Sharyl Attkisson thinks so.
Garth Kant, World Net Daily
WASHINGTON – On the heels of a bombshell revelation that indicated it might have been a Democratic staffer rather than the Russians who hacked the party’s emails, a top investigative reporter is even more puzzled by the FBI’s curious lack of curiosity in perhaps the prime piece of evidence.
Five-time Emmy-award winning reporter Sharyl Attkisson shared her razor-sharp insights with WND on a truly bizarre aspect of the investigation: If the Democratic National Committee, or DNC, claimed its email system was hacked by Russia, why didn’t it let the FBI examine its email server?
And why didn’t the FBI examine the server regardless of whether the DNC objected?
“This has always been befuddling to me,” Attkisson mused.
“If our intel agencies truly believe Russia (or any foreign interest) tried to ‘hack’ our elections or steal emails of the DNC, then it seems to me they would have an obligation in the interest of national security to confiscate and fully examine the evidence, even if the party holding the evidence doesn’t consent,” observed the former chief investigative reporter for CBS News, now the anchor of her own Sunday morning national TV news program, “Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson.”
She pointedly noted, “The FBI doesn’t need the DNC’s consent to take their equipment and conduct a thorough forensic exam for the security of our nation.”
“The fact that the FBI didn’t press this issue seemed, at the very least, uninquisitive on its part,” Attkisson drolly observed with understatement.
Murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich reportedly sent 44,053 internal DNC emails to WikiLeaks before he was gunned down in while walking home from a bar in the wee hours of the night on July 10, 2016.
“Based on the FBI’s lack of examining the DNC equipment and its concurrent insistence that Russia did it, and that Russia posed a dire national security threat; we’re left to conclude that the FBI allowed a political party (the DNC) to hamper its ability to secure our nation and mitigate the dire threat.”
“This doesn’t make much sense to me,” she concluded.
These lingering unanswered questions and pertinent observations took on riveting new significance with a sensational revelation Monday, one that lent new credence to the theory that it might not have been the Russians who hacked the DNC.
Instead, it might have been one of the DNC’s own employees, Seth Rich, who provided key emails embarrassing to the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
This is the story, in a nutshell, in a bombshell report from a local Washington television station that was corroborated by a federal investigator who spoke to Fox News:
- A private investigator looking into the July 2016, murder of DNC employee Seth Rich claims the staffer was in contact with WikiLeaks.
- A federal investigator told Fox News that Rich had emailed 44,053 DNC emails to WikiLeaks.
- The investigator, former D.C. police homicide detective Rod Wheeler, claimed the FBI and Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police are covering up that information, contained on Rich’s laptop, which is in their possession.
- Twelve days after Rich was killed, WikiLeaks published internal DNC emails that indicated party officials conspired to make sure Hillary Clinton won the party’s presidential nomination over rival Sen. Bernie Sanders.
- WikiLeaks has denied Russia was the source of the DNC emails it published and has offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of Rich, while not confirming he was their source.
- Although police called Rich’s murder a botched robbery, nothing was stolen.
WND asked Attkisson, if WikiLeaks was getting DNC emails from Seth Rich, what does that do to the narrative of Russia hacking the DNC?
And, does that leave any evidence of Russian meddling in the election at all?
“According to the joint intel report ordered by President Obama prior to Trump taking office,” she replied, “our intel officials concluded Russia was involved in the DNC hacking.”
“However, as I have pointed out, other Obama intel officials indicated it’s not such an easy conclusion to draw for many reasons including, they say, computer interference can be made to appear as though it’s coming from one source when, in fact, it’s coming from another.”