Over the past several days, Democratic operatives like Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chair John Podesta, with the aid of anonymous “official sources,” have been “peddling conspiracy theories that Russians successfully hacked the election to make Donald Trump the next president.” This narrative has been loyally parroted by the liberal press, with the admittedly-biased New York Times asserting that U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and to boost Trump.
The Washington Post similarly claimed that the CIA has made “a secret assessment” that Russia intervened to help Trump win the presidency, based on undisclosed sources in the government who conveniently happen to be leaking information to the media that President Obama and Clinton supporters now want electors to hear.
On the one hand, it would be easy to dismiss these uncorroborated and suspiciously-timed allegations as scapegoating, at best, or, at worst, a “disgraceful” disinformation campaign waged by anonymous U.S. intelligence officials seeking to pervert the electoral process and undermine the incoming President-elect. After all, in the wake of Hillary’s crushing defeat, disgruntled liberals have made death threats against Republican electors and have offered up an endless stream of excuses on behalf of their horrible candidate.
Instead of focusing on “her policy positions, or her numerous lies, corruption scandals and unlikeability,” Democrats like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, along with their confederates in the media, have blamed Hillary’s defeat on racism, misogyny, white women’s “self-loathing,” the FBI, “fake news,” etc. Virtually everyone and anything under the sun has been blamed except for Hillary herself since she was “heroic.” Accordingly, it would not be surprising if “the Russians did it” narrative currently emanating from “sore loser liberals” is just another desperate excuse.
On the other hand, if there is merit to the serious allegations made against Russia, it is curious that the liberals advancing this theory have failed to ask an obvious question. How is it that, under President Obama’s watch, a foreign government for the first time in history has been able to successfully interfere with an American presidential election?
Significantly, Democrats like Congressman Elijah Cummings have claimed that there is “clear evidence the election interference was directed by ‘the highest levels of the Russian government,’” and have compared the hacks to the deadliest terror attack in American history, striking “the soul of our democracy.” According to the Times, the Russian attack was “the first significant information-warfare campaign ever conducted by a foreign power to disrupt a presidential campaign.” If liberals truly believe these claims, why have they fixated on Trump instead of holding the Obama Administration—which is responsible for keeping the American public safe and protecting the integrity of our election system—accountable for this devastating blow?
If liberals’ accusations against the Russian government are correct, this would sadly confirm the foresight of those critics who sensed that Obama would be a 21st century Jimmy Carter causing foreign nations to lose respect for the U.S. while presiding over a massive decline in American global power.
After eight years of Obama, the nation is “more divided than ever” before in modern times. The successful Russian attack, if true, would confirm that Obama’s legacy also includes leaving the nation more vulnerable than it has ever been. This would be the predictable and inevitable result of foreign nations sensing weakness in the indecisive President, which has led Russia to manhandle his Administration when it comes to the Crimea, with Putin, the Ayatollah, and dictator Bashar-al-Assad each mocking Obama on a daily basis in Syria—all while “the American president effectively whin[es] about the persistence of a regime he had denounced as monstrous.”
Even his own Secretary of State has admitted that Obama’s failure to honor his “red line” pledge against the Syrian tyrant had “cost” the U.S. “significantly” in terms of a damaged reputation. Given the President’s demonstrated inability to act decisively when confronted with complex situations—like a quarterback who freezes when faced with unfamiliar blitzing and zone schemes—foreign powers like China and Russia have become emboldened to act at our expense.
So, while it is likely true that liberals are simply making excuses when they accuse Russia of intervening in our election, if their claims have merit, Congress, in the interest of accountability, should demand a blue-ribbon panel to determine how and why Obama and his intelligence czars failed to protect us from the most significant and embarrassing act of cyber terrorism ever directed against our country. This investigation should also assess what role Obama’s foreign policy of apologizing for America and “leading from behind” has played in encouraging foreign governments to humiliate and disrespect the U.S. in ways not seen since the Iran hostage affair so that future leaders do not repeat the current President’s missteps and blunders.
Nick James is the nom de plume of a trial attorney in the D.C. area who formerly worked for the United States Department of Justice as an award-winning federal prosecutor.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.