The narrative that we currently see plastered all over the more democrat-leaning networks, like CNN, has been focused on a kind of distraction campaign devised in the wake of the startling revelations of collusion between the DNC and the Clinton campaign. The focus of this diversionary campaign has been primarily focused on two shiny new conspiracy theories: first, that Russia was behind the hacks, and used the emails as a way to "influence the election." Of course, there's absolutely no proof, or even much strong evidence (despite the claims of a certain private cyber-security group), that officials in Russia were behind this cyber attack.

Yet despite this lack of hard evidence, the second line of rhetoric being pushed is contingent on this being a fact. It laments that Trump has some connection to Russia, that he's friendly, or even conspiring with them, and that Putin's underlings may have orchestrated this hack because he wants a Trump presidency. Segment after segment of political coverage on CNN throughout the last week or so has been about Trump's "connection" with Russia, and his "praise" for Putin. However, this is by no means a phenomenon isolated to CNN. Commondreams, WaPo, Gawker, The Daily Beast and CSMoniter, just to name a few, have already published recent headlines that claim Russia's involvement is a fact.

Is Trump Scheming With Russia?

In a Daily Beast article by political blogger Amelia Warshaw titled, "all The Times Donald Trump Sucked Up To Vladamir Putin," Trump was criticized for several "damning" statements he has made in the past. One example drew attention to his recent call for Russians to "find the missing 30,000 Clinton emails." Now, call me crazy, but that seemed like a really, really clear example of a sarcastic jab, poking fun at both the Clinton campaign and the conspiracy that is being pushed about Russian hackers in the media. Hardly evidence that he's in bed with the Russians.

Other examples included tweets Trump has written in the past few years, praising Putin as a strong leader and calling contrast between his leadership style and both Obama and Bush's. The article calls to attention that Trump seems to contradict himself with his praise of Putin's NYT Op-Ed, which mocked American exceptionalism. Not in the traditional meaning of the word, but with regards to America's deeds, mannerisms, and the way in which our government functions and conducts itself. "American exceptionalism," the article says, is "the very principle on which Trump has built his entire campaign." This would be a pretty damning testament to Trump's tendency toward hypocrisy, if it weren't grossly inaccurate.

In fact, if I might take a second to address this shining example of poor journalism, anyone who's been paying attention sees that it's abundantly clear that the Trump campaign has been focused on exactly the opposite; the retrieval of lost American exceptionalism. He often blasts the military, veterans affairs, healthcare, infrastructure, and our institutional leaders as weak and ineffective.This is most evident in his very own campaign slogan, "Make American Great Again." Obviously, this slogan carries a clear implication; that America was once great, but no longer is, which is the polar opposite of American exceptionalism in the context that this article was addressing.

But I digress. You might be asking, "but what about Trump's praise for Vladamir Putin? That was real, we have the tweets!" Sure. Granted. We do have tweets from Trump himself that praise Putin's leadership skills by contrasting his "tough" style with what Trump believes is the weakness that our own leaders have displayed. Is that concerning, given Putin's history of oppressive, and some would say corrupt, governance? Plenty would say so, and I would be inclined to agree.

But how on Earth could anyone reasonably stretch a few kind words of praise on Twitter to implicate the Russian government in a plot to influence the election and get Trump elected to office? How could it be used to implicate Trump in some kind of conspiracy of collusion with Russians to "sabotage" the DNC and Hillary's campaign? Trump didn't write those emails, nor did the "Russian hackers" that were supposedly responsible for this. That's what everyone seems to be forgetting, here.

In a more convincing, yet still in my opinion totally speculative and presumptive, article from Sacramento Bee writers Eric Tucker and Ted Bridis, the duo addresses the evidence amassed thus far that would implicate Russia in the attack. Let's examine.

The basis of all of this evidence implicating Russian officials seems to come from claims made by a private security firm called Crowdstrike Services Incorporated, which the DNC hired in April to investigate the hacks. According to Crowdstrike, there were two separate attacks which took place, apparently at the hands of two Russian groups, called Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear. Why were these two groups implicated? Because apparently, the "methods" used to distribute the files were similar to the two groups' past methods.

To extrapolate further on this supposed evidence, Crowdstrike partner Threatconnect analyzed the logs for the IP addresses associated with a suspicious domain name related to the hack, called misdepatrment[.]com (no, you read that right). Threatconnect claims that the IP address at which the domain was parked was the same IP as the known Fancy Bear command and control address.

Now, I don't know about you guys, but I have a very hard time believing that an organization like Fancy Bear, which is described by Crowdstike itself as being a highly sophisticated and well-equipped "adversary," would be so incredibly stupid as to park that domain name at their own IP address, especially when the US government already knows that there may be ties between Fancy Bear and the Russian government. Does that strike anyone else as an oddly childish oversight by such a complex organization who would obviously not want to implicate itself in the attack?

Other, than Fancy Bear, sources alternatively implicate a lone hacker who goes by the pseudonym, Guccifer 2.0, an homage to a previous hacker known as Guccifer, who claimed personal responsibility for the leaks. Crowdstrike has written this off as "Russian propaganda" designed to draw attention away from the real culprit, but admitted that their only evidence of this claim was an interview between the hacker and Motherboard, who claimed that the hacker's Romanian, the language of his/her claimed country of origin, was shoddy.

So since this is quite a bit of technical information at once, let's review. A private security group that the DNC itself hired, is claiming that they have evidence that two groups connected to the Russian government are behind the attacks. Their primary clues are a domain name parked at the Fancy Bear IP address, a "similarity" between the method of distribution to the media used here, and used by these groups in the past, and another "similarity" between this hack's methodology and the methodology used by the group Fancy Bear in earlier attacks, essentially that they were a common form of phishing attack. This, too, struck me as an odd thing to call "proof"; considering that a fake, google mail account-based phishing scam is such a common method of hacking office emails.

This same organization is claiming that it can't possibly be the lone hacker Guccifer 2.0, who has claimed responsibility, because in an interview with an independant, tech-based website, his Romanian appeared not to be very good. Instead, the conclusion of Crowdstike seems to be that Guccifer 2.0 must be a Russian scapegoat.

Sorry, folks, but this simply isn't enough, by any stretch of the imagination, to implicate the Russian government in trying to influence the election in favor of Trump. Maybe it was hacker groups Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, or maybe it was Guccifer 2.0 the pseudo-Romanian, lone wolf hacker.

The left-leaning media would love for you to get lost in the seemingly complex hacker-jargon and forget to fact check these things for yourself, but that's why I'm here. The point I'm trying to make is, we do not have a case for pointing fingers yet. We simply need to wait for an independent government analysis, from a group that wasn't directly hired by the DNC, before we draw such conspiratorial conclusions, regardless of how you may feel about Trump.

A Diversion From The Real Issue

What strikes me as the slimiest thing about this new push is that it was clearly designed to distract us from the actual scandal that these hacks exposed. Not to mention, Hillary's almost instantaneous appointment of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to a chairwoman position in Hillary's campaign, a move seen by many as an inexpiable display of political illiteracy. Let's be honest, here; this is a distraction.

It's a diversionary piece of rhetoric that plays perfectly on an older generation's lingering, "red scare" fear of Russia, and a younger generation's hatred of Donald Trump, not to mention their total willingness to implicate him in any and all things for which there may be even a shred of evidence. It's pretty clear that the pro-Clinton publications and TV news networks want to distract angry pro-Bernie progressives and left leaning independents and get them to rally against Trump, the evil, racist Russia-lover.

And even if Russian hackers were actually responsible for the hack, all that they actually did was expose a scandal that we wouldn't have known about otherwise. Russia didn't write those emails. Trump didn't write those emails. Is it really "unfairly influencing an election" simply to expose the DNC unfairly influencing the election? Does no one at CNN see the irony, here?

If Russia is responsible, which I would consider to be the basic necessary foundation of this new mainstream conspiracy about Trump and Russia, it still wouldn't lend any more legitimacy to the claims that Trump is in cahoots with Russia's government, or even that Russia wants him elected. Maybe Russia didn't hack the RNC emails because the RNC wasn't under suspicion of unfairly influencing an election and subverting the democratic process to push a pre-selected candidate. As I recall, actually, the RNC leaders despised Trump, along with most of the Republican establishment, right up to the day he became the presumptive nominee.

Please, Bernie lovers, don't be fooled by this latest shiny-object attempt to draw attention away from the real issue here. The DNC, the official leaders of the party you belong to, actively worked to undermine your voices and your candidate, and in fact the entire democratic process. They broke the rules, and nobody was punished. Nobody was fired, Hillary is still being shoved down your throats as the only option you have to prevent Trump, and the only person who opted to step down was subsequently hired by the candidate who worked with the DNC to elbow her way into the nominee position that otherwise, she might not have had.