Politics World

Politics: Why Russian Hacking Is The Latest Liberal Excuse


There was at least 18 months of campaigning and media coverage surrounding the 2016 Presidential Election. Now, it’s been roughly six weeks since Donald Trump became President-Elect of the United States and STILL being talked about is why Hillary Clinton lost the election, as if the answer wasn’t already evident. I’m starting to wonder if 2017 will be in the books before we stop fixating on the 2016 election.

In the latest dramatic turn in our soap opera storyline, there’s actually legitimate reason to think that the Russian government, specifically President Vladimir Putin, was involved in a computer hacking operation of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails that were uncorked out of their genie bottle and onto the Internet by Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. These emails included proof of a conspiracy to collude and plot against other Democratic nominee Bernie Sanders and his challenge against Hillary Clinton as the party’s main candidate for President of the United States.*

The Democrats do not deny this. In fact, Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned from her position of chairperson of the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Party as a whole received a massive black eye as a result of their widespread corruption.

At first, I lauded Clinton for handling her defeat with grace and not poor etiquette. Turns out, I complimented her too soon, for she has had many things to say about the idea of a Russian sabotage, specifically about Putin.

“Vladimir Putin himself directed the covert cyber attacks against our electoral system, against our democracy**, apparently because he has a personal beef against me,” she said to the invitees of a private “thank you” party of sorts. I can’t imagine why anyone would have a personal beef with this saintly woman who could pass for Maria in “The Sound of Music.” Why on earth would Putin want to launch such a personal vendetta against our former first lady?

“Putin publicly blamed me for the outpouring of outrage by his own people, and that is the direct line between what he said back then and what he did in this election,” Clinton said, adding later that this was “part of a long term strategy to cause us to doubt ourselves and to create the circumstances in which Americans either wittingly or unwittingly will begin to cede their freedoms to a much more powerful state.”

Really? Which freedoms? Last I checked you were the one that wanted to expand Obamacare, a government run health care system. You were the one that favored stricter gun control. And isn’t it possible that the people’s outrage against you for what happened in Benghazi is more of a reason that you lost versus an unconfirmed grudge?

Anyhow…Despite zero direct evidence (at least none that’s been revealed), the FBI, Department of Defense and CIA (Aka Athos, Porthos and Aramis) agree that Russia is the culprit behind the hacking and President Obama practically stated in his last public address of the year that Putin was behind it.

“Not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin. This happened at the highest levels of the Russian government.” he said.

Our good president then stated that he approached fellow President Putin last September about the hacking and told him to, “Cut it out,” but of course the damage had already been done by Wiki Leaks and Julian Assange.

Putin has denied this in the past and has yet to respond to the comments made by President Obama. However his spokesman Dmitri Peskov spoke to the media Friday and stated: “They should either stop talking about that, or produce some proof at last. Otherwise it all begins to look unseemly.”

Oh Mr. Peskov…I never thought I’d agree with a Russian politician about…well anything. 2016 is a strange year to the very end…

In related news, Assange also appeared on Fox News Sean Hannity’s radio show Thursday and point blank denied that Russia was behind the hacking.

Assange: “Our source is not the Russian government.”

Hannity: “So in other words, let me be clear. Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC?”

Assange: “That’s correct.”

Assange further stated that he had some information on the Republicans too, but that information had already been made public on another website. He did not go into specifics only that it was about three pages long. Wall Street Journal has reported that hackers attempted to hack the RNC, but they failed.

So in other words, the party that’s all about national security stayed secure. How fitting.

President Obama has vowed retaliatory action, which should come fairly quickly considering he’s got only about a month left in office. So maybe New Year’s Eve has more than firecrackers popping around. Maybe Santa Claus gives Vladimir Putin some personalized coal from the United States.

Putting these facts and statements aside, I personally do believe it’s quite plausible that Putin did this. Now I have the same amount of proof as President Obama apparently does, but I want to be impartial enough to say that I definitely can see Putin trying to sabotage the presidential election. I think it’s not plausible, but possible that Donald Trump enlisted his help, but Trump’s cocky personality makes me doubt that he’d feel he’d need Putin’s help.

But for the believers, let’s assume for the rest of this article that Putin was behind all this. What does it matter at this point? In fact, shouldn’t we be writing letters thanking him for this good deed that he did us? Or give him a medal? No, I’m not kidding around. I think the WikiLeaks dumps were the best thing for us, the American people, to see during this election campaign. The only drawback is that the Republicans weren’t subjected to this metaphorical cavity search.

Why am I saying this? Because look at the results. Every single college student or person under 40 who wanted Bernie Sanders to be their candidate got a chance to truly evaluate whether they should trust this woman and the Democratic Party who blatantly violated ethical rules to sabotage their own colleague. My hypothesis is that the lack of voter turnout would be linked to many college students giving up on the election after Sanders conceded to Clinton and that many who did vote, decided to either roll the dice on Trump or vote third party because they’d been lied to essentially by the Democratic Party.

This was great for the American people because a fraud was uncovered and the truth was revealed. The drawback was that some Democrats like Debbi Wasserman Schultz were re-elected and not trounced out of office for their unforgivable level of bias and collusion. The truth is there needs to be an overhaul of the entire corruption that is the jackass party. It feels like Sanders is the only one that’s got a scintilla of honesty about him. While he supported Hillary Clinton, he did so in part because he knew she’d do something for the students trying to make it through college and that Donald Trump would not. He took a chance at a partial victory and I don’t blame him for it.

Whereas I can blame the DNC’s chief financial officer Brad Marshall who wrote emails plotting to use Sanders own religion against him. His email read: “It might may (sic) no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,”

Isn’t it sad when our supposed elite cannot hold themselves to proper spelling and grammar? Really sir, can’t you put in some question marks? Also, your “peeps?” What are you? A teenager? I can’t imagine a man in a three-piece suit saying this unless the jacket is leather and he has sunglasses on. I’m simply stupefied not only by the lack of professionalism, but by this obviously offensive language. That said, maybe Southern Baptists can see a difference between a Jew and an atheist, whereas I see no difference between Mr. Marshall and a 200-lb sack of horse dung. Moving on.

Why are people upset about this uncovering? The only people who should be upset are the corrupt democrats who got their hands caught in the proverbial cookie jar. If any others are upset, it’s most likely because they are still whining that Trump won, well they should do something about it then.

They can start by making the Democratic Party responsible again. Either branch off and form a new version of the party that’s dedicated to NOT being corrupt or replace the already corrupt regime that was against Sanders instead of trying to determine who the true Democratic candidate of the people was.*** Boot out Harry Reid and Debbi Long-Name for starters.

Otherwise get over it because Russia got away with this one. There is absolutely no way to get retribution at this point. Not even the ridiculous petition signed by over 4 million Americans begging electors to refuse to cast their votes for Trump and become “faithless” worked. In fact, five people refused to vote for HILLARY CLINTON! Oh the irony is richer than a wedding cake right there.

CNN’s Van Jones called the election of Donald Trump, a “whitelash.” How he got away with saying that without being branded as racist I don’t know, but here’s my rebuttal argument. What if this was a “lash” by a ticked off American middle class. If you take out the ultra liberal New York and California, Hillary Clinton loses the popular vote by 2+ million, so don’t tell me that America truly wanted this woman just because she “won” the popular vote. We’re a democratic republic and you have to win the majority of the regions, not just the largest populaces to win the election. Those clamoring about how “This isn’t a democracy!” and wanting to change the rules are just moping because their candidate didn’t win. Because duh, you’re not in a pure democracy. You’ve never been in a pure democracy. It’s a democratic republic.

I’d also like Van Jones to clarify how this is a whitelash when battleground states like Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Iowa that voted for Obama twice didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton? Wouldn’t the proper accusation be that America is sexist or a “manlash?” Oh wait, that’s hard to prove since a lot of women voted against Clinton as well. Gee…but it has to be the bigots fault somehow, right? Or it’s the media’s fault, right? Or it’s the FBI’s fault right?! Well then it has to be the Russian’s fault, right?!

Right?!

How about wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

At the end of the day, we blame the shoplifter for stealing the donuts, not the cop for catching them. Clinton wouldn’t have been exposed had she and the Democratic party had not colluded to sabotage Bernie Sanders because there’d be nothing to expose.

It’s time democrats stopped inventing or finding excuses and simply acknowledge that for all the money that Clinton spent on this campaign, she failed to visit Wisconsin. Bad move Madam Secretary even if the state had been blue since 1984. You don’t take things like that for granted especially when Donald Trump visited and appealed to the working class voters there. Hillary Clinton needs to stop blaming everyone else for her failed campaign and look in the mirror, because the truest answer is she failed herself.

But the odds are that my words will fall on deaf ears and they’ll spend all of 2017 finding more excuses. That’s liberal logic for ya, folks.

Thank you to the New York Times, Fox News, and ABC News for various quotes used in this piece.

*Just a reminder, there has been no accusations or evidence that any actual ballots or voting machines or any actual direct interference with the election has occurred. Translation: the election was valid and true. Any of these alleged activities would be classified as an indirect influence since they more influence the voters’ minds than the actual votes themselves. Furthermore, the only way to prove the election was actually effected, which would be an impossibility at this point, would be to gauge the hearts and minds of millions of voters who decided to “not vote Clinton” because of the Wiki Leaks emails. Also, a Morning Consult poll conducted amongst 2,000 people  concludes that only roughly 1/3 of the American people actually believe that Russia had an influence on the election.

**Another quick reminder, we’re not a straight democracy, Mrs. Clinton. We’re a democratic republic. That’s why we have the electoral college. If we were a straight democracy, I’d be calling you Mrs. (or would it be Ms.?) President-elect at this point. Although I understand it’s quicker and simpler to just say, “democracy,” I just wanted to write this blurb for the liberal reader thinking that just because you truncated your sentence, doesn’t change what this country is.

***Just to make something clear. I’m aware that Hillary Clinton was already likely to defeat Sanders from the beginning, which is what further annoys me because why sabotage Sanders at all if the odds are in Clinton’s favor? The democrats didn’t want to take any chances and stooped to loathsome levels, so regardless of how it plays out if we play the ‘What if’ card, their conduct is inexcusable.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email