Anyone Else Getting Hacked Off about the Russian Hacking Story?

Post-Donald Trump's landslide electoral victory, the media are in overdrive talking about "fake news."  What they mean by fake news is anything favorable to Donald Trump – not blatantly false news stories like the Benghazi video, "Hands up don't shoot," "I can't breathe," rape at the University of Virginia, Duke lacrosse team, and so on. 

The latest story is that Russia hacked the U.S. presidential election, handing the win to Mr. Trump.  The N.Y. Times is all over the story with a headline, "How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the US."

The only thing that has been hacked is honest journalism and reporting.  Is anyone else getting hacked off over this continued nonsensical narrative?

What exactly is hacking?  The definition is "[t]he practice of modifying or altering computer software and hardware to accomplish a goal that is considered to be outside of the creator's original objective."  So how was the election hacked?  What specifically did the Russians do, and where is the proof?  And where is any evidence that such hacking changed the election outcome?

Foreign governments hacking each other is nothing new.  Several years ago, the Russians hacked the White House, but it wasn't news, fake or otherwise, as it didn't serve the media's agenda.

Even election interference is has precedence.  Just ask President Obama, who spent U.S. taxpayer dollars trying to influence the Israeli election.  Any media outrage?  Hardly even mentioned.

An election can be hacked only by subverting the voting process or the tallying of the votes.  A paper ballot would be tough to hack, short of putting a gun to the voter's head or manually changing his written vote.  Machines tallying and reporting the votes could theoretically be hacked, but where is the evidence?

Accusations of electoral fraud are nothing new.  They surfaced after Mitt Romney's loss in 2012, but, not surprisingly, the media showed no curiosity or interest in pursuing the story.

If anything, the 2016 results are more likely to have been hacked by the Democrats than the Republicans.  Voting machines linked to George Soros were used in 16 states.  But that's not the narrative, and the story will therefore be ignored.

The Obama administration put the issue to rest a few weeks ago by reassuring America that the election results "accurately reflect the will of the American people."  Yet the onslaught of fake news persists.

Hillary Clinton lost the election simply because voters preferred Donald Trump over her – Trump's vision, his optimism, his likeability, all of which worked against Mrs. Clinton.  Nearly 70 percent of Americans believed that the country was heading in the wrong direction.  Mrs. Clinton was more of the same, while Trump was the opposite direction.  That's not hacking, unless you believe that the election is a response to the past eight years of Obama's epic hack of American greatness and exceptional nature.

The real rigging of this election was by the Democratic Party establishment against Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton via superdelegates and leaked debate questions.  Was that the Russians, too?

These revelations came via WikiLeaks and included a true hack – not of the election, but of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's email account.  He fell for a phishing scam, which snagged his email password.  It's the same type of scam most of us receive daily in our email inboxes.  And then there was Anthony Weiner with a laptop full of damaging emails.  Is Anthony part of Putin's scheming?

All of these leaked emails didn't change the election results.  Instead, they only embarrassed Podesta, his candidate, and his political party.  Podesta's emails simply confirmed what most everyone already knew or suspected about Crooked Hillary.

Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks denied that the Russian government was behind the leaked emails.  Rather, it was an insider – perhaps a disaffected Democrat campaign operative.

Meanwhile, we are treated to a daily barrage from big media claiming that the election was hacked, based on anonymous sources and thirdhand accounts.  Even the myriad U.S. intelligence agencies disagree over who did what.

Most of the country is moving forward after a long and contentious 18-month election cycle – exactly what President Obama and Mrs. Clinton told the nation to do the day after the election.  Trump is plowing ahead like a bulldozer, filling his cabinet, announcing his agenda, holding court with former political foes.

The Democrats and their media outlets instead want to move backward, blaming Clinton's predictable election loss on phantom Russian spies and chicanery rather than voters' rejection of their candidate.  The Democrats remain in denial over the election and the fact that this year, American voters handed Mrs. Clinton's famous "reset button" to Donald Trump.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook  and Twitter.

Post-Donald Trump's landslide electoral victory, the media are in overdrive talking about "fake news."  What they mean by fake news is anything favorable to Donald Trump – not blatantly false news stories like the Benghazi video, "Hands up don't shoot," "I can't breathe," rape at the University of Virginia, Duke lacrosse team, and so on. 

The latest story is that Russia hacked the U.S. presidential election, handing the win to Mr. Trump.  The N.Y. Times is all over the story with a headline, "How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the US."

The only thing that has been hacked is honest journalism and reporting.  Is anyone else getting hacked off over this continued nonsensical narrative?

What exactly is hacking?  The definition is "[t]he practice of modifying or altering computer software and hardware to accomplish a goal that is considered to be outside of the creator's original objective."  So how was the election hacked?  What specifically did the Russians do, and where is the proof?  And where is any evidence that such hacking changed the election outcome?

Foreign governments hacking each other is nothing new.  Several years ago, the Russians hacked the White House, but it wasn't news, fake or otherwise, as it didn't serve the media's agenda.

Even election interference is has precedence.  Just ask President Obama, who spent U.S. taxpayer dollars trying to influence the Israeli election.  Any media outrage?  Hardly even mentioned.

An election can be hacked only by subverting the voting process or the tallying of the votes.  A paper ballot would be tough to hack, short of putting a gun to the voter's head or manually changing his written vote.  Machines tallying and reporting the votes could theoretically be hacked, but where is the evidence?

Accusations of electoral fraud are nothing new.  They surfaced after Mitt Romney's loss in 2012, but, not surprisingly, the media showed no curiosity or interest in pursuing the story.

If anything, the 2016 results are more likely to have been hacked by the Democrats than the Republicans.  Voting machines linked to George Soros were used in 16 states.  But that's not the narrative, and the story will therefore be ignored.

The Obama administration put the issue to rest a few weeks ago by reassuring America that the election results "accurately reflect the will of the American people."  Yet the onslaught of fake news persists.

Hillary Clinton lost the election simply because voters preferred Donald Trump over her – Trump's vision, his optimism, his likeability, all of which worked against Mrs. Clinton.  Nearly 70 percent of Americans believed that the country was heading in the wrong direction.  Mrs. Clinton was more of the same, while Trump was the opposite direction.  That's not hacking, unless you believe that the election is a response to the past eight years of Obama's epic hack of American greatness and exceptional nature.

The real rigging of this election was by the Democratic Party establishment against Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton via superdelegates and leaked debate questions.  Was that the Russians, too?

These revelations came via WikiLeaks and included a true hack – not of the election, but of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's email account.  He fell for a phishing scam, which snagged his email password.  It's the same type of scam most of us receive daily in our email inboxes.  And then there was Anthony Weiner with a laptop full of damaging emails.  Is Anthony part of Putin's scheming?

All of these leaked emails didn't change the election results.  Instead, they only embarrassed Podesta, his candidate, and his political party.  Podesta's emails simply confirmed what most everyone already knew or suspected about Crooked Hillary.

Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks denied that the Russian government was behind the leaked emails.  Rather, it was an insider – perhaps a disaffected Democrat campaign operative.

Meanwhile, we are treated to a daily barrage from big media claiming that the election was hacked, based on anonymous sources and thirdhand accounts.  Even the myriad U.S. intelligence agencies disagree over who did what.

Most of the country is moving forward after a long and contentious 18-month election cycle – exactly what President Obama and Mrs. Clinton told the nation to do the day after the election.  Trump is plowing ahead like a bulldozer, filling his cabinet, announcing his agenda, holding court with former political foes.

The Democrats and their media outlets instead want to move backward, blaming Clinton's predictable election loss on phantom Russian spies and chicanery rather than voters' rejection of their candidate.  The Democrats remain in denial over the election and the fact that this year, American voters handed Mrs. Clinton's famous "reset button" to Donald Trump.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook  and Twitter.

RECENT VIDEOS