The enigmatic Roger Stone is testifying before Congress this week and he seems more than happy to finally be getting his day in the “spotlight.”
Yesterday, he could be heard ripping the Democrats who have been pushing a false Russian collusion angle, and then later in an impromptu briefing he slammed the DNC.
Stone argued that the so-called “hack” of the DNC emails had nothing to do with Russian infiltration but was actually “an inside job.”
Question:Is it still your view that Russians had nothing to do with the hacks of the DNC or Mr. Podesta?
Roger Stone: That is my belief.
I subscribe to the view published in The Nation magazine several weeks ago that the computer science seems to indicate an inside job. So, I don’t know whether the DNC was hacked at all. I don’t know that it was hacked by Russians.
Now on the basis of this report, I tend to believe that it was an inside job meaning the data was downloaded to say a thumb drive and spirited out of the building.
I would point out that Craig Murray who was a British diplomat has said for the record that he received information from the DNC on a thumb drive and passed it to WikiLeaks.
Here is some of what the Nation piece that Stone mentions had to say about the probability that the DNC emails were actually leaked and NOT hacked at all.
By any balanced reckoning, the official case purporting to assign a systematic hacking effort to Russia, the events of mid-June and July 5 last year being the foundation of this case, is shabby to the point taxpayers should ask for their money back.
The Intelligence Community Assessment, the supposedly definitive report featuring the “high confidence” dodge, was greeted as farcically flimsy when issued January 6. Ray McGovern calls it a disgrace to the intelligence profession. It is spotlessly free of evidence, front to back, pertaining to any events in which Russia is implicated. James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, admitted in May that “hand-picked” analysts from three agencies (not the 17 previously reported) drafted the ICA. There is a way to understand “hand-picked” that is less obvious than meets the eye: The report was sequestered from rigorous agency-wide reviews. This is the way these people have spoken to us for the past year.
Behind the ICA lie other indefensible realities.
The FBI has never examined the DNC’s computer servers—an omission that is beyond preposterous. It has instead relied on the reports produced by Crowdstrike, a firm that drips with conflicting interests well beyond the fact that it is in the DNC’s employ. Dmitri Alperovitch, its co-founder and chief technology officer, is on the record as vigorously anti-Russian. He is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, which suffers the same prejudice. Problems such as this are many.
“We continue to stand by our report,” CrowdStrike said, upon seeing the VIPS blueprint of the investigation. CrowdStrike argues that by July 5 all malware had been removed from the DNC’s computers. But the presence or absence of malware by that time is entirely immaterial, because the event of July 5 is proven to have been a leak and not a hack. Given that malware has nothing to do with leaks, CrowdStrike’s logic appears to be circular.
Here’s the full interaction with the press: