The entire country watch Comey testify yesterday and there were some important details that are easy to overlook. Others have already done a discussion on each word and what they could possibly mean. For this article I am focusing on 3 things and their implications.
FBI did not access the DNC Server
The entire narrative behind Russia gate is that the Russians hacked the DNC servers and then gave the information to wikileaks to damage the Clinton campaign. With the collusion of President Trump of course. It is normally very hard to pinpoint the exact perpetrator of an attack in cyberspace. False IP addresses, methods, and other things could easily lay the blame on another party when it did not do the act in the first place. Despite all of these difficulties the various intelligence agencies were able to power through with diligent forensic investigations and were able to determine without a shadow of a doubt that it was the Russians.
Except Comey stated under oath that they did not have access to the DNC server. The Democrats refused to grant the FBI access to their servers. In fact none of the intelligence agencies were able to access the server. The only entity who seems to have had access to it to be able to determine that the attack originated from the Russians is Crowdstrike. A firm retained and paid for by the DNC. Instead of a non-partisan inquiry by intelligence agencies we now have a partisan inquiry by the DNC. The intelligence community who have every motive to discredit wikileaks are predictably not to bothered by this.
NYT , CNN, WAPO are Fake News
As you are reading this section please do recall that wikileaks, an organization that has said the DNC leaks came from a leak and not a hack, has never had to issue a correction or pull any of their released documents as false.
Democrats are saying that yesterday was a vindication of mainstream media. Some of their stories published only on the word of unnamed sources were proved correct. The exact opposite happened yesterday. Each of these outlets had to retract some of their stories as the testimony of Comey contradicted them. Retracting articles is bad enough as that is an admission of sloppy journalism but these are unnamed sources.
When you publish a story with unnamed sources you are asking the public to substitute your judgement for their own. You are telling them that there are valid reasons which prevent you from releasing the name of your source but you are willing to lay your credibility on the line because you have full confidence that what you are saying is the truth. You are telling the public that they do not need any way to verify what you are saying but they should treat it as gospel truth because you are CNN, Wapo, or the NYT.
Then you get your story with unnamed sources retracted. What happens when you lay all your credibility on the line for a story and it gets proved false? What is worse the fake stories that you have printed get used as corroboration for other stories and those stories do not get retracted. In a previous article I already showed that in these types of articles featuring unnamed sources you only have one paragraph of new material. Everything else rehashes and links to older articles including these fake stories to give more credibility to the unnamed source. If these outlets were to publish more unnamed sources in the future how are we to trust that these are real stories instead of fake?
Obama Wiretapped Trump
Remember this issue? It hinged on the Obama administration using the powers of his office and the government to influence the election for Hillary Clinton. In that case we had the administration itself asking for FISA warrants to wiretap American Citizens in the Trump campaign to get information of political value. We then Susan Rice attempt to unmask these citizens and the information shared between agencies to maximize potential leakers.
Democrats said Obama could not possibly do that. He was too nice.
Now we have Comey testifying under oath that Loretta Lynch asked him to refer to the investigation of Hillary Clinton as a matter and not as an investigation as that would be detrimental to the campaign. Again we have the very same administration using its powers to influence the election for Hillary Clinton.
This clearly establishes a pattern where the officials in the Obama administration used their power to benefit the Democrat nominee. We have to begin a congressional investigation on what else they may have done to abuse their positions of power and if they did so with the direction and knowledge of Obama.