Monday, July 10, 2017

Update on DNC Hacking and Loretta Lynch

Hardware sitting at the Democrat National Committee (DNC) contained the emails that were stolen and subsequently shared with WikiLeaks.  

WikiLeaks claims a DNC insider handed the files to a WikiLeaks representative. 

A WikiLeaks representative stated he was the person who was handed the stolen information in Washington DC, I assume on  a flash drive or memory card.

The DNC has never allowed anyone in the Obama Administration to examine their server -- I've mentioned that here many times.

The DNC is now completely refusing to cooperate with the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and Robert Mueller's independent investigation.  

Cyber security firm CrowdStrike, headed by Russians who hated Putin, is the only organization the DNC to inspect their email server.

That inspection which quickly resulted in the very 'convenient' conclusion that Russia hacked the DNC.

Minimal details supporting that conclusion were ever revealed to Obama Administration authorities.

The key piece of forensic evidence in Russia’s suspected efforts to sway the November presidential election has only been seen by CrowdStrike, the Irvine, California-based private company that the DNC hired to investigate the hack.

Critics say CrowdStrike’s evidence for blaming Russia for the hack is thin. 

The server is a key “witness” in the political scandal, yet remains beyond the reach of all investigators not hired by the DNC.

CrowdStrike is the very same 'cyber security' firm that attributed the huge Sony hack to North Korea...

That 'hack' was subsequently revealed to have been perpetrated by a Sony insider.

Crowdstrike's Mr. Alperovitch is also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank focused on international issues that is partially funded by Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, who reportedly has donated at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Late last year the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a respected British think tank, disputed CrowdStrike’s analysis of a Russian hack during Ukraine’s war with Russian-backed separatists. 

CrowdStrike later revised and retracted portions of its analysis.

Can you say to the American people, unequivocally, that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails, can you tell the American people 1,000 percent that you did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia?

Yes. We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party... Obama is trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate President.

Both Republicans and Democrats say the DNC’s reaction to the hacking is troubling.

Jeh Johnson, Homeland Security Secretary under President Obama, told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence last month that his department offered to assist the DNC during the campaign to determine what was happening, but was rebuffed:

    “The DNC did not feel it needed DHS’ assistance at that time. I was anxious to know whether or not our folks were in there, and the response I got was the FBI had spoken to them, they don’t want our help, they have CrowdStrike.”

In January, FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that the FBI issued “multiple requests at different levels” to assist the DNC with a cyber forensic analysis. Those requests were also denied.

If the DNC has the only evidence that could prove Russians hacked their servers, and attempted to undermine the campaign of Hillary Clinton, why not share that evidence with Obama Administration or Trump Administration or independent council Robert Mueller investigators?

Might it have something to do with this "purely coincidental' meeting oBill Clinton - Loretta Lynch meeting on the tarmac in Phoenix ... and/or Loretta Lynch's 'assurances' that the FBI's investigation (or, "matter") of Hillary Clinton "wouldn't go too far." 

According to an article in the New York Post, some testimony that Loretta Lynch offered under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year could come back to haunt her.  

Lynch said that she had "not spoken to anyone on either the campaign or transition or any staff members affiliated with them."

That statement seems to contradict reports that Lynch personally assured members of Clinton's campaign, potentially Amanda Renteria, that the FBI's investigation "wouldn't go too far".

The Senate Judiciary Committee launched a bipartisan investigation into Lynch for possible obstruction of justice, recently learned of the existence of a document indicating Lynch assured the political director of Clinton’s campaign she wouldn’t let FBI agents “go too far” in probing the former secretary of state.

Renteria, who has been identified in the document as the senior Clinton campaign aide with whom Lynch privately communicated, has also been asked to testify.

And then there is that inconvenient Comey testimony in which the former FBI director says that he was instructed by Lynch to refer to the Clinton investigation as a "matter" rather than what it actually was, an investigation. 

The Post points out new developments which would suggest that Comey confronted Lynch about her alleged communication with Amanda Renteria and was promptly asked to leave her office.

Why did she reportedly ask former FBI Director James Comey to leave her office when he confronted her with a document?

And then there is that Loretta Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton on that Phoenix tarmac, that just happened to get noticed by a local reporter, who just happened to be on scene.

The Clinton destruction of over 60,000 emails, after ordered preserved by a Congressional subpoena, was handled by a fake FBI investigation that included multiple people being offered immunity for nothing in return, and numerous federal crimes committed by Hillary Clinton, and several people on her staff, for which not one person received even a slap on the wrist.