The Left is on the rampage.  Already deeply afflicted with Trump-Derangement-Syndrome, the Left has convinced itself that Hillary Clinton lost the presidency due to Russia’s involvement in the election.  According to a poll from back in December, 52% of Democrats believe that Russia, in fact, hacked the vote count, thus ensuring a Trump victory.  That percentage is no doubt higher today.  But not only is there no evidence that Russia meddled with actual votes, the Department of Homeland Security has publicly stated that Russia did not target, let alone compromise, the vote tally.  It is telling that media outlets, such as the NYT, WashPo, and CNN, fail to mention this important piece of context in almost every discussion of the issue of the Russian involvement in the election.

A declassified intelligence report does state, without mentioning much in the way of sources, that Vladimir Putin ordered a “campaign” to influence the election for the primary purpose of “undermin[ing] public faith in the US democratic process.”  The report also states that Russia’s campaign favored Trump over Clinton.  Was Russia successful in this endeavor? It certainly didn’t think so.  When it appeared that Clinton would win, the report states that “the Russian influence campaign then focused on undermining her expected presidency.”

But was Russia wrong and is the Left correct, did Russia tilt the election in Trump’s favor? The great weight of the evidence says no.  The aforementioned intelligence report states that the Russian campaign mainly consisted of a propaganda effort.  In one case, that effort included a cyber attack targeting the DNC.  WikiLeaks, of course, disseminated those emails from the DNC to the public.  Importantly, the contents of the WikiLeaks emails were more or less a non-event.  Embarrassing in some cases, yes; revelatory of anything pertaining to Clinton personally, no.  The emails revealed the inner machinations of the DNC and did not include the much discussed Clinton emails from her private server.  The emails from the private server were released by our Department of State.  At worst, the WikiLeaks emails showed collusion between the DNC and the mainstream media, as well as old news about the DNC favoring Clinton over Bernie Sanders.  The other part of Russia’s campaign apparently involved using the Russian-funded RT television network and a cadre of “trolls.”  That’s it.  WikiLeaks, RT, and “trolls.”

Taking these efforts in reverse order, the report does not give any details about the so-called “trolls,” but presumably these were people paid to place negative comments about Clinton on social media.  The idea that “trolls” swung the election results — whether in isolation or in combination with other efforts — is simply fanciful.

Likewise, it strains credulity to believe that the coverage on the obscure RT television network contributed to Trump’s electoral win.  The Russian-backed television outfit has a relatively minuscule following in the U.S. — even the far Left website the Daily Beast has said so.  It’s an alternative “news” channel whose reporting is awash with conspiracy theories, such as 9/11 having been an “inside job.” As a niche, conspiracy-driven outlet, it necessarily appeals only to fringe groups who were already unlikely to support either mainstream candidate.  RT’s outreach to the fringes of our society should also be viewed through the overall news coverage that, despite the separate story about the private email server, was overwhelmingly pro-Clinton.  Newspaper endorsements were illustrative of the overall coverage.  Only two of the top 100 newspapers endorsed Trump.

Moreover, that Russia used RT to advance its preferences is not new.  The previously mentioned intelligence report (as well as numerous news reports) indicates that RT has been trying to influence U.S. opinion for years.  In 2012, its coverage of the election was decidedly anti-Romney.  To gauge Russia’s preference in that race, one needs only read the RT article  shortly after the election in which the Russian Prime Minister welcomed the news of Obama’s reelection and said “good riddance to ‘paranoid’ Romney.”  In the past, we did not, for good reason, launch criminal investigations into RT’s — or anyone else’s — biased reporting.

What was new in 2016 was the possible involvement of Russia in the hacking the DNC and releasing emails from that hack.  While this development may show an escalation in Russia’s ongoing involvement in U.S. politics, it is highly implausible that it impacted the election in any meaningful way.  Before the election, even the NYT reported that “[t]he American news media is wildly overplaying Russia’s role in a major email leak” involving the DNC.  After the election, the left-of-center FiveThirtyEight conducted an analysis of the impact of the leaked DNC emails.  It concluded that it did not cause Clinton to lose and that, at best, it was among the factors that might have led to her loss.  Even labeling it a factor is a stretch.  Exit polls from major news outlets, including the WashPo, show that voters had far more pressing issues in mind when they voted.  And an analysis of the exit polls by the WashPo found several reasons for Trump’s win, none of which had anything to do with WikiLeaks or the Russians.

In sum, it is highly unlikely that Russia impacted the election.  This, however, has not stopped the Left from embarking on a baseless witch-hunt over the Russia issue.  Ironically, it is they, and not Trump, who are now conspiring to help Putin achieve what Russia could not do on its own.  By virtue of their incessant calls for resignations and investigations, the Left is doing its best to undermine our political system.