For several months now we have consistently heard how the Russians accessed the DNC, Clinton, and John Podesta email accounts. The FBI, CIA, and others keep trying to tell us Russia was behind the breaches (which is false). Yet in another plot twist revealed recently that the DNC denied direct access to their server according to BuzzFeed.
LATEST: FBI says they asked DNC for servers, and DNC refused, "inhibited" the investigation. pic.twitter.com/AfkAPlJsYZ
— Ali Watkins (@AliWatkins) January 5, 2017
So the FBI had to rely upon a private company, CrowdStrike, which the DNC contacted after their servers were cracked. This also conflicts with the DNC saying the FBI did not contact them for access. The FBI stated they would have been able to tackle the issue sooner, if the DNC hadn’t inhibited their investigation. The DNC says they handed information over to CrowdStrike “without any limits.” However, that doesn’t instill a lot of confidence for we the people, when the DNC is making all these claims but will not skip the middle man. It doesn’t even look great if they had innocent reasons to do so.
While the FBI doesn’t need direct access to examine the information, it still doesn’t make the DNC look any better, because this prolonged the process, and the FBI still has the issue of being able to trust CrowdStrike’s information being honest, accurate, reliable, and most of all complete. The most recent FBI report also lists some major mistakes such as listing “malicious” internet addresses that include Tor exit nodes, which doesn’t really say anything as those addresses are all public and used by thousands daily. The information presented by intelligence agencies is also no where near a smoking gun as I have touched on in an earlier perspectives discussion. If there is anything for certain in this whole situation, is the he said/she said discussion between the FBI and the DNC needs to be resolved if we are to remove any doubt that Russia was in fact to blame.
This post was written by Alon Ganon.
The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.