Retired FBI Special Agent: Why is the DNC Resisting to Surrender Its Compromised Servers For Forensic Examination?

On Thursday, retired FBI agent James Gagliano asked why the DNC is resisting to surrender its compromised servers if they were truly the victim of a hack.

Gagliano also said it’s unheard of for the US Govt to take the word of a “private forensics company” [Crowdstrike] at trial.

The retired FBI agent also asked why isn’t the FBI rigorously investigating the Clinton camp’s Ukrainian collusion/connections?

Round one: 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?

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?

— James A. Gagliano (@JamesAGagliano) May 31, 2018

Round two: Why the resistance to surrender the servers for forensic examination?

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?

— James A. Gagliano (@JamesAGagliano) May 31, 2018

Gagliano then asked, “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 NatSec implications? Have no problem w/outside entity doing their own forensics harvesting. But not allowing FBI to review? Um, ok.”

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 NatSec implications? Have no problem w/outside entity doing their own forensics harvesting. But not allowing FBI to review? Um, ok.

— James A. Gagliano (@JamesAGagliano) May 31, 2018

Former White House spox Ari Fleischer reacted to James Gagliano:

This from a retired FBI special agent. https://t.co/HdYSNxgmTJ

— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) May 31, 2018

Your periodic reminder that the DNC refused to turn over its “hacked” servers to the FBI. Yes, the entire “Trump-Russia” timeline relies on primary attribution analysis (which even Crowdstrike admits is shoddy) from a 3rd party contractor, not the US govt.https://t.co/9dDwMpHOKP

— Jordan Schachtel (@JordanSchachtel) May 31, 2018

The answer is we have NEVER seen anything like this. The government sill has not done a forensic inspection of the crime scene [DNC servers] yet the taxpayers have forked out millions of dollars to pay for a special counsel to ‘investigate.’

A special counsel was appointed to investigate ‘Trump-Russia collusion’ without naming a crime.

We still don’t even have proof the DNC servers were hacked, and if hacked, by whom?
ed-servers-for-forensic-examination/

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/05/muellers-office-releases-statement-of-expenditures-revealing-millions-of-dollars-wasted-on-russia-witch-hunt/