I find it “remarkable” that so little time and attention has been given to that part of the President’s Ukrainian phone call concerning CrowdStrike and the Democrat National Committee ("DNC") Server. It is the blue elephant in the room that, I suspect, has largely set the Democrat’s teeth on edge and is fomenting this nonsense. You see, our Intelligence Community NEVER conducted its own forensic analysis on the Democrat National Committee server(s). According to legacy media reporting, the FBI never asked the DNC to examine the allegedly compromised servers. No government entity has ever run an independent forensic analysis on the compromised DNC computer system. Let that sink in a minute. Instead, the FBI exclusively relied upon the forensic analysis conducted by DNC paid contractor, CrowdStrike. The DNC’s touted ‘cooperation’ was limited to the provision of all information discovered and forensically analyzed by CrowdStrike.
You won’t and shouldn’t be surprised to hear that typically … the FBI does its own forensic examinations into alleged hacking of this sort. It seems 'odd' that the intelligence community has not conducted its own forensic analysis given the proportion of the scandal resulting from the alleged hack. It particularly challenges credulity when and where the national security interest is known to have been comprised by potential election interference. The analysis contained in a thirteen (13) page report issued by the intelligence community confirming Russian directed DNC and election targeted attacks was solely based upon the CrowdStrike analysis. Conspicuously missing from that report is a reference to a government conducted investigatory forensic analysis of the servers in question. The report conclusively indicates that “[P]ublic attribution of these activities to [Russian Intelligence Services] is supported by technical indicators from the U.S. Intelligence Community, DHS, FBI, the private sector, and other entities.” I have previously written of my impressions of the remedially thin forensic analysis and merely conclusory findings contained in the report.
Why have and are we relying upon second hand information concerning a matter critical to our national security? It seems to be part of a trend where ‘evidence’ akin to “someone’s sister’s boyfriend knows a guy who said” … is deemed ‘reliable’ … and anyone who questions the veracity of the statement or chain of custody of the evidence is a ‘debunked conspiracy theorist.’ The Federal Rules of Evidence and Procedure exist to ensure that our investigatory and juridical examinations and adjudications are respectively reliable. In the upside down universe of progressive partisans … second and third hand information about gang bangs and being a Russian agent may be sufficiently ‘reliable’ for hyper-partisans yearning to have their ears tickled as long as it humiliates Justice Kavanaugh or is disrespectfully convicting of the President … but they are not sufficiently reliable to be admitted into evidence in a court of law.
Understand, the purpose of this piece isn’t to convince progressives that CrowdStrike concerns aren't a conspiracy theory. I have concluded that convincing progressives of anything that contradicts their narrative is pointless. The purpose of this piece is to: encourage conservatives to think for themselves; to encourage conservatives to question authority; and inform and raise the consciousness of conservatives who continue to simply accept the types of government reports and alleged “evidence” discussed here, as gospel. It should have become abundantly clear to anyone who is watching the nation's current trouble unfold, that the politicized self-righteous intransigence of the Federal bureaucracy is our greatest threat and that its leadership is largely populated by unrestrained, self-congratulatory … self-affirming … mediocrities who have long been sheltered from the measure of their performance by private sector job performance standards. It’s high time to stop relying upon the government and the legacy media to draw your conclusions for you. Understand, they will do so happily, ‘authoritarian-ly’ and punitively … if you let them. They're trying now. I am hopeful that you won’t let them.
Finally, ask yourself ... how much time have our representatives spent addressing what they have characterized as a clear and present danger? What steps have been taken to ensure that it doesn't happen again ... and what have they been doing instead?