Friday, March 24, 2017

Was The Russian Email Hack of the DNC and Clinton Campaign a Threat to Democracy Or Did It Expose One?





The New York Times front page  above tells an important story but not the one the Times hoped to tell. It tells a story of media collusion with the Clinton campaign and the DNC that was and is and has been the real threat to democracy.

When was the last time anyone saw a banner headline in the New York Times  that was simply reporting what another news organization was reporting?


The answer is never.

And what were they reporting? That a number of anonymous super delegates called the AP in the middle of the night, no doubt at the behest of Debby Wasserman-Schultz, right before the crucial Democratic California primary, the last big piece in a primary battle where Bernie Sanders had already won 23 states and by landslide numbers, to say they would vote for Hillary Clinton at the Democratic convention to give her enough super delegate votes to win the nomination. Even though those anonymous "declarations" at the time didnt actually count as votes and there was no guarantee they ever would. 

The message to Sanders voters was clear: don't bother to show up tomorrow.You have no chance so stay home. It's all over. Because we just said it was. 


It was not just dishonest and untrue for many reasons its purpose was to undermine our democracy and the single most important component of it -- the vote -- for the benefit of Hillary Clinton by a cabal of news organizations who for their own purposes were in on the collusion. Exactly the kind of collusion Democrats, without any proof or evidence claim occurred between the Trump campaign and Russia,

  It was the Democrats', the DNC, Clinton campaign and news media colluding to pull off a Putsch --  a German word for the kind of middle of the night power grab that happened in Germany in the 1930's --  to rig the nomination for Hillary Clinton and supress the vote for Bernie Sanders with the help of a dishonest news media, the DNC and its unethical use of super delegates which the media aided and abetted. Unethical because never in the history of the Democratic party has even one super delegate ever voiced a preference before the last primary was over, yet they began announcing preferences to selected media outlets anonymously  back in February which were dutifully included by those media outlets with pledged delegate totals to blunt the effect of landslide victories over Clinton by Sanders.

The news media outlets included those "declarations" without ever even verifying them with pledge delegates even though super delegates hadnt voted to decide a nominee in 32 years. It was all designed to rig the nomination for Clinton with news media help. They succeeded.

They tried similar things during the general election and it failed.

After the election, the Democrats refrain, which is still continuing by the same people who did their own colluding and undermining of democracy by first rigging the nomination and then trying to rig the election for Clinton, was that somehow the Russian email hack and subsequent  publishing of the emails by Wikileaks that exposed all that fraud, rigging,deceit and collusion between the DNC,Clinton and her campaign and many in the mass media was the reason Clinton lost as if the issue was more who exposed it instead of what was exposed.

While the consensus of the intelligence agencies said that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC and Clinton campaign emails, then turned them over to Wikileaks, what Adam Schiff, the Democrats' spin merchant on the Intelligence Committee whose job is to put out the Democrats predetermined strategy via talking points always wants to bury with the use of over-generalized and even blatantly false language like "the Russian hack of the election" (they didnt "hack" the election which tries to insinuate hacking the vote) is that it was the content of the emails and the exposure of the truth that was damaging not who exposed it.

Any damage to Democrats, the DNC and the Clinton campaign as a result of those emails having been exposed was damage they did to themselves because of  the truth of what those emails contained, not who exposed them. Or even their motive. No one ever questioned the authenticity of those emails. Nothing was fabricated. 

It was Democrats, the DNC, the Clinton campaign and the most dishonest collection of inept, integrity-free journalists the country has ever had at major media outlets at one time who  interfered and in tandem were the real threats to our democratic process. And in many ways still are.

What was damaging to Hillary Clinton was the exposing of a vipers nest of lies, fraud, deceit and  trying to undermine and rig the democratic process in collusion with the DNC and many in major media organizations, first to take down Bernie Sanders and then do the same in the general election.It was Debby Wasserman-Schultz lying about her role and DNC collusion, Donna Brazile lying and feeding debate questions to the Clinton campaign in advance, Democratic super delegates colluding during the nominating process and news outlets that  belonged in a banana republic that was what was damaging. 

What was also damaging to Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with "interference",the Russians or hacking emails. It was Clinton having the worst unfavorable ratings of any presidential candidate in history from the beginning and as far back as January, 2016 before a single vote was cast in any primary 65% of the American people, according to polls, said she was dishonest and untrustworthy. But supposedly it was the Russian/Wikileaks email hack that that cost Clinton the election and so threatened our democracy. By exposing the Clinton campaign,DNC and news media interfering in our democracy?

Yes the Russians hacked the DNC and Clinton campaign emails and you don't need to be an FBI or CIA analyst to know what happened next. Their eyes lit up. They saw  a treasure trove documenting lying,fraud, rigging and collusion, including Clinton's admission of saying one thing publicly, but intending another thing privately,Glenn Thrush's infamous email to Podesta to give him approval of a piece he was writing for Politico that began, " I know Im a hack" and thousands of other things that only confirmed what many believed in the first place.

The hack into the DNC and Clinton campaign emails that Schiff and Democrats try to frame as Russia "interfering in our election" while certainly illegal was a lot like a burglar breaking into a home where he had no business, committing  a criminal act just by being there, but found a man beating his wife and reported it to the police. Then having the man complain the burglar was interfering in his marriage and what he saw should be ignored because he's a burglar and had no business being in his house. In the case of the election the Russians were the criminal  who did the break in and the DNC,Clinton campaign and a colluding news media were the ones caught committing abuse. 

Which Schiff and Democrats hope to deflect with dishonest language like framing the email exposure as "a Russian attack on our democratic institutions".

Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign were not "one of our democratic institutions". But it sounds a lot more sinister threat than "the Russian hack of John Podesta's emails."

People always like to play the "imagine if the roles were reversed" game and its not a bad way at times to get to the truth and expose who the phonies are. And if the roles were reversed and an email hack exposed the kind of lies, deceit, fraud, collusion and rigging by the GOP and Trump campaigns in collusion with friendly media outlets that Clinton was engaged in, one can imagine Democrats, while admitting the hack was illegal, saying the exposure was a public service exposing an attempt to corrupt and rig our democratic process. Which is ironic since that is exactly what the emails exposed Clinton, the DNC and news media were doing and what the Democrats are trying to insinuate the Trump campaign did with Russia.

Had the emails shown Clinton and the DNC to be paragons of honesty,truth and democracy, had they shown Clinton and Democrats to be pillars of integrity with respect for the democratic process, the Russians would have been bitterly disappointed.  What they found didn't disappoint.

One further point. Democrats keep pushing the idea that the Russian hack was to benefit and help elect Trump to insinuate some kind of Manchurian,or Kremlin Candidate.

 It ignores that the first batch of emails were DNC emails dumped before the Democratic convention and after a primary season that saw Sanders beat Clinton by landslide margins in many states.

 The emails which revealed deceit and collusion by the DNC and Clinton to damage Bernie Sanders which also forced Debby Wasserman-Schultz to resign as DNC Chair, was all to the benefit of Bernie Sanders, the candidate most likely to beat Trump.

So the idea that the DNC emails was somehow part of a  motivation by the Russians to help Trump win as opposed to just damaging Clinton,  is absurd since what those DNC emails exposed benefited the candidate who polls showed would beat Trump by double digits in a general election.

Did the Russians think what they found would damage Clinton ? Obviously. But that would have been true no matter who the opponent was and largely because it was  the content of the emails that  was damaging.  But it was hardly the only thing that damaged Hillary Clinton. 

When Schiff says the email hack was done " to take down Hillary Clinton"
 how do you "take down" the candidate with the worst approval ratings of any candidate in history? Why would you "take down" a candidate who 65% of the public already believed was dishonest and untrustworthy before a single email was exposed? Embarrassing yes, damaging yes and when the Russians saw the content they gave the emails to Wikileaks because they could. But it wasnt just the emails that were damaging. 

 Whether it was the State Department Inspector General issuing a report that said Clinton had publicly and repeatedly lied  for two years about her unauthorized private server being "allowed" or "approved" when it hadnt been, or the FBI investigation that concluded she was sloppy, negligent, irresponsible and careless with classified information, or 30,000 emails destroyed, or  many other things including what the hacked emails exposed, what did the most damage to Hillary Clinton was Hillary Clinton not the Russians. That doesnt mean dont punish the Russians now or in the future for  any hacking whether it was Clinton, Yahoo, or the OPM. But what was exposed to the public should have been a wake up call to Democrats and the news media to clean up their act. They're not.

In an answer to a question by Rep (D) Denny Heck of Washington state during the House Intelligence Committee hearings who self righteously insisted that Democratic persistence in exploring unproven ties between the Trump campaign and Russia because of the email hack was not political but patriotic, Director of the NSA, Admiral Mike Rogers said that what is most important and inherent to democracy is to preserve the choice of the voters.

To that end Rep Heck who comes from a state whose voters in the Democratic primary voted for Bernie Sanders 80-20 over Hillary Clinton but as a super delegate voted for Hillary Clinton to be the nominee,did more to undermine faith in our democratic institutions by not preserving the choice of the voters as did almost all of the super delegates, than Vladimir Putin ever could.

Continuing the charade of blaming Clinton's loss on "Russia interfering with our democratic process" because the emails exposed Clinton, Democrats and the news media interfering with our democratic process, belongs in a George Orwell novel and isnt about saving or preserving our democracy or democratic process its about their  trying to save face. As Adam Schiff and his recent appearance on Saving Face the Nation showed. Even if it means undermining  everything  they profess to champion.
































Friday, January 20, 2017

It Didnt Take Russian Intelligence to Expose Clinton,DNC and News Media Fraud. Just Intelligence.




Back in February  I wrote a piece that generated over 100,000 hits in one day and was picked up and republished by other Democratic and liberal leaning web sites that generated additional hits (and hundreds of comments) when it became clear to me that the Clinton campaign and the DNC were trying to rig the nomination for Clinton with the full cooperation and collusion of mainstream media outlets like CNN, MSNBC, the AP,Washington Post, New York Times and others.

It was February 23,2016 before a single DNC email had been released and months before the Podesta emails were released that exposed Democrats, the DNC, Clinton campaign, Debby Wasserman-Schultz and most in the mainstream media as a vipers nest of lies, personal and political dishonesty, fraud, rigging, and trying to undermine our democratic principles and process, all the more ironic since that is what Democrats have been trying to laughably blame the Russians for doing by hacking into their emails and exposing the dishonesty and fraud.

 Except it didnt take Russian intelligence to see the extent of the lying cheating and rigging that was going on within the Democratic party. Only basic intelligence.

This is being written a day before the Inauguration of Donald Trump something even I could have never envisioned last February.But before a single hacked DNC email was published by Wikileaks, or any of the Podestas emails, it was clear that the fix was in for Hillary Clinton. And that in the end it would never work. And I said so.

How dishonest are Democrats, or anyone for that matter,trying to claim the Russians wanted to elect Trump or that the emails had anything to do with Trump's election? All of the DNC emails exposing the lies,fraud,collusion and institutional dishonesty going on within the DNC,Clinton campaign, Democratic party and news media was, at the time, all to the benefit of Bernie Sanders, the candidate every poll showed beat Trump decisively head to head, some by as much as 15 points while head to head match ups with Clinton showed a much closer race of between 4 and 6 points with a 3 point margin of error. That the Russians hacked the DNC because they wanted Trump who was not even the nominee at the time and dismissed by almost everyone, is as preposterous as Democrats trying to rig the election themselves with the help of a patently dishonest news media and thinking they would get away with it.

But before Wikileaks released a single DNC email, I could see with my own eyes the fraud and rigging that was going on by the Clinton campaign, the DNC and news media in trying to do to Sanders what they eventually tried to do to Trump but failed.  It didnt take Russian intelligence to see it.

In recently re-reading the piece from almost a year ago,I had the urge to say to the DNC, the news media and everyone connected with the Clinton campaign," I told you so". All I had written last February, all I predicted if Clinton and the DNC insisted on continuing the dishonesty, the fraud and rigging and how she and the Democrats would lose in the general election including down ticket Democrats has come to pass.And so this is the "I told you so".

The emails eventually did offer documentary proof of  what I could see with my own eyes and knowledge of the system given my support of Hillary Clinton in 2008 as Executive Director of a PAC supporting Clinton's candidacy for the nomination, though this time around I was supporting Sanders.

Unfortunately for Democrats they not only havent learned the valuable lesson afforded them by losing the election, they continue to lie about it. To themselves and anyone dumb enough to listen. Which aside from suffering the losses I predicted both in terms of the presidency and down ticket Democrats, should have been a wake up call to reform the party and end the corruption and  the corrupt leadership that was evident even back in February and subsequently confirmed in the emails.

Instead the Democratic party establishment has decided otherwise, re-electing Pelosi, inventing empty and dishonest excuses for why they lost including the preposterous excuse of blaming Russia for hacking emails which resulted in exposing the truth as if to say, if people didnt know the truth we would have won.

So the dishonesty that cost them the election in the first place continues: Its everybody's fault but theirs. It's the Russians fault ( for hacking DNC and Clinton campaign emails that did nothing other than expose the truth) Its Wikileaks fault for publishing them, its Comey's fault, its the Electoral College's fault (the genius of which is apparent) it was the Founders fault for creating the Electoral College (complete with misquoting Hamilton), it was Sanders fault,Sanders voters fault who wouldn't vote for Clinton, everyone but those who deserve all the blame -- themselves, their dishonesty and the dishonest news media that backfired. 

The original piece from almost a year ago is linked here. Its was worth my re-reading. Maybe others will think so too. Many of the predictions and warnings came to pass.Almost all of the observations of fraud were verified by the emails even though the piece largely dealt with super delegates and how Clinton, the DNC and news media were using them to fraudulently create the expectation that Clinton was the inevitable nominee and this after only 3 primaries which resulted in two ties and one landslide victory for Sanders in New Hampshire.

Which leads to another prediction: unless the Democratic party reforms in a major way -- that's reform, not re-tread, accepts the truth as to why they lost, knock off the dishonesty and arrogance when they have nothing to be arrogant about, and stop all the lying, they will lose again in 2018 and lose big. And keep losing until they decide that really, honesty is the best policy.And so far they are not convinced of that. 

Thursday, December 15, 2016

Washington Post Story That CIA Reported Russia Wanted Trump Proved a Lie.




The Democrats latest attempt to try and undo an election they legitimately lost is now being fueled by an article in the Washington Post that claimed that the CIA concluded that the Russians not only were behind the hacks of the the DNC and Podesta emails, but the element that has gotten the most traction is that the Russians did it because they wanted Trump to win.

The Washington Post article and its assertions are bogus. False.A lie. And provably false. And are as much "fake news" and more hackery as any "fake news" that people consider a problem because there are those who believe it. There is proof that the story was nothing but a hatchet job by 3 unscrupulous Washington Post reporters,Adam Entous,Ellen Nakashima, Greg Miller, and their editors and the unnamed anonymous "official" who had been "briefed". 

The Washington Post story has been picked up and spread by the usual suspects in the news media about CIA "conclusions" that the email hacks of the DNC and John Podesta were not just carried out by the Russians but with the intent to elect Donald Trump and have formed the basis of Democratic attempts to get Trump electors to betray their voters in states Trump won  much the way Democratic super delegates betrayed Democratic voters in states Bernie Sanders won to nominate Hillary Clinton. And its at the heart of their campaign. And the reason for its fabrication.

The Post article which claimed the CIA concluded that the Russians hacked the DNC and John Podesta because they wanted Trump to win is not just false, not just provably fake, but another attempt by Democrats colluding with the Post whose reputation for honest journalism along with that of the Times and CNN, MSNBC and others were already exposed as dishonest by those same hacked emails.

 So far  the "CIA conclusions"  reported by the Washington Post have been debunked by the FBI and NSA who say no such conclusions exist.  Which means they cannot be called "conclusions" at all since "conclusions" are conclusive.In fact they may not be CIA conclusions at all.  James Clapper testified they dont even have strong enough evidence to prove Russia was behind the hacks in the first place much less that it was done to elect Trump. But beyond that there is obvious proof the only real  'intent" exposed in the Post article was the intent of the Post in collusion with others, most likely a member of the Obama administration, at fabricating this "conclusion" to suit their own agenda to undermine the election by hoping to convince Trump electors to betray the voters of their own states on December 19 when electors meet.

First,no document or report exists that states the CIA concluded Russian hacks of Podesta and DNC emails was motivated by Russia wanting Trump to win. And the reporters didnt ask for any, otherwise they would have said so. And if such a document did exist they would have seen it or at least referenced it. The "conclusion" was an obvious  fabrication fed to them by this unnamed "official" not in the CIA as will be proved, and which the Post willingly reported while offerering nothing to substantiate the claim.

 The source of this "conclusion", the "anonymous government official" is  clearly not connected to CIA. We know this because this "official" is described as "having been briefed". The CIA is not briefed, they do the briefing. And it is clear this "conclusion" comes from this  "anonymous official" not the CIA and who is almost assuredly a Democratic member of the Obama administration with a high enough security clearance to be credible and who intentionally fed this "conclusion" to the Post reporters without anything to back it up which the Post reporters  and editors willingly used to further the Post  and Democratic party agenda.

We know there is no such document or conclusion as to Russian motives in wanting Trump for two reasons. One,it's demonstrably and easily proved false, a truly stupid conclusion which can be proved false on the facts already known and the CIA is not stupid. But dishonest journalists and dishonest politicians always are. Secondly the CIA by its nature and  history does not typically draw or offer conclusions and certainly not without hard and irrefutable evidence. And as we already know both Clapper and the FBI have stated they have no hard evidence. Even Peter King, the Chair of the House Homeland Security Committee said all this is news to him. If he wasnt briefed and the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee wasn't briefed, and he wasn't, there was no briefing to be done and no such conclusion by the CIA, a false conclusion intentionally fed to the Post reporters with the sole intent of committing a hatchet job to further an agenda and not honest reporting.

In addition, Julian Assange who rarely speaks about sources, publicly stated in light of the Post article that the source of both the DNC and Podesta emails did not come from any government  and was not state sponsored and came from no one outside the United States but from an internal source within the United States with access to the emails who was disillusioned with what they were seeing, information the Post reporters could have gotten from Assange himself had they wanted to.

Drawing conclusions is not what the CIA does.They gather facts and, information, what is sometimes referred to as "actionable intelligence" if they can get it and they do analysis which everyone knows is an inexact science. That is their spycraft.  Then they present this intelligence and facts to civilian authority and leave it to them to draw conclusions from these facts and act on them.

 Civilians rarely get to see inside the CIA and how they work but the de-classified intelligence leading to the Cuban missile crisis is a window. The CIA and their U-2 spy planes discovered the presence of Soviet missiles being assembled in Cuba. They analyzed the photographs, were able to identity the missiles and their range and capability and presented the facts to the president. They drew no conclusions and offered no opinions as to the Soviets motives. That was for Kennedy and his advisors. Offering "conclusions" as to motives without hard evidence to back it up is not the CIA way.

There was and is no actionable intelligence that Russia hacked those emails and turned them over to Wikileaks to elect Trump or as the Times dishonestly reported, to "tip the scales in Trump's favor" .Its obvious from the Post article that it wasnt the CIA drawing the conclusion it was the non-CIA" official" who was clearly making a politically motivated insinuation, not a finding.

Yet the Post reported the CIA "concluded the intent and motive" of the Russian hacking was to help Trump win without  pointing to any specific evidence or even claiming the CIA had such evidence to support it.

 The Post reporters didn't even allude to any evidence or documents that supported this conclusion because they werent shown any. Because the "official" feeding them his or her own"conclusion" didnt have any to show and never saw any themselves. Because the evidence doesnt exist. And, as pointed out, the person on whom they were quoting isnt even CIA. Without hard specific evidence the CIA never draws specific conclusions and with hard specific evidence they wouldnt have to since the evidence would speak for itself. 

The attempt to claim the CIA has ascribed intent by the Russians to elect Trump is so obviously stupid and clumsy aside from having already been debunked it is clearly a fabrication by a politically motivated "official" tying to poison the well  with the help of the Washington Post as a conduit before the electors meet December 19 in the threadbare hope of undoing the election. So we know the assertion could not have come from the CIA as an offcial CIA "conclusion". Because the assertion is not just provably false but demonstrably stupid. And the CIA is not stupid. Even when they are wrong they are not stupid.

Nowhere does this "official" claim they saw any CIA documents or memorandum that drew this conclusion and the FBI and NSA said that evidence that it was Russia behind the hack is "tenuous"in itself much less that the  hack was motivated to make Trump president.

Instead the Post article is based on a "government official who had been briefed". And no attempt was made or offered at corroborating this "conclusion" with another source. 

Anyone who ever saw "All the President's Men" knows that Post editor at the time,Ben Bradlee, insisted Woodward and Bernstein corroborate a Watergate story with 3 independent sources before the Post would publish it.Yet a story of this magnitude, that the "CIA concluded" Russia hacked the emails to help Trump was printed without a single corroboration from any other source and the "reporters" didnt even try to get any because they would have failed and its clear their own source, the anonymous "official" couldnt offer any either.

It can't be overstated: the Washington Post story did not quote and did not cite an actual CIA source for their story. Or any documents. Or any substantive proof. Or get any corroboration.

The FBI  says there is no evidence of it, Clapper said there was no evidence of it and other journalists who have direct contacts inside the CIA and who are not as hostile to Trump have reported the CIA made no such conclusion.

But what completely exposes the Post story as "fake news" is that the hack of the DNC emails during the Democratic primaries, supposedly also by Russia, were all to the benefit of Bernie Sanders, the candidate all polls showed was the most likely to beat Trump. 

The DNC emails exposed Clinton, the DNC and Debby Wasserman-Schultz, their Democratic  party enablers and the news media in places like CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and Washington Post, as a vipers nest of  lies, rigging, collusion, fraud, dishonesty all in a concerted effort to rig the nomination for Clinton and defeat Bernie Sanders who blindsided them with the strength of his support. It greatly damaged Clinton and the DNC  during the primaries, forced Wasserman-Schultz to resign, angered Sanders supporters, showed the DNC and Clinton campaign privately mocking Sanders and if anything, weakened Clinton's chances at the nomination during the primaries all to the benefit of Bernie Sanders.

If the Russians were behind the hacks (and the FBI and NSA say that is "tenuous") and if  they did it because they wanted Trump to win as the Post story stupidly claims, then why would they give DNC emails to Wikileaks that damaged Clinton and benefitted Bernie Sanders when all the polls showed Sanders the candidate most likely to defeat Trump? Every poll showed Sanders beating Trump by double digits while the match up between Trump and Clinton was much closer with Clinton having an edge of 4-6 points. 

The DNC email hacks and what they exposed cast Bernie Sanders as the victim of Clinton and DNC deciet,fraud,lies and collusion with an in the tank dishonest media at CNN, MSNBC,the New York Times, Washington Post, Politico and other lesser outlets, helping in their attempts at suppressing Sanders turnout and fundraising, and aiding in the collusion with Debby Wasserman-Schultz to rig the nomination for Clinton all of which angered Sanders voters.So what's the explanation for Russia helping the candidate who had the best chance of beating Trump if they wanted Trump to win?

The answer lies with the Woody Allen line,"when you tell the truth all the time you never have to remember anything". In the Democrats and Washington Post's haste to create fodder and  lies to try to convince Trump electors that the Russians were behind his victory with a non-existant CIA "conclusion" that Russia wanted Trump to win, ,Democrats and their allies forgot that the DNC hacks, supposedly also by Russia,were all to the benefit of Bernie Sanders, the stronger candidate most likely to beat Trump.

That fact exposes the dishonesty, absurdity of Democrats and the news media trying to push the story that the Russians wanted Trump. A story for which the Washington Post provides no corroboration because there isnt any, only a politically motivated "official" planting a story for which they offered no evidence and politically motivated reporters and editors at the Washington Post and New York Times willing to publish fake news.  Its sole purpose was to to try and delegitimize or undo the election.The irony of course is that Democrats and the media were trying to do exactly what they accuse the Russians of doing. Interfere with the election.

And if it doesnt do a thing to change the outcome of the election which it almost surely wont, it gives Democrats and Clinton supporters one more excuse as to why they lost. First it was Sanders damaging Clinton, then Sanders voters, then Comey, then the need for recounts, then lies about hacking voting machines, then that the Electoral College is outmoded (they didnt complain in 1992 when Bill Clinton won the presidency and 270 electoral votes with only 43% of the popular vote)  and a claim Clinton won the popular vote when she didnt, she won a plurality head to head with Trump with the majority of the country voting against her, 52-48. And to be clear, almost all of her 2 million+ vote plurality coming from her margin of victory in one state -- New York.  Now its the Russians who "interfered" with the election and wanted Trump. 

Even if the Russians were behind the hack ,which Clapper says is "tenuous" the emails didnt "interfere" with the election. They exposed truths and facts about Clinton, the Democratic party and news media they didnt like.The emails were real and authentic. They exposed Clinton as being two faced on many issues especially when it came to economic issues, telling Wall Street executives one thing in private and saying something else to voters. That no doubt didnt go down well with many working class voters and only re-enforced the same problem Clinton has had with voters from the beginning: people dont trust her. That is supposed to be Russians fault? 

Democrats accusing Russians of "interfering with the election" by exposing truths they didnt want the public to see is like a man accusing a burglar who breaks into his house, discovers him beating his wife and reporting it to the police as "interfering" in their marriage. The burglar had no business being there but what he reported mattered more. You can deal with the burglar later but it doesn't change or lessen what he saw.

What Democrats still refuse to admit is that if the Wikileaks emails had any influence it was because of the content of the emails and what they exposed, not who exposed it.

No one has ever claimed the emails were fake or fabricated or doctored (except Donna Brazile who was proved to be lying about that too) or anything but authentic so to try and deflect from the content to who did the exposing is absurd and excuse making.

It also ignores that Clinton had a 59% disapproval rating in January of 2016 before a single vote was cast and was considered "untrustworthy" by 65%  of Americans in almost every poll. Clinton had the worst unfavorable ratings of any presidential candidate in history. Exposing Clinton campaign and DNC emails exposed their and news media attempts at rigging the election, successful when it came to the nominating process. But it didnt  cause Clinton to publicly lie about her private server being "approved" for two years or cause her to commit multiple violations of State Dept rules on handling protected information. Or the spike in Obamacare healthcare premiums or caused Obama to sell out the public option to the insurance companies in the first place which led to Democrats getting wiped out in the 2010 elections.

Foreign hacking into the U.S. whether its Russia, China or North Korea is a serious issue especially because of its potential to cause damage in many areas, as a threat to the power grid, China stealing intellectual property from U.S. corporations, even a threat to the water system.  But for Democrats to  continue to try to use the exposure of their dishonesty  in their hacked emails as an excuse as to why they lost shows they dont want to face why they lost. 

Putin is not stupid. The CIA is not stupid. And their behavioral analysts are not stupid. But politically motivated, dishonest political "officials" and dishonest journalists with an agenda almost always are. That is what produced the Washington Post story, repeated by the New York Times and Democrats that the Russian hack was because they wanted Trump. And hope they could get away with it. So far they haven't.

ADDENDUM: At a press conference today (12/15) John Kerry when asked about the Post article refused to endorse it or give it any credibility adding, " I dont take seriously articles that quote 'anonymous officials".

ADDENDUM#2: Attorney General Lorretta Lynch released this statement: "There is no technical evidence to prove Russia was behind the hacks". 

ADDENDUM#3: The unclassified report on hacking just released confirms the falsity and dishonest political spin of the Post story. The report clearly stated that hacking DNC emails which exposed lies,deceit, fraud and rigging on the part of Clinton, the DNC,  Debby Wasserman-Schultz and collusion with dishonest media organizations, was to denigrate and undermine Hillary Clinton (with the truth, by the way) which explains the release of the DNC emails during the Democratic primaries which did in fact undermine and hurt Clinton but were all to Bernie Sanders benefit, not Trump's. 

Based on the report Putin would have been just as happy for Sanders to have beaten Clinton for the nomination. The goal was to undermine Clinton not to benefit an opponent. Which is a long way from saying Putin did it because he wanted Trump to win. That was false. It was an attack on Clinton  that started with the primaries, not to help Trump.

Further, the report says their intelligence shows that Putin believed Clinton would beat Trump in the general election and hoped that what the hacked Podesta emails revealed about Clinton and her credibility (or lack of) would undermine her presidency.

Nowhere  do the 17 intelligence agencies suggest that anything was done to intentionally help Donald Trump, making the Post story as dishonest and as much political spin and fodder to try and undermine Trump as much as Putin wanted to undermine Clinton, just as originally asserted.