The Democrats’ Russian Con Game

By Thomas Lifson at American Thinker, 12-11-12:


Most of the American media are “reporting” that President Obama ordered an investigation of “Russian hacking of our election,” and that the intelligence community “confirms” that it happened. Yet there is not any evidence that Russia hacked the election or was responsible for the DNC email hacks. None.

When self-interested people and their media allies proclaim something is true, and form a chorus that drowns out any other views, I always suspect a con. It is so easy for the Left, since it controls education and the media, to sell any tale it wishes, from global warming to Michelle Obama as a glamorous fashion icon. Most people will simply fall in line because it is too much trouble and risky to dispute what is regarded as a received truth by the power elite.

Glenn Greenwald debunks the media rush to proclaim fact-free conclusions as if they were certainties.

THE WASHINGTON POST late Friday night published an explosive story that, in many ways, is classic American journalism of the worst sort: The key claims are based exclusively on the unverified assertions of anonymous officials, who in turn are disseminating their own claims about what the CIA purportedly believes, all based on evidence that remains completely secret.

These unnamed sources told the Post that “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 U.S. electoral system.” The anonymous officials also claim that “intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails” from both the DNC and John Podesta’s email account. Critically, none of the actual evidence for these claims is disclosed; indeed, the CIA’s “secret assessment” itself remains concealed.

A second leak from last night, this one given to the New York Times, cites other anonymous officials as asserting that “the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.” But that NYT story says that “it is also far from clear that Russia’s original intent was to support Mr. Trump, and many intelligence officials — and former officials in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign — believe that the primary motive of the Russians was to simply disrupt the campaign and undercut confidence in the integrity of the vote.”

Why it’s just as settled as the science that told us we wouldn’t be seeing any more snow, right about 2016 or so.  The Post did manage to allow that there might be a teeny-weeny bit of doubt about entirely unimportant details, though:

Deep down in its article, the Post notes — rather critically — that “there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.” Most importantly, the Post adds that “intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin ‘directing’ the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks.”

Where is the skepticism? The Russian hacking scenario is an excuse for the Democrats to explain away their loss without blaming themselves or their candidate, and it serves to delegitimize the next president – a bad thing for the country.

My own suspicion is that an insider at the DNC leaked the emails. There is as much evidence for the public to see supporting that assertion as there is for the claim that the Russians did it.


It’s too late to blame George Bush, so it had to be the Russians, right?

Rather than accept the fact that they had a stodgy bitter old candidate and the absolute worst strategy, they launched into the Blame Russia Game.  They refuse to see the truth, and naturally O chimes in by ordering an investigation, so the next step is for the media to dutifully report it as the gospel.

The FBI and the CIA can’t even agree on it, and there is no solid proof to support it.

The truth is they underestimated the amount of voter fraud they needed, they scoffed at Donald Trump, but most of all they underestimated the American people.


Categories: Political

Tags: ,

1 reply

  1. This is right out of the old Democrat playbook except it’s the revised edition updated by Editor-in-Chief, Barack Obama. The message to the sheep is clear: don’t accept Trump as the legitimate president. He didn’t win fair and square. The sheep don’t even have to believe or know whether the hacking actually occurred. They’ve got their marching orders.

    The precedence for this sort of thing was established by Al Gore and his followers back in 2000 when they legitimately lost but claimed that the election was stolen by Bush and the Supreme Court. The result of their antics was that a large number of Americans questioned or flatly disbelieved the legitimacy of the Bush presidency. That cost us dearly as a nation in terms of our unity, but what we lose as a nation is never of concern to Democrats if they have something to gain. This is why I found it so amazing and laughable when Hillary Clinton slammed her little fist on the podium and feigned righteous indignation at Trump for suggesting he wouldn’t automatically accept the election results. It was HER party that set that precedent and we all knew very well that they’d do it again in a heartbeat. The Left is nothing if not completely predictable.

    Liked by 1 person

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: