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s