Did Russia hack? The death of investigative journalism and the rise of fake news

The purported Russian Hacking is a good example of what could be fake news and of the disappearance of investigative journalism.

Here are a few easy questions.

For the CIA, President Obama and Josh Earnest:

Since you all say specifically that the Russians did the hacking, that Putin was directly involved and that you know that it was for the specific intent to elect Trump, why did you refuse to send anyone to the House Committee to show them what you have?

For President Obama, Earnest, James Comey, and Loretta Lynch:

You were unable to determine if Hillary had the intent to break national security laws despite the facts that Hillary intentionally had the server set up, intentionally did not use a State Department email, obviously knew that classified documents had to go through her computer, intentionally destroyed thousands of documents, intentionally refused to meet with and take questions from the inspector general despite laws that she cooperate and intentionally lied throughout.  So why should we believe that you can determine that the intent of whoever hacked the Democratic National Committee was to help Trump?

Here are some questions for the reporters themselves:

Why would Putin and Russia want someone new, since they were allowed to expand their power tremendously the past eight years

Here are just a few things that President Obama and Kerry did with Russia:

*We had the famous reset button by Hillary in 2009.

*Almost as soon as Obama took office, he backed away from a commitment to put up missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic to appease Russia.

*Hillary and the Obama administration allowed the sale of a substantial share of American uranium reserves to the Russians.  Of course, this involved a large amount of money to the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton family.  Putin knows that Bill and Hillary have gotten fabulously rich  not by producing anything or creating jobs, but by selling political favors throughout their adult lives.  So why wouldn't he want Hillary, who has proven so pliable?

*In March 2012, Obama told Medevev of Russia that he would have more flexibility if he were re-elected.

*In October 2012, President Obama made fun of Mitt Romney for saying Russia is dangerous and smirked at him to the effect that the eighties called and want their foreign policy back.  (Of course, the media went along with Obama)

So, reporters: Why would Putin want Trump?

Somehow most of the media really don’t care what Obama and Hillary have actually said and done with and about Russia the last eight years, but somehow Trump is the problem.

As for interfering in elections, the State Department spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to influence the Israeli elections, and President Obama told Great Britain that if they passed Brexit, they would move to the back of the “queue” on trade.

President Obama has talked tremendously tough policies worldwide.  He drew that red line and has repeatedly told Assad to cut it out.  He has told Iran they had better cut it out when interfering in Aleppo and elsewhere or else.  Now we learn that at the G20 summit in September, he told Putin personally to cut it out on hacking, and he said they saw no evidence that Russians had hacked after that.  (I would love to see the before and after evidence.)  This "cut it out" policy has not worked so well.

Since Obama says the world respects the U.S. more than it did eight years ago, his supporters should ask themselves: where?

Reporters who just repeat Democrat talking points (which is most of them) and pretend that these are factual are worthless.  Now they pretend they will monitor themselves for fake news.  What a joke!  It is time journalists became curious again.

I hope Trump will change Obama's "cut it out" policy.  Then the U.S. actually may be stronger in four years instead of pretending to be stronger, as Obama says.

I believe we will know when the media have their curiosity gene back and have renewed their investigative skills when some of them actually ask how we can have record cold temperatures if CO2, human activities, and fossil fuels cause warming.  Repeating talking points to support an agenda and saying the science is settled serves no value and involves no actual intelligence.

The purported Russian Hacking is a good example of what could be fake news and of the disappearance of investigative journalism.

Here are a few easy questions.

For the CIA, President Obama and Josh Earnest:

Since you all say specifically that the Russians did the hacking, that Putin was directly involved and that you know that it was for the specific intent to elect Trump, why did you refuse to send anyone to the House Committee to show them what you have?

For President Obama, Earnest, James Comey, and Loretta Lynch:

You were unable to determine if Hillary had the intent to break national security laws despite the facts that Hillary intentionally had the server set up, intentionally did not use a State Department email, obviously knew that classified documents had to go through her computer, intentionally destroyed thousands of documents, intentionally refused to meet with and take questions from the inspector general despite laws that she cooperate and intentionally lied throughout.  So why should we believe that you can determine that the intent of whoever hacked the Democratic National Committee was to help Trump?

Here are some questions for the reporters themselves:

Why would Putin and Russia want someone new, since they were allowed to expand their power tremendously the past eight years

Here are just a few things that President Obama and Kerry did with Russia:

*We had the famous reset button by Hillary in 2009.

*Almost as soon as Obama took office, he backed away from a commitment to put up missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic to appease Russia.

*Hillary and the Obama administration allowed the sale of a substantial share of American uranium reserves to the Russians.  Of course, this involved a large amount of money to the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton family.  Putin knows that Bill and Hillary have gotten fabulously rich  not by producing anything or creating jobs, but by selling political favors throughout their adult lives.  So why wouldn't he want Hillary, who has proven so pliable?

*In March 2012, Obama told Medevev of Russia that he would have more flexibility if he were re-elected.

*In October 2012, President Obama made fun of Mitt Romney for saying Russia is dangerous and smirked at him to the effect that the eighties called and want their foreign policy back.  (Of course, the media went along with Obama)

So, reporters: Why would Putin want Trump?

Somehow most of the media really don’t care what Obama and Hillary have actually said and done with and about Russia the last eight years, but somehow Trump is the problem.

As for interfering in elections, the State Department spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to influence the Israeli elections, and President Obama told Great Britain that if they passed Brexit, they would move to the back of the “queue” on trade.

President Obama has talked tremendously tough policies worldwide.  He drew that red line and has repeatedly told Assad to cut it out.  He has told Iran they had better cut it out when interfering in Aleppo and elsewhere or else.  Now we learn that at the G20 summit in September, he told Putin personally to cut it out on hacking, and he said they saw no evidence that Russians had hacked after that.  (I would love to see the before and after evidence.)  This "cut it out" policy has not worked so well.

Since Obama says the world respects the U.S. more than it did eight years ago, his supporters should ask themselves: where?

Reporters who just repeat Democrat talking points (which is most of them) and pretend that these are factual are worthless.  Now they pretend they will monitor themselves for fake news.  What a joke!  It is time journalists became curious again.

I hope Trump will change Obama's "cut it out" policy.  Then the U.S. actually may be stronger in four years instead of pretending to be stronger, as Obama says.

I believe we will know when the media have their curiosity gene back and have renewed their investigative skills when some of them actually ask how we can have record cold temperatures if CO2, human activities, and fossil fuels cause warming.  Repeating talking points to support an agenda and saying the science is settled serves no value and involves no actual intelligence.

RECENT VIDEOS