Why Democrats Don’t REALLY Investigate Crimes

Today, it’s a crime to want to investigate crimes. Or so say the Democrats.

Because President Trump actually wants to get to the bottom of Ukraine’s and Russia’s attack on America’s election process.

Democrats HATE President Trump for actually wanting to answer the questions Democrats claim to want to have answered.

This revelation should surprise no one, as Democrats don’t actually investigate crimes. The reason is clear. Democrats are criminals.

If you need examples, let’s begin with the DNC. Remember when the DNC claimed to have been hacked?

An article I read reported the following:

In their breathless coverage of the Russian hacking story, the media downplayed the very odd behavior of the DNC, the putative victim. For, when the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI learned of the hacking claim, they asked to examine the server.

But the DNC refused.

Why would the purported victim of a crime refuse to cooperate with law enforcement in solving that crime? Was it hiding something? Was it afraid the server’s contents would discredit the Russia-hacking story?

Common sense suggests that the DNC allow America’s most venerable law-enforcement agency investigate this crime. But they didn’t.

Nor did disgrace former FBI Director Comey insist the FBI look into the allegations.

Ask yourself how the media would cover such developments if the Republicans tried to pull such a stunt?

The article continues:

The answers to those questions began to emerge thanks to a July 2017  memorandum to President Trump by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), an organization of former CIA, FBI, National Security Agency, and military intelligence officers, technical experts, and analysts.

VIPS has a well-established record of debunking questionable intelligence assessments that have been slanted to serve political purposes. For example, in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, VIPS courageously and correctly challenged the accuracy and veracity of the CIA’s intelligence estimates that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and that he posed a threat to the United States. Similarly, VIPS has condemned the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on suspected terrorists. In short, VIPS can hardly be described as either a right-wing cabal or a group carrying water for the Republican Party.

In its analysis of the purported DNC hack, VIPS brought to bear the impressive talents of more than a dozen experienced, well-credentialed experts, including William Binney, a former NSA technical director and cofounder of the NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center; Edward Loomis, former NSA technical director for the Office of Signals Processing; and Skip Folden, a former IBM information technology manager. As the French would say, these are l’hommes sérieux, as are the other computer-system designers, program architects, and analysts with whom they investigated the Clinton-DNC hack story.

As set forth in its memorandum, VIPS’ investigative findings were nothing short of stunning.

First, VIPS concluded that the DNC data were not hacked by the Russians or anyone else accessing the server over the internet. Instead, the data were downloaded by means of a thumb drive or similar portable storage device physically attached to the DNC server.

How was this determined? The time stamps contained in the released computer files’ metadata establish that, at 6:45 p.m. July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes (not megabits) of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. This took 87 seconds, which means the transfer rate was 22.7 megabytes per second, a speed, according to VIPS, that “is much faster than what is physically possible with a hack.” Such a speed could be accomplished only by direct connection of a portable storage device to the server. Accordingly, VIPS concluded that the DNC data theft was an inside job by someone with physical access to the server.

Conspiracy theorists UNITE! Because this revelation points directly to the death of Seth Rich.

Rich was killed in a very strange crime, and is purported to be the DNC staffer who blew the whistle on the organization.

The article continues,

VIPS also found if there had been a hack, then NSA would have a record of it that could quickly be retrieved and produced. But no such evidence has been forthcoming. Can this be because no hack occurred?

Even more remarkable, the experts determined that the files released by Guccifer 2.0 have been “run, via ordinary cut and paste, through a template that effectively immersed them in what could plausibly be cast as Russian fingerprints.” In other words, the files were deliberately altered to give the false impression that they were hacked by Russian agents.

Thanks to the VIPS experts, the Russia-hacking claim — the very prologue of the Trump-Russia conspiracy story — appeared to have been affirmatively and convincingly undercut.

After the DNC denied law enforcement access to its server, the FBI — under James Comey’s leadership — meekly agreed to accept the findings of CrowdStrike, the DNC’s private cybersecurity firm, as to the server’s contents. This was in lieu of the FBI’s using legal process (such as a search warrant or forthwith grand jury subpoena) to seize and search the server for Russian malware and evidence of hacking, even though, in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Comey conceded that “best practices” require “direct access” to the allegedly hacked computers.

So why did Comey and the FBI agree to such an impotent, absurd, and self-defeating arrangement?

In June 2017, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr asked Comey whether he ever had “access to the actual hardware that was hacked.” Comey replied under oath, “In the case of the DNC … we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity [CrowdStrike], that had done the work.”

Sen. Burr then asked, “But no content? Isn’t content an important part of forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?” To which Comey answered, “It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks … is that they had gotten the information from the private party [CrowdStrike] that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016.”

Given that the allegation of Russian hacking resulted in increased tensions between the United States and the nuclear-armed Russian Federation and also served as a cornerstone of the argument that Trump had engaged in treasonous conduct, why were Comey and his FBI willing to rely solely on the word of CrowdStrike? Weren’t the stakes high enough to mandate that the FBI use the “best practice” of conducting its own forensic examination of the DNC’s computers?

Let’s put this another way. If CrowdStrike is so good at what they do, then why do we need the FBI’s equivalent?

Why not lay off these FBI workers and subcontract all this work to CrowdStrike?

The article then points the finger to Mueller’s farce of an investigation:

And then came the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his band of Hillary Clinton sycophants. On March 13, 2019, a month before the Mueller report was released, VIPS submitted a memorandum to the attorney general in which they accurately predicted that Mueller would choose to “finesse” the key issue of whether or not the Russians hacked the DNC computers by relying on the purported analysis by “CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm of checkered reputation and multiple conflicts of interest, including very close ties to a number of key anti-Russian organizations.”

VIPS stated that “direct access to the actual computers is the first requirement” in any valid forensic analysis. The memorandum then set forth VIPS’ additional analysis of the WikiLeaks DNC files. They revealed “a FAT (File Allocation Table) system property. This shows that the data had been transferred to an external storage device, such as a thumb drive, before WikiLeaks posted them” (Emphasis in original).

So the Democrats didn’t really want an investigation into their “hack”. They wanted, no needed, to cover up for Part One of their coup. Part Two involves Mueller.

Almost $40 million spent, as Mueller supposedly investigated Russia’s crimes against America’s election system. Nothing came of the investigation.

And don’t think that Democrats necessarily wanted to get President Trump’s head on their trophy wall. While that outcome would have been nice for them, getting Trump was not their only motive. Actually, the investigation was a ruse to get people minds off the actual crime.

Democrats tried a coup. And in order to cover up their coup Democrats needed a “cover story”. But their cover story backfired.

Consider how fast Russian collusion died. Obstruction died even faster. Adam Schiff claimed to have actual knowledge of collusion, and presented none. Of course, believe Trump committed obstruction the moment he tried to defend himself against false allegations. Luckily, that nonsense failed as well.

Thus, Democrats needed more subterfuge and Ukraine offered a lifeline of sorts. Too bad their lifeline was a sinking lifeboat.

Does anybody believe the Democrats really want to find out what happened with the Bidens in Ukraine? Or China?

All roads lead back to Democrats when it comes to investigating crimes against America. So don’t expect them to really search for truth.

Back to top button