"...When you try to sow the seeds of doubt in people's minds about the legitimacy of our elections, that undermines our democracy. Then you’re doing the work of our adversaries for them. Because our democracy depends on people knowing that their vote matters, that those who occupy the seats of power were chosen by the people.” -President Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States of America

Let me be blunt, the statement above is purely indicative of Washington politics, especially because the current president's actions seem to indicate that he doesn't really believe what he said months earlier.

It is rather interesting how when Donald Trump suggested the possibility of a "rigged" election, due to the WikiLeaks email dumps from the DNC and Clinton Campaign chief operative John Podesta late last year that revealed the Clinton campaign's collusion with the mainstream media; the rather undemocratic, underhanded Democratic nomination of Hillary Clinton over Senator Bernie Sanders (D) of Vermont and the political approach the Justice Department took in prosecuting Hillary Clinton for her criminal negligence in the handling of highly classified information over her private email server as Secretary of State (of which no indictment was passed), the left immediately eschewed him as propagating unjustified uncertainty in the legitimacy of the U.S. electoral process.

As of now, not only has the phrase "Russia hacked the election" become popularized, but it appears as though all the leaders of the left have seemed to play a direct role (and that's putting it mildly) in the furtherance of this conspiracy to explore every avenue to de-legitimize the electoral results.

With all the media jargon, I will not go too deep into analysis on the chronological timeline of these events but for arguments sake, I will present a brief summary: It began with Green Party candidate Jill Stein's attempts to raise millions of dollars to initiate vote recounts in some of the crucial battleground states that secured Donald Trump's victory on the basis of probable hacking.

After no evidence was found to that effect, the results were officially certified in each state, with the exception of Michigan, which instead revealed that more votes were cast for Hillary Clinton in the city of Detroit than there were voters. The White House put out a statement stating that no evidence of hacking had been discovered.

This attempt was coupled with violent riots and protests that erupted across the country in a wave of anti-Trump fanaticism, many of which were organized and fronted by the socialist business acolyte George Soros according to RT (see https://www.rt.com/usa/366579-soros-orgs-driving-t...). The left then proceeded to bring initiatives to do away with the electoral college; the same electoral college that gave President Obama two landslide victories in 2008 and 2012 and go strictly by the results of the popular vote.

Further, plans were set to influence the electoral college delegates to prevent them for voting for Donald Trump on December 19th whether by threats or by proselytization.

Finally, the New York Times broke a story from an "anonymous" source that Russia hacked the election (with no specific details released), which was immediately seized upon by the leaders of the political left like lions to a kill. Then began the wave of discrepancy that cast doubt on the claim. The director of the FBI James Comey then spoke in direct communication with Donald Trump that Russia had nothing to do with the election results ( http://townhall.com/columnists/edklein/2016/12/14/...). Loretta Lynch then released a statement clearly stating that there was no evidence of any kind of technical interference in the election (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/12/15/...).

Further still, Director of the CIA John Brennan then stated that there was a consensus amongst the intelligence agencies that Russia did indeed hack the election, but released nothing with regards to the manner in which they engaged in hacking, what exactly they had hacked or the source behind the original break to the New York Times.

As the conspiracy continued to unfold, the state results of the election were deemed "certified" by their respective election commissions, eliminating the possibility of any technical hacking that could have changed votes, with the exception of states that only use paper ballots like Michigan.

With this solidarity, the FBI and CIA then released a thirteen page report detailing how WikiLeaks managed to get a hold of the information incriminating Hillary Clinton in numerous scandals and then leak them to the general internet.

The report indicated that Russia hacked the DNC and John Podesta's email account and gave the information to WikiLeaks, although Julian Assange, the founder, denies any Russian involvement. The report itself doesn't indicate anything about specific election interference, the Democratic National Committee, John Podesta or anything that influenced the results for the sole purpose of helping Donald Trump.

The "hacking", specifically, came from a phishing scam which requires computer users to enter information before such computerized infiltration could take place.

According to ARS Technica, "The 13-page report, which was jointly published Thursday by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, billed itself as an indictment of sorts that would finally lay out the intelligence community's case that Russian government operatives carried out hacks on the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Clinton Campaign Chief john Podesta and leaked much of the resulting material.

While security companies in the private sector have said for months the hacking campaign was the work of people working for the Russian government, anonymous people tied to the leaks have claimed they are lone wolves. Many independent security experts said there was little way to know the true origins of the attacks...The doubts raised by Lee, Graham, and Carr (security experts) underscore the difficulty members of the US intelligence community face when taking findings out of the highly secretive channels they normally populate and putting them into the public domain. Indeed, the Joint Analysis Report makes no mention of the Democratic party or even the Democratic National Committee.

The lack of specifics and vagueness about exactly how the DHS and FBI have determined Russian involvement in the hacks leaves the report sounding more like innuendo than a carefully crafted indictment."

It is rather odd when considering this that the Obama administration would attempt to go head over heels to try to prove that Russia hacked the election, in that it would completely compromise the legitimacy of the administration's national security efforts over the past 8 years.

If anything, the more the president presses this issue, the more it makes his commitment to cyber security and national defense seem extremely feckless. Further, it appears more as if the focus on Russian hacking seems more predicated on a preexisting pushback against the election results and a disdain that information regarding Clinton and her criminal violations were released. This premise is plausible, considering that the past years have yielded some of the worst cyber security failures in U.S. Intelligence, and the Obama administration has initiated huge sequester cuts over the years that have weakened our defenses; seemingly expressing no serious initiative to increase national security.

To name a few of the cyber security attacks we have endured recently:

- The Office of Personal Management was hacked in 2015 allegedly by the Chinese, releasing and compromising the records of 21+ million government employees (deemed as one of the worst cyber attacks in U.S. history).

-In 2013 Hillary Clinton was caught in a criminal scandal involving her use of a private email server to transmit highly classified information while Secretary of State, resulting in Russian hacking the server and gaining access to State Department information exposed in the emails. Analysts called the incident an atrocity and a severe intelligence breach.

- Over the past 4 years since 2015, the Department of Energy has been hacked over 150 times (The Hill).

- in April 2015, the White House computer systems were hacked, releasing sensitive information.

The left will immediately point out that Obama initiated the Cyber Security Action Plan, of which analysts have concluded has been nothing but feckless in seriously bulking up cyber defenses.

According to Investors Business Daily, "Obama promised shortly after he took office in 2009 that he would 'pursue a new comprehensive approach to securing America's digital infrastructure.' He said that "this new approach starts at the top" and that 'we will deter, prevent, detect, and defend against attacks.' He was right to make it a top priority, given the growing sophistication and determination of state-sponsored cyberattacks.

But as was so often the case in this administration, Obama never seriously followed up on that promise, and no one has held him accountable. On Obama's watch, the State Department was hacked, the White House was hacked, the Department of Energy was hacked, and the National Nuclear Security Administration was hacked. A Government Accountability Office report found that cyberattacks against government agencies climbed 35% between 2010 and 2013."

There is no excuse for this fecklessness, and it is shameful that the election, of which no conclusive evidence revealed evidence of Russian hacking, is what is spurring the administration to throw the "purse" at anybody they can. It seems as if the left is more upset about the information revealing the criminality and deceptiveness of Hillary Clinton being released than any foreign intelligence hacking anything, as the Clinton campaign declined to de-authenticate any of the released documents.

I release this question for thought, "Would the left rather the electorate not know what the hacked documents revealed about Hillary Clinton? Do not the voters have a right to know this information?"

It seems as if the left does not believe the voters had a right to know this information and would rather them remain oblivious.

Irrespective of the source for the WikiLeaks dumps, which the organization has vehemently denied it had anything to do with Russian involvement, the documents showed information that contradicted every single statement Clinton had made to the public regarding her positions, her email scandals, and her claims to protect American interests.

According to Craig Murray, a former U.K. Ambassador to Uzbekistan and confidante of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, released this statement:

" I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.

A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they 'know the individuals”'involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilize a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of 'We know who it was, it was the Russians' are beneath contempt.

As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.

The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of “Russia”, while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque."

Craig Murray raises an important point here. This attempt seems more like a divergence initiative to keep the public away from focusing on the actual material released by WikiLeaks, which severely incriminate Hillary Clinton in numerous scandals.

What the FBI-CIA report showed was what we already knew to have been occurring over the years with regards to our weak cyber-security firewalls, with the new addition of a phishing scandal to the DNC (which is not exactly hacking by definition), which in itself is extremely difficult to tie to Russia.

And still to this day, Obama has refused to lessen the burden of his sequester initiative and increase our defenses and cyber security. Obama in essence really doesn't mean what he says when he states that sowing seeds of doubt in our democratic process undermine democracy, because that is exactly what he is doing right now. The powers that be and the political establishment did not achieve their desire of having Clinton as the new president. Trump represents the antithesis to everything Washington stands for, which explains why there is such a rabid attempt by the left to deny him the Oval Office. This is just Washington D.C. politics, and in this game, everything is smoke and mirrors to sway the public opinion to their agendas. #EstablishmentPoliticsIsOver