PUBLISHED: 6:23 PM 22 Mar 2017

Comey & FBI Covered For Security Company CrowdStrike After Evidence Of DNC Corruption Found

The DNC refused FBI access to investigate email server hacking. They instead used a company to investigate that would come under fire for faulty data.

The DNC refused FBI access to investigate email server hacking. They instead used a company to investigate that would come under fire for faulty data.

The DNC refused FBI access to investigate email server hacking.

On Monday, March 20, FBI Director James Comey was to appear before a Senate hearing to answer allegations of election tampering by Russia. Instead of shedding light on any FBI investigation, or even activities on the part of the agency to prove what happened, Comey would continue to provide smoke screens to hide a DNC connection.

The deception would come in the form of a company called CrowdStrike. Reports from this cyber security company would be held up as an example of proof of the Russian hackers. The problem is that this company had very recently been accused of using fake data. Even as CrowdStrike was dealing with the embarrassment of the false data issue, Comey would use them as the single definitive voice because they are a “…highly respected private company.”

“Fancy Bear,” which is a code name for the type of malware, was allegedly used by Russian hackers to get to the DNC servers. The reason CrowdStrike was able to tie “Fancy Bear” to Russia was that it was also used to hack into an app used by the Ukrainian Army. This link would become the smoking gun that would prove Russia did hack the DNC servers. The specific type of malware would act like an electronic fingerprint.

This is where the story starts to fall apart, in part because the Ukrainian incident did not happen. The evidence in the DNC case was based on faulty evidence. This was not something CrowdStrike gathered on their own; it was data that came from a propaganda website. Not only was the data not credible, but it was also reported by technology experts that the data used was not read correctly. Officials from the Ukraine also contend that these events were completely false.

With CrowdStrike being called out for mishandling the start of the investigation, the story seems to get worse. It appears that there were a variety of flaws in their on-going efforts to find a link to the Trump campaign. Unfortunately, this fake news would be reported as if it were factual.

The FBI had the opportunity to step in to investigate the allegations from the DNC. It would seem that if there was in fact hacking going on, the DNC would welcome the assistance. The FBI was not provided access to the servers that were “hacked.” They did not press the issue. Instead, they allowed the DNC to deny FBI access to the equipment. The FBI would then quietly bow out of the investigation and allow it to be spearheaded by CrowdStrike.

At this point, somehow the paid staff at CrowdStrike would become the official voice for the FBI. The company destroyed the investigation. Access to the DNC servers for FBI analysts would have proven the hack, but that does not seem to fall into the agenda of the DNC.

Even if one takes the word of CrowdStrike to be the absolute fact, their reports tied to the DNC hack did not prove much beyond the company having a hunch about what happened. The Co-Founder of CrowdStrike Dmitri Alperovitch would go on record as saying:

“The firm suspects they may have targeted DNC employees with “spearphishing” emails. These are communications that appear legitimate — often made to look like they came from a colleague or someone trusted — but that contain links or attachments that when clicked on deploy malicious software that enables a hacker to gain access to a computer. But we don’t have hard evidence.”

Officials in the Ukraine called the reports from CrowdStrike “delusional.” The CrowdStrike co-founder admitted to a lack of actual evidence. Still, the FBI did not deem it necessary to intervene.

The inconsistencies with the hacking stories and the issues with CrowdStrike would come out in December of 2016. It would continue to be buried at the recent Senate hearing. White House correspondent Lee Stranahan was barred from asking questions about the company. This is the same company that, in their words, had no hard evidence on the claims they made. There are questions that need to be answered if the truth is really what DNC wants.

There is an underlying reason that the FBI and the DNC do not want the issues brought to light; the cover-up of the unsatisfactory work of CrowdStrike and the FBI coming to their defense.

While the DNC has made many claims about the tie to Russia and the server hacks, it seems they do not want the truth to be known. The FBI would have the tools needed to find hard evidence, CrowdStrike appears not to be able to do so.

The DNC working so hard to keep the FBI away from their servers means either there is no evidence or there is something else to cover-up. It is unclear at this point why the FBI was willing to just walk away without answers.