Two, FBI Director James Comey justified the FBI’s complete abdication of its responsibility to investigate the server on the grounds that the firm employed by the DNC to evaluate the server, Crowdstrike, had a sterling reputation for honesty and accuracy. Bullshit.

And Debbie "Blabbermouth" Schultz told 'em to go pound sand. "We're not letting you look at our servers! We've been breaking the law left and right. We got a scheme going here to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination. We've rigged this for Hillary Clinton. I'll be damned if we're gonna let you and the FBI in here to find it." Comey said, "Oh, okay," and the FBI slinks away. I mean, Debbie "Blabbermouth" Schultz does scare me too. Can you imagine being married to that? Anyway So the DNC turned They turned to a third-party forensic unit, an outfit called CrowdStrike. Now, CrowdStrike is a domestic computer forensics firm, private sector. The FBI's got all these forensics investigators, they've got these massive hackers themselves, and they've got massive tools, and the DNC and Debbie "Blabbermouth" told 'em to pound sand. CrowdStrike comes in there, and the FBI just accepted what CrowdStrike said.

July 15, 2018 - The letter was sent because rouge agents in the NY field office were going to leak. The OIG said they are still looking into leaks from the FBI. Good Old Rudy G was on fox saying that a surprise is coming for Clinton.

May 20, 2018 - President Trump went after Democrats in a pair of tweets Sunday morning, questioning why the Democratic National Committee (DNC) didn’t hand over a hacked server to the FBI. “What ever happened to the Server, at the center of so much Corruption, that the Democratic National Committee REFUSED to hand over to the hard charging (except…

February 25, 2018 - Somehow, the federal government concluded that the DNC emails were obtained via “cyber operations” without ever examining the DNC servers. Comey later confirmed in testimony on Jan. 10 before the Senate Intelligence Committee that “Ultimately what was agreed to is the private company would share with us what they saw… Our forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the original device or server that’s involved, so it’s the best evidence.” Instead, the FBI deferred to the private group, Crowdstrike, which conducted an independent analysis of the supposed DNC hack. But even that is questionable. Crowdstrike co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch in the Washington Post published June 14, 2016 spoke of the lack of evidence as to how it was that somebody got onto the Democratic National Committee (DNC) servers to get the emails that were ultimately published on Wikileaks in July 2016.

And Debbie "Blabbermouth" Schultz told 'em to go pound sand. "We're not letting you look at our servers! We've been breaking the law left and right. We got a scheme going here to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination. We've rigged this for Hillary Clinton. I'll be damned if we're gonna let you and the FBI in here to find it." Comey said, "Oh, okay," and the FBI slinks away. I mean, Debbie "Blabbermouth" Schultz does scare me too. Can you imagine being married to that? Anyway So the DNC turned They turned to a third-party forensic unit, an outfit called CrowdStrike. Now, CrowdStrike is a domestic computer forensics firm, private sector. The FBI's got all these forensics investigators, they've got these massive hackers themselves, and they've got massive tools, and the DNC and Debbie "Blabbermouth" told 'em to pound sand. CrowdStrike comes in there, and the FBI just accepted what CrowdStrike said.

February 17, 2020 - He told us the FBI didn't physically examine the DNC servers because CrowdStrike gave the bureau copies of the data from the servers. "If there is a server or a computer system of any kind that's involved in the incident you can take an exact ...

June 5, 2020 - A lot of ordinary folks just can’t stop wondering why the DNC wouldn’t let any federal investigators examine their servers. Only CrowdStrike, an independent contractor on the DNC’s payroll, was allowed to do so. CrowdStrike executive Robert Johnson appeared on “60 Minutes” to address concerns that his firm hadn’t been completely forthcoming with its findings. But he only succeeded in raising more questions by claiming that the “FBI got what it needed and what it wanted.” · Even if the self-proclaimed “hard-hitting” investigators at “60 Minutes” couldn’t be bothered to spend 30 minutes researching such an important story, Johnson himself had to know he wasn’t telling the truth. On no less than three occasions before President Trump fired him, FBI Director James Comey testified to Congress about the DNC’s strange unwillingness to let his agency examine their servers in a case they were simultaneously hyping as akin to “an act of war.” Comey testified that the DNC rejected the FBI’s “[m]u

November 27, 2019 - No, seriously, there is no missing server.The DNC and Crowdstrike both confirm that the digital contents of every single server were sent to the FBI. Trump mistakenly believes that a physical server is tucked away in Ukraine. This is not the case. Furthermore, because digital forensic evidence fades just like physical forensic evidence, a physical server would be practically useless. It's unclear why Trump believes there is a connection between Crowdstrike and Ukraine.This appears to be echoing the baseless conspiracy theory that Ukraine—in coordination with the DNC—was the actual culprit of the 2016 election hack. That's false. Crowdstrike is a U.S.-based company. One of Crowdstrike's founders is from New Jersey. The other is from (plot twist) Russia. So why does Trump keep pushing this conspiracy theory? I'm glad I asked. Collusion between Democrats and Ukraine would be a panacea forever removing the asterisk from the legitimacy of Trump's presidency.

April 14, 2021 - New transcripts released by the House intelligence committee shed light on Russia’s interference in 2016 election.

January 26, 2026 - So if the FBI didn’t ask for access the DNC’s servers out of laziness or negligence, it certainly should have. And if the DNC denied them that access for fear of being embarrassed by what they might find, or because they had more faith in CrowdStrike than the FBI, then it served only to undermine confidence in the ultimate results of the investigation and give the impression of having something shameful to hide. Neither the DNC nor the FBI should have been satisfied with an investigation that did not involve the FBI conducting a first-hand look at the compromised systems. And all of us should be concerned about the seeming acceptance of both parties to let a private company singlehandedly carry out an investigation with such significant political consequences. ... 3. The FBI always wants direct access to the original devices involved because its the best evidence.

In the fictitious Russian election hack case, CrowdStrike was the C.I.A. contractor paid to create digital evidence with fake Russian “signatures” in order to incriminate the Kremlin. This fabrication of evidence appears to have been perpetrated in collusion with the creators of Guccifer 2.0.

May 13, 2020 - Instead, the Democrat National Committee claimed that they were hacked by the Russians. The Russians hacked, and the Russians then led to the hacking of Podesta’s emails and the embarrassing reveal of those emails during the campaign starting ...

June 17, 2019 - CrowdStrike said it determined that Russia had hacked the DNC server because it found Cyrillic letters in the metadata, as well as the name of the first Soviet intelligence chief—clues an amateur might leave.

2 weeks ago - Comey previously testified in January 2017 that a request for FBI forensics investigators to access the DNC servers was denied, saying Crowdstrike agreed to share information. In December 2016, CrowdStrike released a report stating that Russian government-affiliated group Fancy Bear had hacked a Ukrainian artillery app. The report concluded that Russia had used the hack to cause large losses to Ukrainian artillery units. The app (called ArtOS) was installed on tablet PCs and used for fire-control. CrowdStrike also found a hacked variation of POPR-D30 being distributed on Ukrainian military forums that utilized an X-Agent implant. The U.K.-based think tank International Institute for Strategic Studies said CrowdStrike’s report wrongly used its data and denied that hacking caused Ukraine’s artillery losses. The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense also rejected the CrowdStrike report, stating that actual artillery losses were much smaller than what was reported by CrowdStrike and were not assoc

January 10, 2017 - These actions caused significant ... forensic analysis backing up its assessment that the threat groups that infiltrated the DNC were associated with Russian intelligence....