The $99,000 Question: What Exactly Did Russia Do?

With the Mueller Report completed and the words “The Special Counsel found no evidence that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired with the Russians to influence the election, despite offers by the Russians to do so,” etched in history, it has done nothing to quell the endless caterwauling by liberal Democrats as they continue with their “Russia stole the election” mantra.

“Did Russia Affect the 2016 Election? It’s Now Undeniable” reads a headline from WIRED. “Russia: The Cloud Over the White House,” says a headline from the BBC. “Why Russia Is Interfering in the US Presidential Elections,” says the Huffington Post.

Even the Mueller Report itself makes reference to Russians interfering in the election. But there’s one glaring omission from all of these stories:

What did they DO exactly?

I can’t get an answer to this question. My standard counter-question to any of my militant, pussy-hat wearing friends when they go off on Trump/Russia, is “What exactly did Russia do to influence the election?” I then receive variations of the following responses:

• “Go look it up. It’s common knowledge.”
• “You know what they did.”
• [String of expletives usually containing a comment about Trump being “orange.”]

Now, I am aware that it has been discovered that there are “troll farms” (warehouses full of Russian workers at their PCs, puffing on cigarettes, endlessly commenting and sharing stories on social media) that were trying to “throw shade” at Hillary (did I use that term correctly? Am I cool now?) and prop up a Trump candidacy. I am being facetious and rhetorical in asking the question.

But let’s say we accept the fact that Russia was endlessly sharing and commenting on social media in an effort to discredit Hillary. What exactly were they sharing? No one on the left can point to a story, a comment, or a piece of fake news that was so damaging it swung the electorate. And wouldn’t you think that a story with that kind of power would get picked up nationally? But it never happened.

“(Sips soy latte) Well, you know, Russia used their cyber-terrorism forces to HACK into the email accounts of the Democrats and put all of their information on Wikileaks! THAT’S how Trump WON!” (wipes soy foam from wispy-half-mustache).

Okay, I’ll give you that. The drip-drip-drip of Wikileaks slowly releasing the e-mails cultivated from various Democrats did not do Hillary any favors.

But what did we learn from those e-mails? First of all, we found out that Hillary’s chief-of-staff, John Podesta’s G-Mail password was actually “password.” So this wasn’t exactly Neo-accessing-the-Matrix level hacking. I mean his password was actually “password.” Let’s stop with the “hacking” claims.

And what did we learn from those hacked emails?

• Podesta routinely had large dinners with members of the media to discuss strategy for the campaign.
• Politico reporter Glenn Thrush was caught sending stories the Hillary campaign for feedback and approval before publication. In the e-mail, Thrush admits he’s a “hack.”
• One male DNC staffer wrote to another male staffer, saying, “I love you,” and added, “no homo.”
• We found out President Barack Obama lied about finding out about Hillary’s private server at the “same time everybody else learned it, through news reports.” Clinton’s former chief of staff Cheryl Mills sent an e-mail expressing concern for this fabrication noting that there are e-mails on Obama’s account that did not have the .gov domain – implying that Obama was e-mailing Hillary at an address outside the scope of government security.
• Hillary admitted that she had a public and a private position on touchy political topics. “But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the backroom discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.”
• Hillary was fed a debate question by Donna Brazille, disgraced former head of the Democratic National Committee. “From time to time I get the questions in advance,” Brazille wrote in the subject line of a March 12 e-mail to Clinton aides.
• Despite openly stating that she wanted to take in more refugees if elected president, Hillary admitted they had no way to vet those that were being admitted. “They can’t possibly vet all those refugees so they don’t know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees.”

Now, I will ask my friends on the left: what in that list should we, the American public, NOT have known about?

Let’s just be honest. Liberals weren’t upset about the “Russian hacking” and the “attack on our democracy.” Not for a second. They were upset they got exposed and we actually found out the truth about them. They’re the husband, screaming at their wife who went through the phone about a violation of privacy, all but ignoring the saucy text messages to his secretary.

Luckily for the Democrats, the mainstream media keeps their foot to the floor on the hacking narrative, ominously ignoring what the hack actually revealed. They are, as those e-mails revealed, the public relations arm of the Democratic party.

Maybe Russia did swing the election to Trump with their e-mail hacks, but I will say something that’s not terribly popular. I am glad they did. We know the truth about the Democrats now and it’s apparent that we dodged a rather corrupt bullet as a result.