Media eager to believe Russia hacked Hillary's home-brew server but dismiss report that China did

President Trump saw a story from the Daily Caller on Fox News that said China hacked Hillary's non-secure computer and, instead of actually investigating the media, went into attack mode on Trump by saying he had no evidence of the actual hack to protect Hillary, the Justice Department, and the intelligence agencies because, if true, they didn't do their job. 

President Trump tweeted early Wednesday that China was behind a hack of former presidential opponent Hillary Clinton's emails, in an apparent reference to an article published by the conservative Daily Caller website.

From USA Today:

"Hillary Clinton's Emails, many of which are Classified Information, got hacked by China," the president tweeted. "Next move better be by the FBI & DOJ or, after all of their other missteps (Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr, FISA, Dirty Dossier etc.), their credibility will be forever gone!"

U.S. intelligence agencies have pointed to Russia as the nation who orchestrated the hacking of emails of top officials at the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election. 

The FBI rebuked Trump's comments in a statement Wednesday afternoon to NBC News, saying the bureau "has not found any evidence the servers were compromised."

There's also this headline from Reuters: "Trump, without evidence, blames China for hacking Clinton emails."

Now, let's look at how the media handled the report that Russia hacked the DNC computers.  They didn't seem curious at all that the only source that says Russia hacked the computers was a private company hired by the DNC.  I didn't see any stories headlined " DNC, without allowing government access to computers, claims, without any evidence other than firm hired by them, that Russia hacked computers."

There seemed to be little curiosity by journalists as they protected Hillary and targeted Trump. 

Why would the media just take the word of CrowdStrike and the DNC without any independent investigations and then spew forth that the report was factual?

In June 2016, The Washington Post reported that the Democratic National Committee's computer network had been hacked, allowing access to email and chat transcripts, as well as files detailing research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump.

This was reported about a month before the hacked files were released, shortly before the Democratic convention began.  As The Post reported at the time, the likely culprits had already been identified as Russian – not by the government but by an outside firm called CrowdStrike.

Here is some information on CrowdStrike that somehow the rest of the media had little interest in.  I guess if it doesn't match the agenda of protecting Hillary and trashing Trump, the public shouldn't see it

Here are five key points about CrowdStrike that the mainstream media is ignoring:

1. Obama Appoints CrowdStrike Officer To Admin Post Two Months Before June 2016 Report On Russia Hacking DNC

In April 2016, two months before the June report that alleged a Russian conspiracy, former President Barack Obama appointed Steven Chabinsky, the general counsel and chief risk officer for CrowdStrike, to the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity.

2. The FBI Never Looked At The DNC's Servers — Only CrowdStrike Did

As far as we know, the FBI still has not examined the DNC server that Russia allegedly hacked.

There has been no corroboration or second opinion on who may have hacked the server.  The only source for this claim is CrowdStrike, who began monitoring the DNC system on May 5th, 2016, according to DailyMail.com.

The DNC also reportedly paid $168,000 to CrowdStrike.

3. Comey Contradicted The DNC's Story On The FBI Asking To See The Server

The DNC claimed in January that the reason the FBI never examined their hacked server was simple – the FBI never requested to do so.  Yet, DNC deputy communications director Eric Walker gave told BuzzFeed News in an email, "The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI's Cyber Division and its Washington (DC) Field Office, the Department of Justice's National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney's Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC's computer servers."

However, this claim was contradicted by then-FBI director James Comey, who said in a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in January that there were "multiple requests at different levels" to look at the DNC's servers. Instead, Comey said a "highly respected private company" got access to the servers – meaning CrowdStrike.

A senior FBI official told WIRED in January, "The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated."

"This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information.  These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier."

As Josephine Wolff of Slate pointed out, "…whether because they were denied access or simply never asked for it, the FBI instead used the analysis of the DNC breach conducted by security firm CrowdStrike as the basis for its investigation.  Regardless of who is telling the truth about what really happened, perhaps the most astonishing thing about this probe is that a private firm's investigation and attribution was deemed sufficient by both the DNC and the FBI."

I find this very interesting, but journalists and other Democrats didn't care.  Why would Obama have stopped the investigation of Russian hacking before the election if it was so serious and if Clapper, Brennan, and others believed it to be true?  Was he scared of what they would find?

The Obama White House's chief cyber official testified Wednesday that proposals he was developing to counter Russia's attack on the U.S. presidential election were put on a "back burner" after he was ordered to "stand down" his efforts in the summer of 2016.

In summary: Hillary had an unprotected computer that was vulnerable to be hacked, and the media aren't interested at all.  The DNC would not allow the government to see their computers, and the media didn't care but have been willing to repeat the story that Russians hacked it without any curiosity.

President Trump saw a story from the Daily Caller on Fox News that said China hacked Hillary's non-secure computer and, instead of actually investigating the media, went into attack mode on Trump by saying he had no evidence of the actual hack to protect Hillary, the Justice Department, and the intelligence agencies because, if true, they didn't do their job. 

President Trump tweeted early Wednesday that China was behind a hack of former presidential opponent Hillary Clinton's emails, in an apparent reference to an article published by the conservative Daily Caller website.

From USA Today:

"Hillary Clinton's Emails, many of which are Classified Information, got hacked by China," the president tweeted. "Next move better be by the FBI & DOJ or, after all of their other missteps (Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr, FISA, Dirty Dossier etc.), their credibility will be forever gone!"

U.S. intelligence agencies have pointed to Russia as the nation who orchestrated the hacking of emails of top officials at the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election. 

The FBI rebuked Trump's comments in a statement Wednesday afternoon to NBC News, saying the bureau "has not found any evidence the servers were compromised."

There's also this headline from Reuters: "Trump, without evidence, blames China for hacking Clinton emails."

Now, let's look at how the media handled the report that Russia hacked the DNC computers.  They didn't seem curious at all that the only source that says Russia hacked the computers was a private company hired by the DNC.  I didn't see any stories headlined " DNC, without allowing government access to computers, claims, without any evidence other than firm hired by them, that Russia hacked computers."

There seemed to be little curiosity by journalists as they protected Hillary and targeted Trump. 

Why would the media just take the word of CrowdStrike and the DNC without any independent investigations and then spew forth that the report was factual?

In June 2016, The Washington Post reported that the Democratic National Committee's computer network had been hacked, allowing access to email and chat transcripts, as well as files detailing research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump.

This was reported about a month before the hacked files were released, shortly before the Democratic convention began.  As The Post reported at the time, the likely culprits had already been identified as Russian – not by the government but by an outside firm called CrowdStrike.

Here is some information on CrowdStrike that somehow the rest of the media had little interest in.  I guess if it doesn't match the agenda of protecting Hillary and trashing Trump, the public shouldn't see it

Here are five key points about CrowdStrike that the mainstream media is ignoring:

1. Obama Appoints CrowdStrike Officer To Admin Post Two Months Before June 2016 Report On Russia Hacking DNC

In April 2016, two months before the June report that alleged a Russian conspiracy, former President Barack Obama appointed Steven Chabinsky, the general counsel and chief risk officer for CrowdStrike, to the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity.

2. The FBI Never Looked At The DNC's Servers — Only CrowdStrike Did

As far as we know, the FBI still has not examined the DNC server that Russia allegedly hacked.

There has been no corroboration or second opinion on who may have hacked the server.  The only source for this claim is CrowdStrike, who began monitoring the DNC system on May 5th, 2016, according to DailyMail.com.

The DNC also reportedly paid $168,000 to CrowdStrike.

3. Comey Contradicted The DNC's Story On The FBI Asking To See The Server

The DNC claimed in January that the reason the FBI never examined their hacked server was simple – the FBI never requested to do so.  Yet, DNC deputy communications director Eric Walker gave told BuzzFeed News in an email, "The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI's Cyber Division and its Washington (DC) Field Office, the Department of Justice's National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney's Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC's computer servers."

However, this claim was contradicted by then-FBI director James Comey, who said in a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in January that there were "multiple requests at different levels" to look at the DNC's servers. Instead, Comey said a "highly respected private company" got access to the servers – meaning CrowdStrike.

A senior FBI official told WIRED in January, "The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated."

"This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information.  These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier."

As Josephine Wolff of Slate pointed out, "…whether because they were denied access or simply never asked for it, the FBI instead used the analysis of the DNC breach conducted by security firm CrowdStrike as the basis for its investigation.  Regardless of who is telling the truth about what really happened, perhaps the most astonishing thing about this probe is that a private firm's investigation and attribution was deemed sufficient by both the DNC and the FBI."

I find this very interesting, but journalists and other Democrats didn't care.  Why would Obama have stopped the investigation of Russian hacking before the election if it was so serious and if Clapper, Brennan, and others believed it to be true?  Was he scared of what they would find?

The Obama White House's chief cyber official testified Wednesday that proposals he was developing to counter Russia's attack on the U.S. presidential election were put on a "back burner" after he was ordered to "stand down" his efforts in the summer of 2016.

In summary: Hillary had an unprotected computer that was vulnerable to be hacked, and the media aren't interested at all.  The DNC would not allow the government to see their computers, and the media didn't care but have been willing to repeat the story that Russians hacked it without any curiosity.