Congressman [score]Trent Franks[/score] (R-AZ) was stunningly direct in a recent interview on MSNBC. Franks appeared on the network to discuss the ongoing “Russia hacking” story that seems to be getting a lot of coverage in the mainstream media, even though the evidence is flimsy while the partisanship seems heavy.
The show’s host tried to direct Franks down a dangerous path when asking him whether or not he trusted the intelligence assessments that were indicating that Russia was behind the DNC/Clinton campaign leaks. If Franks had answered affirmatively it would have indicated that Russia was behind the hacks and had tried to influence the election; if he answered negatively Franks could be painted as undermining the intelligence community. Instead of choosing either option presented by the MSNBC anchor, Franks used logic to unmask the media hypocrisy on their coverage of the issue and the Obama administration’s attempt to deflect criticism by complaining about Russia.
Watch and be amused:
Trending: 20 Trump Triumphs the Media Ignored!
I’m all for doing what’s necessary to protect the election here, but there’s no suggestion that Russia hacked into our voting systems or anything like that. If anything, whatever they may have done, was to try to use information in a way that may have affected something that they believe was in their best interest.
But the bottom line, if they succeeded – if Russia succeeded – in giving the American people information that was accurate, then they merely did what the media should have done.
His answer has been sparking apoplectic reactions in the media and on the left, but consider what he’s said. There is no evidence that Russia directly affected our election, what they are accused of is telling the American people the truth about the Democrat National Committee and about the Democrat candidate for president. This is what has the media so angry? That the American people knew too much truth about a candidate? Franks is 100% correct, if Russia was behind the leaks (and that’s a BIG “IF”), then they were simply doing the media’s job for them. A job the media seemed stubbornly set not to do.