Election Hacking – or Democrat BS?


By Phil Erwin

Tucker Carlson, twiter.com

Tucker Carlson Tonight is a recent addition to the line-up of nightly news-analysis programs on FOX. The host’s confrontational approach can sometimes be annoying, but I don’t think Carlson is being intentionally rude or bullying. Rather, he’s doing his best to get the truth out of reluctant, dissembling or outright dishonest guests. (His tag line is: “The show that’s the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and GroupThink.”)

Recently, Carlson turned his Kleig-light attention on David Tafuri, a former Obama State Department staffer. Tafuri was excusing Obama’s National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, for “unmasking” the identities of Trump-camp personalities surveilled during the 2016 election and subsequent transition. Rice, opined Tafuri, was simply doing her job, which included trying to explore and illuminate the problem of Russia “hacking” our election.

Carlson was (in today’s PC-parlance) “triggered.” “What does that mean?” he demanded. “No one can tell me! I’ve asked people night after night to tell me what that means, to give me some evidence – just one scintilla of hard evidence – to show what that means, to prove it happened, and no one has been able to!

Tafuri descended into rambling references to “hacking John Podesta’s e-mail” and Wikileaks and comments by Intelligence officials such as James Clapper that “prove” Russia “hacked” our election.

[Authors’ Note: I’m paraphrasing this exchange. You can read a more extensive review, or watch the entire 11-minute exchange, here.]


Carlson’s right: To date, there has been not one shred of clear, unequivocal, incontrovertible proof that the Russian government deliberately engineered activities that we might sensibly call “hacking our election” in order to cause a specific outcome. “They hacked our election…” implies that vote counts were actually altered somehow. Not only is there no proof that even a single vote was altered by the Russians; those very same officials quoted by Tafuri are on record stating emphatically that it did NOT happen.

There is certainly evidence that Russia was messing with the political discussion over here. For example, it is believed (though I question whether it’s been conclusively proven) that the dump of John Podesta’s e-mail to Wikileaks came from the Russians. So you can make the argument that they may have had some effect on how people made their minds up. I would argue that this is nothing more than whomever “hacked” Podesta’s e-mail acting as muck-raking journalists to provide the American public with information proving misbehaviors on the part of Hillary’s entire camp. (Can you say, “Rigged the debates” or “Colluding with the Media”?)

But there is no clear evidence to demonstrate either the nature of voter influence such “hacks,” had on voters, nor the magnitude of it. Did ten people decide to switch their vote to Trump, or ten million? What about switching in the other direction? Were the Russians responsible for some or all of the “Fake News” attacks on Trump’s suitability for office? Can anyone prove they weren’t?

But what is conveniently overlooked in all the discussion about Russian “hacking” is this: Wikileaks has released clear evidence proving the CIA has the ability to “spoof” Russian activities on the Web.

In fact, such “spoofing” tools and methods are not new, are known to hackers around the world, both within and outside of governments, and could have been used by any number of governmental spy groups to make it appear that Russia was responsible for the “hacks.” Israel almost certainly could do it. Great Britain and Germany probably could. Most likely China is expert at this.

So even if we have supposedly “incontrovertible” evidence that Russia was somehow “hacking” our political universe, the reality is that the “proof” may be just made-up “fingerprints” pointing at Russia.

How would we know otherwise? Could the CIA or the FBI discern the difference between real Russian “hacking” and a spoofed intrusion?

Can anybody?

I’m an IT professional, and I’m not sure. My guess is that most spoofing can be discerned and uncovered by some of the best professionals; but that a few of the best “hackers” know how to defeat most methods of discernment, and are maybe a step or two ahead of even the best in the CIA.

That’s the nature of the Digital World; most know little about it, some know a lot about it, and a very, very few know more than virtually everybody else.

If you think the Democrat leadership knows enough about this to be telling you the real truth, you are very mistaken. Democrats know nothing about it. And they don’t care what the truth is. All they care about is figuring out how to shape the national conversation to the detriment of President Trump and the advancement of their Progressive agenda.​

Get off it, Democrats. The story of the 2016 election is not that Russia was attempting to influence our politics. That’s a decades-old story. (And we do it, too! Remember, Obama spent over $300k of US taxpayer money in a semi-secret effort to get Benjamin Netanyahu defeated!)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

No, the story of the 2016 election is that majorities of American voters in key “Rust Belt” states – Democrat territory! – finally wised up to the subterfuge of the Iran nuclear “deal,” and an economy-crushing national debt, and the myths of “Free Trade,” and the national suicide that “Open Borders” and uncontrolled immigration represent, and voted for the alternative that seemed likely to put a stop to all that Liberal/Progressive BS.

Carlson’s right: Not only is there no proof that Russian “hacking” had any impact on our election, it’s not even clearly proven that Russia is the responsible party for any particular “hack.” We have only the word of Obama officials like James Clapper and Susan Rice – people who have already proven to be perfectly willing to, and comfortable about, lying directly to the American public on camera.

I’m with Carlson: Either prove it, or shut up about it.

Phil Erwin is an author, IT administrator and registered Independent living in Newbury Park. He would like to support some Democrat ideals, but he has a visceral hatred for Lies and Damn Lies (and is highly suspicious of Statistics.) That pretty much eliminates supporting most Democrats, and a bunch of Republicans to boot.

Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments