Liberals are all a twitter because the Russians supposedly “interfered” in the last election.

Even if we ignore the fact that the intelligence community is hardly of one opinion on this, and the fact that the voices the liberals are citing admit that there is no evidence that the Russian government, as opposed to hackers in Russia, are at fault, the whole liberal argument is both absurd and hypocritical.

What is the “interference” that the liberals are lamenting? It’s nothing more than the fact that unethical actions and/or embarrassing facts that Democrats were trying to hide were revealed.

The supposed “interference” didn’t contain any lies nor did it involve actually changing vote tallies -- unlike the impact of illegals voting. Instead the “interference” that liberals are so heatedly attacking consisted of informing voters of facts, such as the coordination between the media and the Democrat party, that were concealed by the media.

Essentially the “interference” that the liberals are so distraught about consisted of giving the American voter more facts on which to decide how to vote.

Liberals are saying it was “interference” for whoever did the hacking to reduce the ignorance of voters.

It’s not surprising that liberals want an ignorant electorate; that’s why the liberal media constantly lies and hides the truth. Like cockroaches, Democrats flee the light of truth. Liberals know that their agenda can never survive a close inspection by the voters because the voters don’t want to have their lives run by the bicoastal elites.

Liberals never bother to explain why American voters having more facts is a bad thing. They certainly thought that the last-minute reveal of a tape of Trump talking in a misogynistic way was a good thing. But if seeing Trump’s dirty laundry is good why is seeing Hillary’s bad?

Is it interference when the media digs up dirt on Republicans? Or are the liberals going to argue that so long as the people involved are U.S. citizens -- or possibly illegals -- it’s okay to dig up dirt? That would seem to contradict their open borders policy.

It’s time to point out that if the media had done their jobs there would have been no value to the WikiLeaks information. It was only because the media censored anything that was not supportive to the Democrat narrative that the WikiLeaks documents had such an impact on the campaign.

The simple reality is that liberals have no problem with hacking that hurts Republicans. Back in 1996 Democratic operatives illegally recorded a cell phone conversation involving key Republican leaders. Democrats were supportive of that illegally obtained conversation being made public.

Similarly, liberals have been enthusiastically supportive of the New York Times revealing, on multiple occasions, highly classified government programs. Liberals were also big fans of Snowden’s revealing secrets that put American lives at risk.

Essentially, the liberal’s rule has been that anything secret that is revealed is good as long as it doesn’t hurt the Democratic party. This shows that the liberal’s first loyalty is to their party, not to their country. Hurting American security is fine, but hurting Democrats’ chances of being elected is anathema.

Only a liberal could argue that the Russians revealing secrets that hurt Hillary is interference but Obama encouraging illegals -- i.e. foreigners -- to vote is not.

A sane person would think that non-citizens voting is a real example of foreign interference, yet liberals not only support that type of voter fraud -- by issuing drivers licenses to illegals, for example -- but they condemn anyone who is bothered by it.

Sadly, some conservatives are buying into the big liberal lie. That’s because those conservatives are familiar with the Russians' disinformation campaigns where lies are spread -- such as that the CIA developed AIDS to kill off blacks.

Clearly, if the Russians had released lies, bribed politicians, provided campaign funds, or hacked vote counts then there would be a basis to be concerned about interference, but none of those things happened.

We know that the supposedly “interfering” leaks are accurate and not lies.

There is no evidence that the Russians bribed Trump -- unlike the massive evidence that Clinton was bribed via her husband’s speaking fees or contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

There is no indication that the Russians illegally funded Trump -- in contrast to illegal foreign donations to the Clinton campaign and the recent recount showed that there is no evidence that the Russians hacked the vote counts.

Hence there is no indication that whoever leaked the data did anything that a reasonable person would consider to be interference.

We need to avoid letting the Democrats’ self-serving desire to censor any news that is bad for their party to define the narrative about “interference”.

Whoever was behind the leaks was simply doing the job the media refused to do, which can’t be considered interference.

When someone brings up the shibboleth of Russian “interference”, ask them how helping the American people know the truth is “interference”, but illegals voting and illegal foreign contributions to Hillary are not.

You can read more of tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter