Conspiracy Theorists

This morning we learned that the CIA was "too busy" preparing a report on how the Russians stole the election to appear before the House Intelligence committee (in secret session) to provide details about their supposed allegation. I say supposed, because there has been no hard evidence presented by the CIA or others that the Russians did what is alleged. Could it be that no one at Langley wants to go on the official record on this issue?

Sure, there appears to be circumstantial evidence that Russian hackers via Wikileaks embarrassed the DNC and the Clinton Campaign with leaks that made the Democrats look foolish, venal, and petty, but even that is not definitive. The trained hamsters in the media are reporting this as if it were proven and airtight. It is neither.

I have a strong suspicion that all of this is a "Look, there's a squirrel!" moment. That is, deflection. Some Democrats are desperate to deflect attention from their crippling election loss. What better way that to focus blame away from a poor candidate, a poorly run campaign, and an expenditure of $1.2 billion which accomplished nothing (the Dems lost at the federal, state and local level). The Dems media hamsters are more than accommodating, discussing this issue as if it was proven fact.

Daniel Henninger puts in succinctly when he writes:

This year’s loss happened in large part because the Hillary campaign ignored Bill Clinton’s advice to pursue the blue-collar vote that won him the presidency. The Clinton campaign thought Barack Obama’s “coalition of the ascendant” would win a third straight time. Staring out across the U.S. political map today, they look now like the coalition of the descendant.

Little surprise that the people responsible for this debacle are filling the skies with Putin-elected-Trump flak to divert eyes from why they lost states they should have won.

Remember when the Democrats accused the GOP of being "conspiracy nuts" when they questioned the Obama administration line on the Benghazi terror attacks (the administration did lie) or the IRS on its refusal to grant Obama's opponent's tax exempt status (proven to be true). But now, in the wildest of all conspiracy theories, the Dems seem absolutely convinced that the Russians stole the election. That their machinations (if they even happened) convinced millions of "deplorables" to vote against Hillary Clinton. I suspect that being called a "deplorable" was a lot more motivation for many voters that anything that Vlad Putin did.

I suppose everyone is entitled to his or her own paranoia, and I also expect we'll see a lot more Dem conspiracy theorists over the next four years.

UPDATE-1:
-------------
To help solidify the meme that the election was stolen The New York Times reports using this headline, "Democratic House Candidates Were Also Targets of Russian Hacking." The NYT does what it always does when its pushing a narrative that defends it Democratic friends against anything that might make them look bad—it uses unproven innuendo, anecdotal stories, and lack of context to suggest that the Democrat down ballot loss in the Congress was also due to the Russians. In essense, the Dems would have won were it not for a wild international conspiracy that voters were helpless—helpless!—to overcome.

The NYT writes:

Why the Russian government might care about these unglamorous House races is a source of bafflement for some of the lawmakers who were targeted. But if the goal of Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, was to make American democracy a less attractive model to his own citizens and to Russia’s neighbors, then entangling congressional races in accusations of leaks and subterfuge was a step in the right direction.

Sadly, the geniuses at the Times don't seem to recognize that they destroy their own premise with the above paragraph. Why indeed would the Russians care enough to attack down ballot races? That sort of like saying that the national media should focus its attention on the Mayoral race in Willimantic, Connecticut. And about "accusations of leaks and subterfuge?" Looks like the NYT and every other trained media hamster is doing the Russian's job for them.

UPDATE-2
----------------
Andrew McCarthy writes:

If the American intelligence community (IC), after considered chin stroking, had concluded that there had been no Russian attempts to meddle in the presidential election, I imagine most taxpayers would say we want our $50 billion per annum back — a reaction that may be warranted in any event given the IC’s propensity to politicize its reports and to miss major developments from Pearl Harbor to 9/11, and from the rise of jihadist Iran to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

According to the Democrat-media complex, the IC believes Russia not only meddled in our election but intentionally swung it to Trump. Indeed, to hear them tell it, our spies haven’t been this sure of something since that “slam-dunk” about Saddam hoarding WMDs.

In point of fact, though, they don’t even have proof that pins hacking on Putin’s regime. The main heavy breathing comes from the Washington Post. If you invest the time it takes to read through the first 26 paragraphs of its explosive report, you are finally told that the Post’s sources — anonymous “intelligence officials” — admit that the “actors” who came into possession of hacked files are “‘one step’ removed from the Russian government.” They may have “affiliations” to Russian intelligence services, but what exactly that means the sources can’t say. No wonder that the FBI, which is expected to be able to prove the allegations it makes, disagrees with the Post’s unidentified leakers. No wonder that other intelligence sources tell the Wall Street Journal’s editors that the leakers’ evidence is “thin.”