The Latest:

Retired FBI agent: Why won’t DNC turn over ‘hacked’ server to be examined?

(National SentinelIrregular: A former FBI agent has made it clear he’s baffled as to why the Democratic National Committee never turned over its “hacked” server to the FBI for forensic analysis.

You may recall that the DNC claimed “Russians” hacked the organization’s email server during the 2016 election cycle.

The DNC refused multiple FBI offers to examine the alleged hack. Instead, the party handed the server over to a private cybersecurity firm, Crowdstrike, which it was paying, of course. Crowdstrike then issued a report substantiating the DNC’s “Russian hackers” claim.

Given what we now know — the DNC and Hillary’s campaign bought and paid for a bogus political research “dossier” that came from Russian sources — it makes perfect sense to question the “Russian hackers” narrative.

In a series of tweets Thursday, James Gagliano inquired as to why the DNC continues to resist surrendering its compromised servers if they were truly the victim of a hack.

He also noted that it was unheard of for the U.S. government to take the word of a private cybersecurity firm to trial.


He also asked why isn’t the FBI rigorously investigating the Clinton campaign’s collusion and involvement with Ukrainians?

“What is difficult to reconcile. If played straight, why didn’t: 1) FBI/DOJ compel DNC to turn over compromised server? 2) Investigate, as rigorously, Clinton campaign’s Ukraine connections? 3) If Trump campaign’s “peripherals” compromised, not Trump, why not read-in Sr Ldrs?” Gagliano began.

“Confirmed, by DHS/DNI, successful phishing attack by Russia, hostile state actor, on DNC (also John Podesta’s email account) — so how are those materials not central pieces of national security investigation, & why would there be resistance to surrender for forensic examination?” he continued.

“When was last time you ever heard of the USG taking the word of a “private forensics company” at trial? Or in this instance, in a matter of senstive [sic] NatSec implications? Have no problem w/outside entity doing their own forensics harvesting. But not allowing FBI to review? Um, ok,” he wrote.




Former Bush 43 White House spokesman Ari Fleischer responded to Gagliano’s tweets. “This from a retired FBI special agent,” he wrote.

The fact is we’ve never seen any behavior like this. Ever.

Live Fire Gear - FireCord

The entire Trump-Russia “collusion” investigation was begun without any actionable intelligence to justify it.

To date, no charges have been brought against any Trump campaign figure for espionage involving Russians or any other foreign government. Instead, special counsel Robert Mueller has indicted Russians (who are now fighting his charges in court) and minor Trump campaign figures for process crimes like lying to agents (which can be subjective).

Mueller has nothing because there is nothing. It’s all a hoax.

As for the DNC email servers, the party has never presented any proof they were hacked at all, and by whom.

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers’ newsfeed and is instead promoting Pravda media sources. When you share our stories with your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment to consider sharing this article with your friends and family (see buttons below).

Also, if you like this content, you will never miss a story when you subscribe to our daily newsletter.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: