In September of 2015, the DNC paid $60,000 to Richard Clark's security firm Good Harbor Risk Management. Clark was the former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counter-terrorism for the United States. Clark's firm certainly would have checked for hacking attempts, as well as everything else under the sun. At its conclusion, the firm made a couple dozen improvement recommendations to the DNC.
Nonetheless, in October of 2015, there was a firewall breach of the DNC's computer system and this happened a second time two months later in December. The Clinton Campaign and the DNC accused the Bernie Sanders Campaign of hanky-panky -- but this turned out as nothing but sheer political propaganda involving the DNC and Clinton operatives working together against Sanders.
"As the Clinton campaign knows, this is not the first firewall failure at the DNC," Sanders' campaign spokesman Michael Briggs said at the time. "There was at least one other failure two months ago that we discovered and reported. Failures like these open the possibility for data access by any campaign."
The above sure seems like problems from within the DNC system rather than problems from without.
In follow-up to the second breach, in December of 2015, it was thought the DNC would hire Kroll to investigate the data breach. But Crowdstrike, whose CEO had Ukrainian and anti-Russian connections, instead got the nod and conducted 120 hours of investigation between March and April. What happened to Kroll? Did Kroll ever do any work? How did Crowdstrike suddenly appear, and why? What exactly did Crowdstrike do during it's original and lengthy examination of the DNC computer system? Noteworthy, and similar to the former Richard Clark Good Harbors report, Crowdstrike's March-April analysis didn't produce any reports of hacking.
But problems continued and Crowdstrike again was brought in to check the DNC system on May 5th. It immediately installed its Falcon software. By the morning of May 6th, Crowdstrike discovered Russians were in the DNC system. One would think installing this new Falcon security would put an end to the so-called Russian hacking. However, the Wikileaks archive shows there were 14,409 emails that were dated after Crowdstrike’s software security was installed. The last DNC email in the Wikileaks record was May 25th. How can this be? Does this make sense?
In fact, more emails were released by Wikileaks after Crowdstrike’s May 6th discovery than were discovered before. Whatever Crowdstrike did on May 5th, the stream of DNC emails ending up in the control of Wikileaks continued. Isn't that odd? Was this a case of inadequate hacking prevention? Or is this a sound indication the documents were produced as a consequence of an inside leak?
https://climateaudit.org/2017/09/02/email-dates-in-the-wikileaks-dnc-archive/
Of course, the DNC denied the FBI and DHS access to analyze the computer system. So all of the information the government has relied upon has come from Crowdstrike which issued two reports, the second of which was instrumental producing the infamous National Intelligence Assessment (NIA) blaming Russia. Of course, going unreported throughout the US media was the fact that Crowdstrike's second report was erroneous and led to the firm retracting key elements of its second report. But this correction was untimely for the anti-Russian narrative, so the NIA findings remained in force and dutifully spread far and wide by monopolized media's highly-paid punditry.
Let's be logical here. Before any mention at all about Russian involvement, both Good Harbors and Crowdstrike had conducted thorough examinations of the DNC computer system. I submit that the DNC likely did heed the advice of Richard Clark's security firm. Who wouldn't heed advice from a guy like Richard Clark, of all people! And did Crowdstrike produce any recommendations for the DNC after it's initial examination? If it did not, could the reason be because Crowdstrike was a complicit actor, instead of an objective actor like Good Harbors?
The logic to all of the above points in the direction that the DNC document dump resulted from an inside leak, rather than external hacking from Russians. The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) provide a very rational explanation for why this is plausible.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
So the question then becomes: Was Seth Rich the leaker? It's been written that he was robbed and killed on July 10th, but that nothing was taken from his possession. Officials and the media labeled it a "botched robbery."
I've posed an alternative scenario regarding Rich. That he was indeed robbed and that what was taken from him was not the money and gold, but rather a thumb drive that contained further DNC documentation. Granted, this is a theory ... but it also holds an eerie fit to the reality.
Sy Hersh Audio Tape:
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/892510925244203008
- wikileaks
In conclusion, we never really found out exactly how and why JFK was shot and untold stories of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King remain. How many of America's war criminals have never spent a day in jail, even though responsible for the deaths, injuries and displacement of millions? Has anyone ever paid a price for being involved in overthrowing foreign governments so America-friendly oligarchs and dictators could become profiteers? Do conspiracy theorists concerning 911 just blow smoke in order to make a name for themselves?
Usually what happens in these scenarios is there's a deep dark room somewhere where cigars are lit and someone can be found muttering something to the effect, "for the good of the nation!" Nah, we don't need tah know nuthin'!