This is going to take a little time, so please try to bear with me…

POINT ONE: WE'VE SEEN NO EVIDENCE

Whether the following story is true or not, I cannot say. But it’s a good one… Once upon a time, Houdini was performing at an outdoor stadium when he walked out on stage with a living, breathing African elephant. He promised the full-capacity crowd that "Before your very eyes!" he would make the elephant disappear.

As we all know, magicians like to put on a show, and that is exactly what Houdini did. While the enraptured audience waited for the impossible, Houdini lit off some spectacular fireworks and then brought out the dancing girls. And when it was all over -- gasp! -- the elephant had disappeared.

Not really.

While everyone was distracted, the stage manager came out and calmly walked the elephant backstage.

Which brings me to the Intelligence Community's (IC) Friday presentation of their oh-so important findings into the Russians "meddling" into our presidential election.

Did you see all those fireworks?

Good heavens, the sky was lit up with hearings, testimony, witnesses, reports, statements, affidavits, appraisals, and a whole bunch of assessments that in any number of ways confirmed, corroborated, verified and validated all the information and documentation attached to the investigations into the substantiations, evaluations, affirmations, citations, examinations, and denunciations.

Then the dancing girls arrived… Only these dancing girls were nothing like Houdini's dancing girls. These were slutty, smutty, easy, indecent, dirty, dancing girls -- or what we call the National Media. And right on cue, out they came, all performing the exact same song and dance in perfect unison. You couldn't tell one from the other, because they are all alike, especially in the Department of Not Thinking.

And when the show was over, the audience was so awed, no one noticed one itsy-bity, teeny-tiny little fact: that we were given absolutely "no information about how the agencies had collected their data or come to their conclusions."

That's not my belief, by the way, that is the conclusion of the left-wing/Trump-hating New York Times, and you can bet they buried that important nugget under four paragraphs of Defcon 1 freak-out over a…

…damning and surprisingly detailed account of Russia’s efforts to undermine the American electoral system and Mrs. Clinton in particular, went on to assess that Mr. Putin had “aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.”

Okay, whatever, but we were given no evidence.

None. Zippo. Nada.

That might not matter to you.

It matters to me.

Regardless, I am now being told that I am supposed to believe the IC, that all good Americans are supposed to believe the same IC that missed Pearl Harbor, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of the Berlin Wall, 9/11, Saddam's WMD; the same IC that committed perjury in front of the entire world and secretly leaked information from Friday's report to three news outlets openly hostile to Trump: The New York Times, The Washington Post, and NBC News.

And you can bet the house that across the land the pressure is now on to … believe in the approved way. 

On Sunday, CNN's Jake Tapper practically threw a valve when Trump surrogate Kellyanne Conway referred to the Russian hack of emails belonging to the Democrat National Committee and top Clintonista John Podesta, as "alleged" (she later said that was not what she meant).

Hey, just because Jake Tapper publicly and proudly insists on being a Government Stooge, that doesn't mean I am going to let him or anyone bully me into turning off my brain and ability to reason. There is no Club I want to belong to that badly.  

But as an olive branch, let me say the following: anytime the incompetent, dishonest and highly politicized IC wants to cough up some actual evidence, me and my open mind are not hard to find.

 In the meantime, because I believe in facts and reason, screw you, I'm sticking with ALLEGED.

POINT TWO: THERE WAS NO FREAK-OUT OVER PREVIOUS, MUCH MORE SERIOUS HACKS

Since 2008, the Chinese have hacked the 2008 election (hey, I'm just using the recently approved language), the office of Senator Bill Nelson, Lockheed Martin, and through something called Ghostnet, "penetrated more than 1200 systems in 103 countries."

Also, according to the Fiscal Times (earlier this year):

Just last year, Russian hackers attacked the State Department email system in what was called the “worst ever” cyberattack against a federal agency, and the Office of Personnel Management reported that 5.6 million Americans’ fingerprints were stolen as part of another malicious attack. The Department of Veterans affairs thwarted 1 billion cyber threats. And last week, hackers invited by the government found 138 security flaws on five Pentagon websites. …

Eighteen agencies identified as having “high-impact systems” — those that hold information that, if lost, could cause “catastrophic harm” to individuals, the government or the country — said that cyberattacks from other nations (think China and Russia, for example) are the most serious and most common threat they see. Phishing was the most frequent type of attack, and email was the most frequent vehicle. “During fiscal year 2014, 11 of the 18 agencies reported 2,267 incidents affecting their high-impact systems, with almost 500 of the incidents involving the installation of malicious code,” the report says.

Here's even more, including cyber-attacks on the White House, the FAA, the IRS and the Army.

In summation: since Obama became president, the Defense Department, State Department, White House, FAA, and OPM have been attacked or outright infiltrated by foreign hackers.

QUESTION: Am I going out on a limb stating that the above hacks are objectively more serious, dangerous, and consequential than some emails from the DNC and John Podesta?

Let me phrase it this way…

Given a choice between the Russians hacking the FAA, the White House, the Department of Defense OR emails written by a bunch of political hacks, which would you choose? Which is more alarming? Which keeps you up nights?

Basically, we live in a country where Democrats, their mainstream media, and the IC, save their biggest freak-out (there isn't even a close second place) -- not for attacks on the White House, FAA, State Department, or Department of Defense -- but rather over emails written by Democrats.

POINT THREE: THE HACKED EMAILS TOLD THE TRUTH

Even if the Russians were involved in the DNC/Podesta hacks, what was the "terrible" consequence, what was done with those emails?

Only one thing: Without being manipulated in any way, they were released to the American public through WikiLeaks

In other words, Americans were not just given the truth, but in the run-up to a consequential presidential election, we were told the unfiltered, unedited, un-spun truth about two incredibly powerful institutions desperate to grab the levers of American power. 

CONCLUSION

Our government and our media are so desperate to control us, that no one's hair started on fire over legitimately dangerous cyber-attacks, until…

Americans were told the truth about their media and their government.

And look at the language these lying fascists are using: Hacking the election. Hacking democracy. Interfering with our electoral process. Manipulating the vote.

What nonsense.

Whether the Russians hacked us or not, watch the elephant, because here's the bottom line…

Using outright lies, half-truths and hyperbolic disinformation, our media and our government are trying to manipulate us into believing that it is poisonous to our democracy when…

We learn the truth.

 

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC