Far-Left Magazine says the DNC wasn’t Hacked, Emails were Leaked

For the last year or so many of us on the right have wondered about the possibility that the DNC (and Hillary campaign team) emails weren’t actually “hacked” but that they were leaked from the inside.

Trending: The Solar Observatory Mystery

Conspiracy theorists have listed various possible leakers, including former DNC staffer Seth Rich or Debbie Wasserman Schutlz’ IT guy, the now infamous Imran Awan.

However, these theories are always laughed at as “conspiratorial” and then we are told that “of course” the Russians “hacked” the emails, because the “intelligence” community told us so.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Has the intelligence community ever provided a single shred of evidence that the DNC was hacked? NO.

Did the intelligence community get to examine the supposedly hacked DNC servers? NO.

Has any media outlet been able to dig up any evidence that the DNC was hacked? NO.

So then, why are we being told that we must simply believe that the DNC was hacked?

One left-wing magazine is tired of being told that they must believe that the DNC was hacked, even though no evidence has ever been offered. The Nation took it upon themselves to actually investigate the possibility that the DNC emails were leaked and not hacked, and what they found leads them to believe that there is a good possibility that the DNC was never hacked at all.

From the Daily Wire:

Patrick Lawrence of The Nation writes that he interviewed numerous “forensic experts and intelligence analysts” who have concluded that the DNC couldn’t have been hacked.

Lawrence first cites the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) writing a letter to President Obama back in July 2016 asking for evidence from the National Security Agency (NSA) that Russia was behind the DNC hacking; Obama gave a press conference the following day where he stated that it was “not conclusive” that Russia was behind it.

VIPS’ main argument had been a lack of evidence to corroborate the Russia hacking claims.

Lawrence then cites researchers from www.disobedientmedia.com who examined the metadata of Guccifer 2.0’s documents – the hacker who claims to have been behind the DNC email hack – and found that Guccifer couldn’t have obtained the documents through a hack.

Lawrence also writes that the “evidence” offered of a hack, is flimsy at best and more reasonably unlikely:

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.

Do yourself a favor and read the entire report at The Nation.

This story isn’t over and until the government provides the public with PROOF that the DNC was hacked, it seems much more likely that the emails from the DNC and the Clinton campaign were leaked and not at all hacked by “the Russians.”

Tags

Constitution.com 🇺🇸

I am the supreme law of the United States. Originally comprising seven articles, I delineate the national frame of government. My first three articles entrench the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress; the executive, consisting of the President; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Articles Four, Five and Six entrench concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments and of the states in relationship to the federal government. Article Seven establishes the procedure subsequently used by the thirteen States to ratify it. I am regarded as the oldest written and codified constitution in force of the world.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.