In the spring of 2016, the Russians hacked the DNC and released emails through Wikileaks that showed the DNC had rigged the primaries to favor Clinton over Sanders. As a result, the DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned in disgrace and did not even attend the 2016 Democrat convention. Later, the emails of John Podesta who headed the Clinton campaign were released by Wikileaks during the campaign. The Democrats say this was Russian interference in our election designed to help Donald Trump win. There also were supposedly about $150,000 in ads on Facebook that the Russians took out to favor Trump, but no one seriously thought that these made any difference. Just think of the more than one billion dollars Mike Bloomberg spent in a few months during the primaries only to lose in disastrous fashion. Nope, the entire basis for the claims of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign was the hack by the Russians of the DNC computers in 2016. But here's the big news of the day: according to secret testimony to Congress that is only now being disclosed, there is NO EVIDENCE THAT RUSSIA HACKED THE DNC. The head of the Crowdstrike, the company that examined the DNC computers, found no evidence that the Russians had taken the emails.
Let me make that extremely clear. THE ENTIRE BASIS OF FOR CLAIMS OF TRUMP/RUSSIA COLLUSION WAS UNTRUE, FALSE, PHONY, A LIE!
It has always been mysterious (at best) and highly suspicious (at worst) that the FBI never got to examine the computer systems of the DNC to look for evidence of the Russian hackers. Instead, the FBI under Comey "accepted" the findings of the DNC's computer experts, a company called Crowdstrike, that the Russians had hacked the computers. The criminal investigators just took the word of someone else. It's the rough equivalent of the FBI investigating a murder and being told by the victim's family that they had an "expert" on their payroll examine the murder weapon and conclude that it indicated that the killer was some particular person (who they also happened, coincidentally, not to like very much.) This was always a major weakness in the case but it got very little coverage. If you remember the mantra in 2017, whenever anyone questioned if it had been the Russians who hacked the DNC, the media and the Democrats rushed in to tell us that "17 intelligence agencies have all concluded that it was the Russians who had hacked the DNC." Now, that claim was not even close to being true, but it was made over and over again.
The Russians hacked the DNC remained at the core of the whole Trump/Russia collusion narrative. It has resurfaced with a vengeance many times. Robert Mueller's report which found no evidence of Trump/Russia collusion still repeated the conclusion of Crowdstrike that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC. Of course, Mueller did not explain why the FBI just accepted the word of Crowdstrike rather than doing its own review. Then again last year, when President Trump asked the help of the new president of Ukraine to investigate whether there was any involvement by Ukrainians in the hacking of the DNC in 2016 in his famous phone call (that led to impeachment), the media and the Democrats discounted that as a real reason for Trumps request because, as we all know, 17 intelligence agencies (none of whom had ever seen the computer or the evidence) concluded that the Russians had hacked the DNC.
Well now the secret testimony given by Shawn Henry, the president of Crowdstrike to Congress in 2017 has been released. Henry says, under oath, that "we just don’t have the evidence that says it [the emails] actually left." He went on to say that at best "there is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network".
Put another way, what Henry is saying is that they found that someone had set up to data so that it could be taken off the network. There's no proof, however, that Russians or anyone else took it. Of course, Wikileaks ended up with the emails and released them, so someone took them. But Crowdstrike has no evidence that the Russians took them.
Think about that. Data (emails) from the DNC gets taken and released through Wikileaks to the public. That data shows that the DNC was improperly pushing the nomination towards Hillary Clinton and away from Bernie Sanders. The FBI gets denied access to the computers by the DNC and neither the head of the FBI (Comey) nor the Attorney General (Lynch) nor the president (Obama) asks a court for a warrant ordering the DNC to make the computers available to FBI experts. That's strange enough, but the DNC then brings in its own "expert" Crowdstrike who conveniently concludes that the DNC was hacked by the Russians even though there's no evidence that anyone, including the Russians, actually hacked the DNC system. The head of Crowdstrike confirms this in a secret testimony but Mueller, the media and the whole Democrat establishment continue to scream about the Russians and their supposed collusion with the Trump campaign for years after that.
This is the single most amazing bit of testimony I can ever remember hearing.
Let me make that extremely clear. THE ENTIRE BASIS OF FOR CLAIMS OF TRUMP/RUSSIA COLLUSION WAS UNTRUE, FALSE, PHONY, A LIE!
It has always been mysterious (at best) and highly suspicious (at worst) that the FBI never got to examine the computer systems of the DNC to look for evidence of the Russian hackers. Instead, the FBI under Comey "accepted" the findings of the DNC's computer experts, a company called Crowdstrike, that the Russians had hacked the computers. The criminal investigators just took the word of someone else. It's the rough equivalent of the FBI investigating a murder and being told by the victim's family that they had an "expert" on their payroll examine the murder weapon and conclude that it indicated that the killer was some particular person (who they also happened, coincidentally, not to like very much.) This was always a major weakness in the case but it got very little coverage. If you remember the mantra in 2017, whenever anyone questioned if it had been the Russians who hacked the DNC, the media and the Democrats rushed in to tell us that "17 intelligence agencies have all concluded that it was the Russians who had hacked the DNC." Now, that claim was not even close to being true, but it was made over and over again.
The Russians hacked the DNC remained at the core of the whole Trump/Russia collusion narrative. It has resurfaced with a vengeance many times. Robert Mueller's report which found no evidence of Trump/Russia collusion still repeated the conclusion of Crowdstrike that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC. Of course, Mueller did not explain why the FBI just accepted the word of Crowdstrike rather than doing its own review. Then again last year, when President Trump asked the help of the new president of Ukraine to investigate whether there was any involvement by Ukrainians in the hacking of the DNC in 2016 in his famous phone call (that led to impeachment), the media and the Democrats discounted that as a real reason for Trumps request because, as we all know, 17 intelligence agencies (none of whom had ever seen the computer or the evidence) concluded that the Russians had hacked the DNC.
Well now the secret testimony given by Shawn Henry, the president of Crowdstrike to Congress in 2017 has been released. Henry says, under oath, that "we just don’t have the evidence that says it [the emails] actually left." He went on to say that at best "there is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network".
Put another way, what Henry is saying is that they found that someone had set up to data so that it could be taken off the network. There's no proof, however, that Russians or anyone else took it. Of course, Wikileaks ended up with the emails and released them, so someone took them. But Crowdstrike has no evidence that the Russians took them.
Think about that. Data (emails) from the DNC gets taken and released through Wikileaks to the public. That data shows that the DNC was improperly pushing the nomination towards Hillary Clinton and away from Bernie Sanders. The FBI gets denied access to the computers by the DNC and neither the head of the FBI (Comey) nor the Attorney General (Lynch) nor the president (Obama) asks a court for a warrant ordering the DNC to make the computers available to FBI experts. That's strange enough, but the DNC then brings in its own "expert" Crowdstrike who conveniently concludes that the DNC was hacked by the Russians even though there's no evidence that anyone, including the Russians, actually hacked the DNC system. The head of Crowdstrike confirms this in a secret testimony but Mueller, the media and the whole Democrat establishment continue to scream about the Russians and their supposed collusion with the Trump campaign for years after that.
This is the single most amazing bit of testimony I can ever remember hearing.
No comments:
Post a Comment