Liberals are having a really hard time digesting the electoral beat down that Trump served up to Hillary Clinton earlier this week.

They have come up with many interesting excuses but they seem to really like blaming Russia for interfering in the election.

Joel Pollak, like he often does, beautifully laid out some of the major flaws in the liberal argument.

Here are the top 5 reasons why it isn’t accurate to definitively say Russia interfered in our election process.

From Breitbart:

There is actually no new information leading the CIA to its conclusion. The New York Timesreports: “The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome.” In other words, someone only decided after Trump won that the accusation was worth making.

The “evidence” that the CIA has gathered is inconclusive. The FBI also disagrees with some of the CIA’s conclusions about Russia’s motives. “While lawmakers were seemingly united on the need to present a strong bipartisan response, the FBI and CIA gave lawmakers differing accounts on Russia’s motives, according to The Post,” The Hillreported on Sunday.

Despite left-wing “fake news,” there is no evidence Russian hackers actually distorted the voting process. The most that the CIA is alleging is that the Russians may have helped hack of the Democratic National Committee emails, as well as (possibly) the emails of Hillary Clinton campaign chaiman John Podesta. There is zero evidence Russian hackers messed with voting. Ironically, Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s recount has eliminated any doubt about the integrity of the results.

Julian Assange and Wikileaks have vigorously denied that the Russians were involved in Wikileaks’ disclosures. Of the Democratic National Committee emails, Assange said: “That is the circumstantial evidence that some Russian, or someone who wanted to make them look like a Russian, was involved, with these other media organisations. That is not the case for the material that we released.” Assange made similar denials about the Podesta email leaks later in the election.

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1481811813211-2'); });

What would the consequences of allowing undue Russian influence in our elections be, exactly? Would we yield primacy in Eastern Europe to Vladimir Putin? Would we give up our plans for missile defense? Would we make deep unilateral cuts in our nuclear arsenal in exchange for flimsy concessions ? Would we tolerate a Russian land invasion of a friendly, pro-Western country? Would we cede the Middle East to Russian hegemony? Because Hillary Clinton and Obama already did that.

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1448050117784-4'); });

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1464204305408-1'); });

Isn’t it interesting how Democrats are failing to understand that the things we learned about the emails are way more important than how we got the emails?

The leaked emails showed us that Hillary Clinton and the party she represented were thoroughly corrupt.

That’s a huge problem.

That’s why she lost the election.

We may never find out who is responsible for the hacks but we definitely know who is responsible for what was in them.