So much of the Russia-Trump investigation/hoax began as a result of the hacking of the computer systems of the Democrat National Committee, that it is worth going back to look at that once again. We know that just prior to the Democrat Convention in 2016, Wikileaks released a big batch of emails sent and received by the DNC. These released emails showed that the DNC worked with Hillary Clinton's people to rig the primary/caucus contests against Bernie Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton. The emails also showed things like the DNC vice chair Donna Brazile feeding Hillary, in advance, the questions for an upcoming debate between Hillary and Bernie on CNN. The contents of the emails that were leaked were so explosive that DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was booed of the stage of a preliminary event and had to resign as Chair and skip the convention. After the convention, Wikileaks started releasing big batches of emails from the account of John Podesta, Hillary's campaign chair. The emails came day by day for a long period prior to the election. These email also disclosed some rather unsavory aspects of the Clinton campaign and certainly did not help Hillary in the election.
The response of the Clinton campaign and the DNC from the beginning of the email release was that this had been done by the Russians. For the most part, they ignored the tawdry, and perhaps illegal, activities that were disclosed and focused instead on who it was that did the hacking. This was the birth of the Russian interference narrative that later morphed into the Trump - Russia investigation. Supposedly, 17 intelligence agencies concluded that it was the Russians who had done the hacking.
The problem, of course, is that not a single intelligence agency, police force, or government entity of any sort ever had the chance to examine the DNC computer system to determine who had done the hacking. The DNC was asked to grant access to the FBI forensic personnel, but the DNC refused. To date, no one has ever explained what reason, if any, the DNC gave for that refusal. To date, no one has ever explained why the FBI didn't just seize the computers after getting a warrant to do so. To date, this has been a mystery of major proportions.
Instead of examining the DNC computer servers, the FBI agreed to accept the conclusions of an outside computer firm named CrowdStrike, hired by the lawyer for the Clinton campaign to investigate the source of the hacking. By the way, these are the same lawyers who hired Fusion GPS to create the phony Trump Dossier which also forms part of the basis for the Russia-Trump investigation. Crowd Strike, which was founded by a notorious anti-Russian activist, concluded that it was the Russians who hacked the email servers. No one else has ever had the chance to check the servers themselves.
The DNC says that it didn't give the servers to the FBI because no one requested access, but that is not true. Then FBI director Comey testified that the FBI made multiple requests for access, but that the DNC denied those requests.
So here we are, more than two years after the computer system at the DNC was supposedly hacked, and no one other than a firm beholden to the DNC has ever gotten to see the computers in question. Indeed, we don't even know if those computers still exist. They may have been destroyed just like Hillary's private email systems were.
There have been stories that appear periodically that the DNC wasn't really hacked. One that often appears is that a DNC staffer named Seth Rich down-loaded the material and gave it to Wikileaks. Rich was murdered in DC in strange circumstances shortly after the leaks began. This is most likely a conspiracy theory, but it still floats around out in cyberspace.
I wonder what Robert Mueller's team will say was the source of the hacking. It seems impossible that the Special Prosecutor could report on possible Russian interference with the elections without fully investigating whether or not the Russians hacked the DNC computers. Mueller, however, never got to see the computers either.
The lack of access to the computers for law enforcement is one of the strangest aspects of this entire subject. To put it in proper context, consider this: Late one night, the police get a 911 call that shots have been fired at a particular house. The cops rush to the scene and enter the house. They find a man lying dead in the living room. He has been shot to death. His wife is in the home and so is the wife's lawyer. The lawyer says that the wife called him after a thief broke into the home and shot the husband. The lawyer then says that he has given the gun that the thief used to a crime lab that he hired and the lab says that the prints on the gun belong to Joe Smith. The police ask to see the gun, but the lawyer and the wife refuse. The police then just accept what the crime lab that works for the wife and the lawyer report; the cops never get to see the gun. That's pretty much the same thing as what happened with the DNC computer systems.
It's bizarre.
The response of the Clinton campaign and the DNC from the beginning of the email release was that this had been done by the Russians. For the most part, they ignored the tawdry, and perhaps illegal, activities that were disclosed and focused instead on who it was that did the hacking. This was the birth of the Russian interference narrative that later morphed into the Trump - Russia investigation. Supposedly, 17 intelligence agencies concluded that it was the Russians who had done the hacking.
The problem, of course, is that not a single intelligence agency, police force, or government entity of any sort ever had the chance to examine the DNC computer system to determine who had done the hacking. The DNC was asked to grant access to the FBI forensic personnel, but the DNC refused. To date, no one has ever explained what reason, if any, the DNC gave for that refusal. To date, no one has ever explained why the FBI didn't just seize the computers after getting a warrant to do so. To date, this has been a mystery of major proportions.
Instead of examining the DNC computer servers, the FBI agreed to accept the conclusions of an outside computer firm named CrowdStrike, hired by the lawyer for the Clinton campaign to investigate the source of the hacking. By the way, these are the same lawyers who hired Fusion GPS to create the phony Trump Dossier which also forms part of the basis for the Russia-Trump investigation. Crowd Strike, which was founded by a notorious anti-Russian activist, concluded that it was the Russians who hacked the email servers. No one else has ever had the chance to check the servers themselves.
The DNC says that it didn't give the servers to the FBI because no one requested access, but that is not true. Then FBI director Comey testified that the FBI made multiple requests for access, but that the DNC denied those requests.
So here we are, more than two years after the computer system at the DNC was supposedly hacked, and no one other than a firm beholden to the DNC has ever gotten to see the computers in question. Indeed, we don't even know if those computers still exist. They may have been destroyed just like Hillary's private email systems were.
There have been stories that appear periodically that the DNC wasn't really hacked. One that often appears is that a DNC staffer named Seth Rich down-loaded the material and gave it to Wikileaks. Rich was murdered in DC in strange circumstances shortly after the leaks began. This is most likely a conspiracy theory, but it still floats around out in cyberspace.
I wonder what Robert Mueller's team will say was the source of the hacking. It seems impossible that the Special Prosecutor could report on possible Russian interference with the elections without fully investigating whether or not the Russians hacked the DNC computers. Mueller, however, never got to see the computers either.
The lack of access to the computers for law enforcement is one of the strangest aspects of this entire subject. To put it in proper context, consider this: Late one night, the police get a 911 call that shots have been fired at a particular house. The cops rush to the scene and enter the house. They find a man lying dead in the living room. He has been shot to death. His wife is in the home and so is the wife's lawyer. The lawyer says that the wife called him after a thief broke into the home and shot the husband. The lawyer then says that he has given the gun that the thief used to a crime lab that he hired and the lab says that the prints on the gun belong to Joe Smith. The police ask to see the gun, but the lawyer and the wife refuse. The police then just accept what the crime lab that works for the wife and the lawyer report; the cops never get to see the gun. That's pretty much the same thing as what happened with the DNC computer systems.
It's bizarre.
No comments:
Post a Comment