If Russia ‘hacked the election,’ so did the leaker of the NBC Billy Bush tape with Trump
The uniparty political establishment is pushing a demonstrably false narrative that Russia somehow “hacked” the election. Hacking has a specific meaning: entering a computer via the internet and changing things.
But thanks to blanket media coverage using the terms together “Russia” + “election” + “hacked,” half of uncritical consumers of media narratives (aka Democrats) believe that Russia did indeed change vote totals and install Trump.
They are, in a word, deniers, the left’s favorite term for people who disagree with its fraudulent claims. Except that Hillary’s supporters are actually believing a fantasy.
In fact, if Russia was the party that sent a phishing email to John Podesta and revealed the actual thoughts and intentions and prejudices of Team Hillary by gaining access to his emails, how was it different in any significant way from the release of the tape of Donald Trump’s and Billy Bush’s locker room banter from NBC’s archives?
In both cases, private conversations were revealed by someone who gained access to databases that were private and made them public. The media has exhibited zero curiosity over the identity of the party or parties who examined the archives for dirt and covertly supplied the tape to an outside party.
For all anyone knows, it was Russian hackers who accessed the archives and released the tape that supposedly doomed the candidacy of Trump, as was agreed by almost everyone who commented at the time.
There is as much reason to believe that Russia would have favored Hillary as much as it favored Trump. She is the one who called for a “reset.” And it was her boss at the time that told Russia’s president that he would have “more flexibility” after the election in 2012. Trump, meanwhile, has promised to rebuild America’s military – a plan presumably anathema to Vlad P.
We do not know a single thing about the identity of the person who obtained and released the Billy Bush tapes, even though that leak of confidential conversations was assessed at the time to be of greater impact than the Podesta emails were upon their release.
If the left wants to claim that releasing private information from confidential databases about candidates amounts to “hacking the election,” such “hacking” has been the source of countless scoops in the New York Times and the rest of the MSM.