Donald Trump slams CIA over Russia

Let's suppose the CIA is correct and the Russians tried to influence the election.  What exactly did they do?

So far, the only likely scenario is that a Russian or eastern European cyber hacker copied and published some DNC emails.  There's no indication that they did anything more nefarious, such as actually alter the election results.

Now, given that a recount has already fizzled, we can safely dismiss the notion that the results are wrong.  Trump was elected, fair and square.

So we're left with one thing:  the leaked emails.  The emails are the truth; it's what the DNC really said, what they really thought.  That's hardly a "hack"; it's simply exposing some deplorable back room kingmaker politics.  It could also have been done by an insider who was disgusted with the immorality of the Democratic leadership.

Anyway, there's no evidence, nor can it ever truly be proved one way or another, that this situation affected people's votes.  No, the people saw and heard enough of Hillary to know how to vote.  She gave us plenty of information on which to base our decision.  The "basket of deplorables" speech was merely the last straw, after a long chain of bad decisions, people killed, careers ruined, and money wasted.

President-elect Donald Trump's transition team slammed the CIA, following reports the agency has concluded that Russia intervened in the election to help him win.

Sen. John McCain tells CBS's "Face the Nation" that it is clear that Russians interfered in the US election and there should be an investigation.

Do American voters care that the Democrats were hacked because they:

1. Wrote a bunch of stupid, incriminating emails that documented their many illicit behaviors?

2. Didn't have enough sense to hire a cyber security firm to secure their server?

3. Nominated a candidate who stole nearly a million classified State Department documents and put them on private severs, including Hula Abdullah's Iphone, which did double duty as an x-rated web site for broadcast of photos of her husband's private parts?

So do we care about the Democrats' self-inflicted misfortunes? Here's your answer:

Bwaaaaaaahhhhh! Haaaaaaaaah! Yip Yip Yipee Kai Yay!  Aaaaaaaaah Haaaaaah Haaaaaaahh (Rolling on the floor, gasping for breath) Yahoooooooooo! Haaaaaa! Haaaaaa...

So, please save your sanctimonious lectures about Russia supposedly "interfering" in our election for somebody who cares!

Those who believe the Russians determined the election have to explain how they were so sophisticated that they were also able to fix the results in the House of Representatives, the governorships, and the state legislatures.

It defies credibility that they managed to infiltrate our systems that broadly. Remember that the vast majority of voting equipment is not connected to the Internet so they must have had operatives throughout the country.

Those kinds of things only happen in the imaginations of conspiracy theorists.

Of course the hacking should be investigated and of course we should improve our cybersecurity but going around blaming the "Russians" is a ridiculous and purely ideological move aimed at delegitimizing Trump.

Who are the "Russians" anyway? Anyone who has ever tried to trace back hacks knows that the vast majority of them come from Russia or former Iron Curtain countries. Does that mean Putin was involved?

Tracing a cyberattack to Russia is easy, even an attack by some government official in the Kremlin, you know, like the ones in our government that watch raunchy movies when they are supposed to be working. Establishing a direct connection to Putin is quite another thing, even for the CIA.

As I said, blaming "Russia" is a political attack on the legitimacy of Trump.

Another aspect is that the Democrats, in the midst of throwing a hissy fit after the biggest defeat of their lives, are seeking to make Russia the villain of the election. As I mentioned, I don't believe the Russian GOVERNMENT had anything to do with the hack. If the hack originated from Russia, it most likely was an entity like the Bank of Moscow that tried to bribe the Clintons and were not given all they expected in return. Or, for all we know, it could have been a college student disappointed in the Clintonite suppression of Bernie Sanders who did the hack.

I would be surprised if the Russian government had anything to do with the hacking. Like the rest of us, they figured the odds were 90% that Ms. Clinton would win, so why create bad relations with her at the outset? The Russian government would not do this, though it is possible there are private entities in Russia who would.

It could be that the Bank of Moscow, who paid the Clintons several hundred thousand dollars to get Secretary of State Clinton's seal of approval on deals to buy out U.S. uranium companies, did not receive all that they expected.

So, perhaps it was them or some other private Russian entity that hacked the Democrat computers with a revenge motive. The way Ms. Clinton ran the State Department as a shakedown racket, it could be any foreign government or private interest interest in the world who is hacked off at her, including private entities inside the United States. It could even have been a ticked-off Bernie Sanders supporter who hacked the DNC.

Let's cut to the chase, here, and boil it down to Democrat propaganda (aka "fake" news) vs. facts.
First the facts. Ms. Clinton lost the election because:

1. She's incompetent, dishonest, and perhaps criminal, in purloining State Department classified information to her private email server and possibly selling the classified information to foreign governments.

2. She ran a pay-for-play extortion racket as Secretary of State.

3. The Clinton Foundation is a money laundering racket.

4. She's an alleged accomplice to Mr. Clinton's hit-and-run attacks on women such as Juanita Broaddrick.

5. She conspired to undermine Bernie Sanders in the primaries and thereby lost his supporters.

6. She ran an inferior campaign that outspent Trump 3-to-1 and lost anyway.

7. She campaigned on the wrong issues in the wrong places.

8. Trump over-performed expectations with whites, women, and minorities; Ms. Clinton under-performed with those groups.

Democrat propaganda: Vlad Putin was Trump's ace in the hole.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post