By Tank Murdoch
(TNS) Michael Thau published an interesting column on Friday at American Greatness that deserves more attention for its central conclusion: That the premise behind the Democrats’ effort to impeach President Trump had more to do with covering up a story: The hack of the Democratic National Committee’s email server.
You may recall that during the lead-up to the nomination conventions in the summer of 2016 news broke that ‘someone’ had hacked the DNC’s servers, exposing embarrassing emails involving Hillary Clinton and John Podesta, her campaign manager.
- Check out â€œNixonâ€™s Scam 1971 â€“ 2019: Trumpâ€™s Brilliant on the National Debtâ€Â â€”Â download for FREE inÂ Crisis Reports
The story quickly became: The Russians hacked the server and they did it to help Donald Trump. We know this, DNC officials said, because the private cybersecurity firm the organization hired — Crowdstrike — said so.
All the ruckus Democrats raised over Trumpâ€™s concern about the Biden familyâ€™s wheeling and dealing in Ukraine turned out to be very useful in ways some Republicans are not calculating. It did, after all, make the rest of us forget theÂ otherÂ subject broached in that now historic chat with President Volodymyr Zelensky: the alleged Russian hack of the Democratic National Committeeâ€™s servers that weâ€™re all supposed to think netted the emails WikiLeaks published during the 2016 Democratic National Convention.
The Democratsâ€™ apparently self-destructive obsession allowed the media, once more, to distract from the crucial question on which the president keeps trying to focus our attention: Why did the DNC repeatedly reject FBI and Department of Homeland Security requests to examine their supposedly hacked machines?
Recall, as well, that one of the most underreported aspects of President Trump’s now infamous phone call last July with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was his mention of Crowdstrike — and, as Red State reminds us, the president never demanded anything, but merelyÂ asked for assistance:
I would like you to do usÂ a favorÂ though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they sayÂ CrowdStrike...I guess you have one of your wealthy peopleâ€¦The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think youâ€™re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, itâ€™s very important that you do it if thatâ€™s possible.
Back in September, conservative talk leader Rush Limbaugh was among the first to pick up on this aspect of the president’s phone call after the White House unexpected released the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky, a move that no doubt surprised Democrats and the president’s political opponents.
Limbaugh reminded his audience that the FBI had attempted to convince the DNC to let its own cyber forensic experts examine the DNC servers to see who was really behind the hack, but that DNC officials flat-out refused the offer:
And the FBI, as theyâ€™re leaving, finds out that the Democrat National Committee hired CrowdStrike. And it is their analysis and only their analysis, CrowdStrike, the only evidence that Russia hacked the DNC. Thatâ€™s all. And everybody has just assumed that the Russians were the guilty party only because the firm hired by the Democrats said so.
Crowdstrike, Limbaugh continued, was also the same cybersecurity firm that claimed Russia hacked a Ukrainian army artillery app that then resulted in heavy losses to Ukrainian troops, something Kiev said never occurred. But without getting too far into the weeds here, Limbaugh noted further:
Do you realize how convenient it was for them to be able to say that Russia hacked their server and then link Trump to Russia? The FBI never assumed that because they never got to investigate it. So the presence of CrowdStrike, Trump asking the president of Ukraine to look into CrowdStrike as well as Biden and his son.
Now, just a little bit more about CrowdStrike â€™cause I have paid attention, thereâ€™s not a single â€” I havenâ€™t seen a single report focus on CrowdStrike in this transcript. Now, I know why the Democrats are ignoring it. The Democrats are bent out of shape that Trump even knows about CrowdStrike. They think Trumpâ€™s an idiot. With Trump specifically zeroing in on CrowdStrike the Democrats have learned today, after reading that transcript, what Trump is really doing here.
Trump is soliciting assistance from allies all over the world to help Barr prove the scam run against him. Thatâ€™s whatâ€™s going on. Thatâ€™s what the Democrats have learned today with that word â€œCrowdStrikeâ€ being in the transcript. CrowdStrike, the founder of CrowdStrike is a Russian emigre who hates Putin with a purple passion. It seems to color CrowdStrikeâ€™s security work.
Thau notes that during congressional testimony in 2017, fired FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers the DNC rebuked the FBI when it insisted on examining the DNC’s servers. He also cites Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, whoÂ told lawmakers he should never have accepted the DNC’s Crowdstrike report at face value.
You know, in retrospect, it would be easy for me to say that I should have brought 8 a sleeping bag and camped out in front of the DNC in late summer, with the benefit of 9 hindsight. I can tell you for certain that in the late summer, fall, I was very concerned 10 about what I was seeing, and this was on my front burner all throughout the pre-election 11 period in August, September, October, and early November, to encourage the States to 12 come in and seek our assistance.Â
In the summer of 2016, directly ahead of the DNC’s convention, Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks began publishing the contents of the emails that were hacked from the Democratic Party’s servers, all of which were damaging to her, the party, and Podesta.
The narrative in the mainstream media quickly became: ‘Russia hacked the emails and leaked them to WikiLeaks to help Donald Trump.” That narrative carried into Trump’s presidency and culminated in the nearly two-year probe by special counsel Robert Mueller, who foundÂ no such evidence.
Neither Hillary Clinton nor any of her surrogates ever once challenged the authenticity of any of the emails WikiLeaks published. Instead, from the very beginning, her sole strategy was relentlessly hammering home the narrative that there was a Russian plot allegedly responsible for making them public.
Paying any attention to all the proof of her corruption and incompetence would be unpatriotic, Clinton warned, because the real threat was its publication in the first place. That was all part of a nefarious plot hatched by that arch-fiend Putin to throw the election to Trump. The real story here, we were told, is that the Kremlin attacked, not just her campaign, butÂ literallyÂ all of America on Trumpâ€™s behalf. AÂ New York TimesÂ headlineÂ published a few days after the DNC emails started dropping said it all: â€œDemocrats Allege D.N.C. Hack Is Part of Russian Effort to Elect Donald Trump.â€
“TheÂ TimesÂ supported Clintonâ€™s allegations by citing some unnamed â€œresearchersâ€ whoâ€™d claimed that ‘the D.N.C.â€™s server had been breached by Russian intelligence agencies.’ Besides not naming CrowdStrike, theÂ TimesÂ failed to mention that the ‘researchers’ it used to substantiate the Democratsâ€™ accusations were on the DNCâ€™s payroll,” he added.
But Clinton would need more than just an anonymous claim from an as-yet-unnamed cybersecurity firm that ‘Russia hacked the servers to help Trump.’ And, conveniently, she got it; Thau notes that the ever-compliant New York Times published a story in July 2016, amidst the hack and Assange’s public declaration that he was set to release the emails, with the headline: “Spy Agency Consensus Grows That Russia Hacked D.N.C.” The paper even managed to quote some anonymousÂ FBI agents, like, perhaps, some of the same ones who were already actively working to undermine Trump’s campaign via “Crossfire Hurricane,” a.k.a. “Spygate.”
Thau also pointed out that Clinton and her surrogates never once denied the authenticity of her corruption, spelled out plainly in her own words in her own emails. Rather, they simply all began shouting “Russia! Russia!” to take the heat off her corruption and incompetence, immediately making the story about something — and someone — else.
Plus, this: “Itâ€™s worth notingÂ Michael Flynn,Â Paul Manafort, andÂ Roger StoneÂ were the only establishment figures known to have pushed the idea that CrowdStrikeâ€™s story about Russia having hacked the DNC was complete nonsense. Flynn and Manafort were even trying to convince Trump.”
All three were caught up in the Mueller probe that, we recall, was set up via leaked memos from and by Comey, who admitted it under oath.
Thau concludes: “The FBIâ€™s investigation of CrowdStrikeâ€™s story accusing Russia of hacking the DNC servers was about as far from following legitimate procedures as it possibly could have been. Two plus two can never equal five, no matter how much those in power or the despicable jackals of the establishment press try to bully us into saying they can.”
- Get your Free Patriotic Trump Winter Beanie — click here!
The official narrative was challenged as far back as July 2017, via a meta-analysis by an independent cyber-forensics researcher.
A new report by a meta-analysis independent researcher suggests that files belonging to the Democratic National Committee and summarily published by Guccifer 2.0 were most likely downloadedÂ locallyÂ rather than being hacked, especially by someone from Russia, Disobedient MediaÂ reportedÂ Monday.
Carter was authored by an individual known as The Forensicator. The full document referenced here has been published on theirÂ blog. Their analysis indicates the data was almost certainly not accessed initially by a remote hacker, much less one in Russia. If true, this analysis obliterates the Russian hacking narrative completely,â€Â the site noted.
GOT SOMETHING TO SAY? COMMENT BELOW